(March 15, 2017 at 5:27 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(March 15, 2017 at 5:16 pm)Jesster Wrote: Yes. We don't bother with proving someone else innocent to see if your defendant is innocent. We wait for positive evidence to see if your defendant is actually guilty before calling them so....This applies well to many claims. Don't accept a claim until you have enough positive evidence to believe it. Disproving another claim does not make your claim more noteworthy. "I don't believe it" is the default until shown otherwise.
Except theists are presenting positive evidence. We do not consider your objections to the evidence valid and the alternative explanations are not plausible to us.
But you're not, unless "It's in the bible" or It feels right to me" is what your considering positive evidence. It sure isn't objective or testable.
"The last superstition of the human mind is the superstition that religion in itself is a good thing." - Samuel Porter Putnam