My Escatological Vision

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Here is some evidence for you. Do you exist? Do you have intrinsic value? Is there an objective right and wrong? If the answer to these are yes, then there must be a God. If you are so delusional and removed from yourself that you deny these basic axioms then enjoy your fake mechanical atomic colliding life. I'll contine you to REASON with my RATIONAL soul.

You have provided no evidence. Does the word 'empiricism' ring a bell? Perhaps familiarise yourself with the meaning of 'evidence' and 'burden of proof'.

There is no evidence for existence of the soul.Nor have I ever seen any evidence that human beings are capable of consistent rational thought or behaviour.

I reject the notion that the existence of God can be proved OR falsified though logical inference alone. I demand evidence.This is called 'Platonic method'. Not to be confused with the neo Platonism used by Ptolemy and his geocentric solar system and Christian apologists from Augustine to the present day.


It is not my habit to argue with apologists,so I have nothing further to say to you.;there is no common ground.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Wikipedia gives quite good explanations of 'evidence' and "burden of proof"

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

Many issues surround evidence, making it the subject of much discussion and disagreement. In addition to its subtlety, evidence plays an important role in many academic disciplines, including science and law, adding to the discourse surrounding it.

An important distinction in the field of evidence is that between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, or evidence that suggests truth as opposed to evidence that directly proves truth. Many have seen this line to be less-than-clear and significant arguments have arisen over the difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the accepted conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position.

The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."[1] This is a statement of a version of the presumption of innocence that underpins the assessment of evidence in some legal systems, and is not a general statement of when one takes on the burden of proof. The burden of proof tends to lie with anyone who is arguing against received wisdom, but does not always, as sometimes the consequences of accepting a statement or the ease of gathering evidence in its defense might alter the burden of proof its proponents shoulder. The burden may also be assigned institutionally.

He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party. However the incidence of burden of proof is affected by common law, statute and procedure.

The burden of proof is an especially important issue in law and science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof