(May 30, 2018 at 2:07 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: [quote pid='1765981' dateline='1527619315']
Ybe:
To prove the premises false As would have to Give me convincing/sufficient E. So far not done.
I declare that the lack of evidence for a god is my evidence for gods non-existence.
Let me put it like this.
If I told you there was an elephant in my kitchen you would want to have evidence of said pachyderms unlikely position in my kitchen which, lets face it, has quite small doors.
If I then go and check and there is not elephant, not trace of said elephant and no way that the floor could have stood the weight of an elephant then it is reasonable to assume that the person telling you there was an elephant was either:
A: Mistaken.
B: Lying.
C: Mad.
So that lack of evidence FOR the elephant in the kitchen leads to my conclusion that there never was an elephant there. If the person then says "no REALLY there WAS an elephant" then they'd better have something pretty convincing in the way of evidence.
This is where we are with god.
[/quote]
YB: About this first elephant so like G. If this thread were about proof for G then Elephants are not the same as X-rays you go into the Kitchen and say no radio waves
A: Mistaken.
B: Lying.
C: Mad.
D: What about, not willing to admit that you don't have any logical rational reason for being an A-radiowavist or an A.
(Who would make a forum about that"