RE: Literal and Not Literal
September 3, 2019 at 12:58 am
(This post was last modified: September 3, 2019 at 1:01 am by Acrobat.)
(September 3, 2019 at 12:12 am)Fierce Wrote: The burden of proof only ever makes sense for positive claims of existence, for which the individual must then support the argument due to the fact that there is no evidence for existence.
No it doesn't silly. Holocaust deniers have a burden of proof.
If I said Obama doesn't exist, and that he's just a figment of our imagination I would have a burden of proof as well.
The reason why you fool yourself in the gnome example, is because everyone shares the belief in their non-existense, so we'd not going to ask you to support it.
(September 3, 2019 at 12:48 am)Fierce Wrote: It's easy to use hindsight to imagine it is simply better to answer I don't know to every single thing for which there is zero evidence to support its existence.
Do we have zero evidence one way or the other regarding the question of Gods existence?
I have zero evidence one way or the other regarding your marital status. Which leads me to a lack of belief, rather than to a belief that you're not married.
