(September 30, 2013 at 5:05 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: The two claims that need to meet the burden the most are:
-Theists haven't met their burden of proof.
If theists had met their burden of proof, I would believe in their god. Since I don't believe in it, they failed to meet their burden of proof. All I ask is that I be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. I still have lots of doubts.
Quote:-A theism as a position is more rational because the theists haven't met their burden of proof.
So what would be rational, to believe in everything that anyone ever imagined until you can disprove it, or wait until someone meets their burden of proof before believing a claim? I take it you still believe in Santa Claus because nobody's ever proven without any shadow of doubt that he doesn't and never has existed?
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.
