(October 16, 2013 at 11:11 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Just a suggestion, but instead of stating "you can't prove it's not history" or whatever the subject might be, how about asking if your opponent actually can prove it? If nothing else it's much more reasonable, yes?
I'm happy to take the burden of proof that something is not accurate when it contradicts itself. If a claim is self-contradictory, it is certainly false. The one time when you can prove a negative is when the positive is logically impossible. A god may exist. His god does not.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
