No Proof = No Knowledge

[Esquilax]

What makes that the correct question when you could equally well ask "why shouldn't I suppose it is?"? It's not your own opinion again is it? What is your opinion you have to start with and refer everything to based on? Is it what you feel deep inside of yourself? You can see how this line of atheistic objection has been well nullified.

Because if you're going to be consistent, then you'd have to ask "why shouldn't I suppose it is?" across every religion, cult, whacko and fictional story every devised by man, and therefore you'd be accepting thousands upon thousands of mutually contradictory claims to be true, until you found evidence to disprove them. Disproofs, by the way, are very hard to find for many historical claims, so for many of them, you'd be stuck. You ask "why should I suppose it is?" and not the reverse, because to do otherwise mires you in believing a bunch of bullshit simply because you can't prove it didn't happen.

And if you're not going to apply it consistently, if you're only going to accept "I haven't disproven it," for this single religious claim you already believe, then you're guilty of special pleading, and your position is fallacious and irrational from the outset, and truly derived only from your opinion.

Bam.