(November 14, 2014 at 11:10 pm)Godschild Wrote: What makes you think we have never met God, could it be because you haven't so that means it's not possible for us. What kind of logic is that.
It's the same logic we use in every other area of our lives, outside of our favorite religion. It's called "the burden of proof". If you claim X exists, it's up to you to prove X exists. It's not up to me to prove X does not exist.
I could announce that 100 winged monkeys just flew out of my ass. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it didn't just happen to me. But you wouldn't believe me without proof, would you?
Another feature of this common use of logic outside of religion is the doctrine of ECREE. The more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence is required to meet the burden of proof. If I told you I had lunch with my wife today, you'd accept that on my testimony alone. If I told you I had lunch with my late father, deceased over 10 years now, who's ashes from his cremated body reconstituted themselves into a living body and he's feeling much better now, I'd need a mountain of evidence.
I suspect four witnesses would not be sufficient for my lunch-with-my-late-father claim.
That's how logic works.
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
