(April 30, 2015 at 12:33 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I can't 'disprove' invisible pink unicorns drinking margaritas in my garage.
Like fucking god however there is no evidence for them.
You must have a very strange notion of "disprove." Nothing can be both invisible and pink, and consequently everyone who understands what is being stated knows absolutely that there are no invisible pink unicorns drinking margaritas in your garage.
What typically happens in these discussions is that the standards of "proof," for a theist considering evidence against the existence of God, are pushed to impossible extremes, such that nothing, or virtually nothing, could be "proven." In the way that "prove" is used in common life, the God of the Bible can be proven to not exist. The fact that some fool rejects the proof is no sign of anything, other than the imbecility of the one rejecting the proof.
If someone rejects a valid proof of the Pythagorean Theorem, that does not mean that the Pythagorean Theorem has not been proven. It just means that the person rejecting it is wrong.
When one argues with a stubborn fool who rejects reason, that does not mean anything bad about reason. It just means something about the stubborn fool.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
