(March 15, 2017 at 5:27 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(March 15, 2017 at 5:16 pm)Jesster Wrote: Yes. We don't bother with proving someone else innocent to see if your defendant is innocent. We wait for positive evidence to see if your defendant is actually guilty before calling them so....This applies well to many claims. Don't accept a claim until you have enough positive evidence to believe it. Disproving another claim does not make your claim more noteworthy. "I don't believe it" is the default until shown otherwise.
Except theists are presenting positive evidence. We do not consider your objections to the evidence valid and the alternative explanations are not plausible to us.
You have presented no evidence, not one bit of actual testable evidence has been presented by you or any other theist.
What you have presented are the equivalent of zenos paradoxes that you have somehow convinced yourself has some bearing on the existence of a supreme deity and would you credit it, it happens to be the one that is worshipped where your from.
You see zeno has argued convincingly that motion is impossible in one of the paradoxes.
Now we all know that that is false but the logic is sound.
If you apply logic alone to a problem what you get is essentially nothing, what is needed for an argument to succeed is ACTUAL EVIDENCE.
So arguments are not now and never will be evidence.
So when you say you have presented evidence when all you have given us are old arguments forgive us when we roll our eyes and go once more into the breach.
I will say it again.
arguments are not evidence ARGUMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE ARGUMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.