(March 17, 2009 at 4:05 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: No they don't, they are not claiming anything. He came in with guns blazing, not the theists.
Where is the debate? They believe in a supernatural creator and have no evidence of its existence whatsoever. They have already lost the debate by default until they provide evidence, BEFORE any claims are made by the atheist side whatsoever.
Until they provide evidence for their absurd belief they have lost by default.
If I believed in Zeus for example and someone said it was disproved - YES they have made a fallacious argument... - because you can't prove a negative - BUT it doesn't matter because I've already lost by default before I provide evidence for the existence of Zeus! I believe in Zeus for Christ sake! I'd need evidence first! Who cares how fallacious my opponent is! I BELIEVE IN ZEUS! I'd need evidence for the existence of Zeus before we go ANY FURTHER! The burden is totally on me. I'm already assumed to have lost entirely by default - until I provide any evidence for such a way-out absurd belief in something so improbable lacking complete evidence!
I've already lost until I provide any! Where's the debate on the existence of Zeus until I SOMEHOW provided any evidence?! (and yes I believe its practically an impossible task basically) - but untill then I'm assumed to have lost. Until I provide any evidence - and, of course, its EXACTLY the same with God. The Christian God is no more valid than Zeus...and there is no debate over the existence of Zeus....so why should there be any over God? Evidence is needed first.
God by default almost certainly doesn't exist just as Zeus almost certainly doesn't. Evidence is needed for God first just as it is with God.
EvF
