Well I guess if it was me then the first thing that would be established is that until the Christian accepts the fact that he needs evidence of God FIRST - we don't need evidence AGAINST it - then he has lost by default.
I would think that the Christian had lost from the outset in the debate...not by what was said - but by what was NOT said....
The Christian side didn't give any evidence of God...so by default the atheist side is right.
And then when the atheist side makes the logical fallacy of saying you can prove God's non-existence then sure....if we are to ignore the above line it looks like the atheists have lost....
But really the Christians have all the burden on them right from the outset. You need evidence for nonsense....
If I said that Zeus was absolutely disproved in a debate...would I have lost the debate?
Or would they be ahead because by default it is assumed they are the logical ones anyway - even if they are committing a fallacy - it is still by default far more likely to be the truth that Zeus does NOT exist.....he's just not disproved that's all.
Or....would the Zeus believer have won? There is no logic to assume that the atheist still had the upper hand because its FAR more likely that Zeus doesn't exist by default (no evidence, burden of proof, etc)?
If you claim negative proof you have lost even if probability is till on your side? Maybe you should be ALMOST 100% sure rather than 100% sure....but that's still likely to be a lot closer to the truth than believer in Zeus/God right from the outset with no proof or evidence whatsoever right!
So my conclusion is despite the negative proof fallacy....the logic and probability is still a lot more on the atheists side by default...if science applies part in this debate then logically you need to give evidence of your totally unsupported claim of belief in ZEUS! or "God"!
Otherwise you are losing by default.
EvF
P.S: Before I said already lost by default...I think this is an ongoing thing and there is no absolute proof or disproof....
So its not right to say lost or won by default....losing or winning is better...
Logic is already on the atheist's side by default...because the atheist doesn't have a massively exaggerated gigantic belief based on absolutely no evidence right from the outset!
And I don't think claiming absolute proof and being 100% certain of no God...with a fallacy like that - rather than being 'merely' 99.99999999999999 recurring practically infinitely sure or whatever - is enough of a blunder to make up for the fact the believer in Zeus/"God" (whatever kind of supernatural "God") - is still claiming belief in this absolutely absurd diety with nothing logical to back it up whatsoever!
I think the Christian would still be losing right from the start! Logically! If you claim a totally absurd belief based on no evidence - you need to back it up. If someone then claims negative proof - yes that's a fallacy - but that doesn't make you the WINNER! In your belief in Zeus/Thor/Ra/FSM/"God"/whatever!
Does it?
I would think that the Christian had lost from the outset in the debate...not by what was said - but by what was NOT said....
The Christian side didn't give any evidence of God...so by default the atheist side is right.
And then when the atheist side makes the logical fallacy of saying you can prove God's non-existence then sure....if we are to ignore the above line it looks like the atheists have lost....
But really the Christians have all the burden on them right from the outset. You need evidence for nonsense....
If I said that Zeus was absolutely disproved in a debate...would I have lost the debate?
Or would they be ahead because by default it is assumed they are the logical ones anyway - even if they are committing a fallacy - it is still by default far more likely to be the truth that Zeus does NOT exist.....he's just not disproved that's all.
Or....would the Zeus believer have won? There is no logic to assume that the atheist still had the upper hand because its FAR more likely that Zeus doesn't exist by default (no evidence, burden of proof, etc)?
If you claim negative proof you have lost even if probability is till on your side? Maybe you should be ALMOST 100% sure rather than 100% sure....but that's still likely to be a lot closer to the truth than believer in Zeus/God right from the outset with no proof or evidence whatsoever right!
So my conclusion is despite the negative proof fallacy....the logic and probability is still a lot more on the atheists side by default...if science applies part in this debate then logically you need to give evidence of your totally unsupported claim of belief in ZEUS! or "God"!
Otherwise you are losing by default.
EvF
P.S: Before I said already lost by default...I think this is an ongoing thing and there is no absolute proof or disproof....
So its not right to say lost or won by default....losing or winning is better...
Logic is already on the atheist's side by default...because the atheist doesn't have a massively exaggerated gigantic belief based on absolutely no evidence right from the outset!
And I don't think claiming absolute proof and being 100% certain of no God...with a fallacy like that - rather than being 'merely' 99.99999999999999 recurring practically infinitely sure or whatever - is enough of a blunder to make up for the fact the believer in Zeus/"God" (whatever kind of supernatural "God") - is still claiming belief in this absolutely absurd diety with nothing logical to back it up whatsoever!
I think the Christian would still be losing right from the start! Logically! If you claim a totally absurd belief based on no evidence - you need to back it up. If someone then claims negative proof - yes that's a fallacy - but that doesn't make you the WINNER! In your belief in Zeus/Thor/Ra/FSM/"God"/whatever!
Does it?
