You do have to prove it if you're Athiest... otherwise, technically, you're Agnostic.
Nobody should 'have to prove' diddly squat to anybody else about what they believe, unless they are trying to force someone else to agree with them.
You do have to prove it if you're Athiest... otherwise, technically, you're Agnostic.
You do have to prove it if you're Athiest... otherwise, technically, you're Agnostic.
Nobody should 'have to prove' diddly squat to anybody else about what they believe, unless they are trying to force someone else to agree with them.
Nope. Prove that I have that burden.the burden of proof lies in the those that claim god exists.
Nope. Prove that I have that burden.
Are we in a court of law? Not very good, try harder.in a court of law. when somebody is arrested for a crime. you have prosecutors who present evidence to a judge and jury. it's up to the prosecutors to prove the person commit the crime using evidence gathered by the police
you can't prove a negative
Or you can exercise the "tap dance and run away" option. That's very popular hereabouts.You stated the burden was mine. Prove that I have that burden or admit you were in error.
Or you can exercise the "tap dance and run away" option. That's very popular hereabouts.
He's not in error, you are, that's just one of the basic rules of elementary logic. The burden of proof is on the claimant because failing to prove something is false is not the same as proving it's true, otherwise people could make any damnfool claims they feel like and insist they be taken seriously. For instance, I have an invisible purple leprechaun living under my desk; prove me wrong. You can't, but you'd be justified in demanding I produce evidence in support of that claim or dismissing it as nonsense. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.You stated the burden was mine. Prove that I have that burden or admit you were in error.
So, Gawd's in Australia?He's not in error, you are, that's just one of the basic rules of elementary logic. The burden of proof is on the claimant because failing to prove something is false is not the same as proving it's true, otherwise people could make any damnfool claims they feel like and insist they be taken seriously. For instance, I have an invisible purple leprechaun living under my desk; prove me wrong. You can't, but you'd be justified in demanding I produce evidence in support of that claim or dismissing it as nonsense. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
That's also why the claim that there is no deity is logically indefensible: it cannot be demonstrated to be correct. The most anyone can do, and this is what any sensible atheist will do, is argue that the evidence offered in support of the claim that there is a deity is insufficient to justify accepting it as true. In the absence of such evidence, the default position is thus to treat it as false, just as my claim about the purple leprechaun would be treated as false.
On another subject, it's not correct that you can't prove a negative. First, if you can prove any proposition is true you've also proven the negative, that the proposition is not false, and you can do that trick with any proposition at all.
Second, if people mean you can't prove a specific sort of negative claim, that a thing does not exist, that one doesn't work either. It depends on what is meant by prove. You can construct a valid deductive argument from a set of premises to generate any conclusion you want, like this: if Sasquatch had ever existed there would be evidence in the fossil record, but no such evidence is found, therefore Sasquatch never existed. You could argue that I didn't prove the two premises there, which is true, but the only way to prove a premise is to give an argument to that conclusion, which will also have premises, which I'd also have to prove, and so on, an infinite regress. If I have to prove an infinite number of statements to justify a conclusion, we'll never be able to talk about anything.
Third, if people mean no inductive argument can prove a negative, that's true but largely irrelevant. No inductive argument can prove anything, it's just a way of showing a conclusion is probable, not certain. All observed swans are white, therefore all swans are white, looked like a pretty good inductive argument until black swans were discovered in Australia.
the burden of proof lies in the those that claim god exists.
Where would you start. And where are you not protected by the Charter
Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Fundamental Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
I am protected by the Charter. I'm just not _as_ protected as religious people and aboriginals.
Well, I see no signs of him around here or in his original homeland, and that's got some nice desert places and lots of sheep, much like the place he supposedly first appeared, that seems a reasonable starting hypothesis. Maybe I'll go have a look and bring back a report.So, Gawd's in Australia?
Nobody should 'have to prove' diddly squat to anybody else about what they believe, unless they are trying to force someone else to agree with them.