I have not used an inability to prove a negative to justify my skeptism of your concept of God. You might want to find someone who has and take our arguments there.Squible wrote:Kenny,
Yes, yesterday I was distracted and trying to write on a tablet which is very frustrating.
Trying to make me look like a fool huh? I think people will see through your charade and links.
I have never said the other person doesn't have a burden of proof, I think I made that clear. The point has been centered on the assumption they have attempted to and as such their arguments are centered on the evidence we do have.
Now since you mentioned God as a can't prove negative in one of your last examples I will use that.
Now theists DO shoulder their burden of proof with the evidence we do have. Whether you deem it sufficient or not is irrelevant. You must therefore justify why it is insufficient since that is a claim in response.
Responding with can't prove a negative. Is what the point is. And when you say that and don't interact with their arguments you are circular reasoning unless you provide WHY in this case God cannot be proven.
Or respond with arguments against Gods existence from the same evidence or additional evidence supporting your claim as to why.
Also if you hold to the belief God does not exist and justify it by can't prove a negative, then you are circular reasoning.
You are left with straws and have made a meager attempt to distort what's been said, I'm confident others will see that.
Go back to the kids table.