(Top Posts - Distance From Belief
in theism - 082000)
you'll see reference to the invisible
thing and the inability of disbelievers to
prove the invisible thing doesn't exist.
I ask, how might one go about
proving the invisible thing doesn't exist?
you are in a court of law and someone
proposes that the invisible thing exists,
wouldn't it be incumbent upon them to
provide convincing evidence that the
invisible thing exists?
say someone states "the invisible thing
that's fine as a starter. Someone has
made a statement, and it's incumbent upon
that someone to provide evidence or proof
of some kind for the claim.
let's say someone states "I don't
believe the invisible thing exists unless
you provide adequate evidence that it
does exist". OK, that sounds fair. Once
again, it's incumbent upon the claimant
to provide adequate evidence that the
invisible thing exists.
let's go to that last final step, when
someone states "The invisible thing doesn't
exist". How does that change things? Isn't
the same evidence/proof scenario as
described above in place whether or not
the request for evidence is stated in an
openness to possibility motif -or- in a
get real, it doesn't exist motif?
other words, someone stating the
invisible thing exists, that in essence is
the beginning and end of the equation
in that anyone doubting or refuting
the claim need not provide one iota
of evidence of any type, being that
the claimant, the "invisible thing exists"
claim, that's what requires a "where's
the beef?" type of angle for without
any evidence whatsoever that the claim
is true, it matters not whether the persons
refuting the claims say "doubt" or
"disbelieve" or "ain't so", what matters
is the truth or lack of truth regarding
the claim ...
I'm off base here, please, anyone with
more insight as to the nature of logical
reasoning, please help me out.
way I figure, I need not provide
evidence that Santa Claus, Allah, Odin,
Zeus, the tooth fairy, the invisible pink
unicorn, little furry invisible friends, gods,
demons, angels, or any of their ilk do
NOT exist, as anyone can claim anything
and if it was incumbent on me to provide
evidence of non-existence, heck, it
would be a full-time job.
total and absolute burden of proof
is on the shoulders and brains of the
persons claiming that any imaginary
beings are real, period. End of discussion.
repeating the obvious for those without
a clue as to the difference between making
a claim and disbelieving/doubting/refuting