Originally posted by mothershipzeta
So, all they have to do is prove a negative? Sorry, but the default position is "there is/are no god(s)," since nothing shows existence of any
deities except books written (and repeatedly translated) thousands of years ago
I'm sorry but the default position is not " there is/are no god(s)" the default position is " there is no known Empirically testable evidence to
support gods"
Like prosecutors in court, believers have the burden of proof. Atheists can't prove there isn't a god any more than a defendant can
prove that he didn't commit the crime. You show evidence that you were somewhere else? Perhaps it was manufactured. Eyewitnesses can be mistaken or
liars.
You are correct here but you are also leaving something out.
When an atheist claims that there is no evidence to support the case of god they must first demonstrate that there is indeed no Evidence to support
the claim. The Theist must show that there is evidence, and the atheist must refute with counter evidence. Obviously on metaphysical matters such as
this it is not an easy thing to put to an empirical test. The most logical answer is to claim to not know of any evidence. You can't just say " no
your evidence is wrong i refute it" without offering counter evidence or a reason why. That is what causes the main divide between Theists and
atheists.
So lets say for example I were to say to you " i have personally met god" and you were to say to me " ok prove it" i would not be able to prove
it to you without you having been there to witness it. Now naturally you would be skeptical, and for good reason, it is possible that i am lying,
however you can not say to me " well you are probably lying, or it was a delusion, hallucination etc." without offering evidence to back up your
claim that i might be lying.
The burden of proof is clearly on both of us at this point.
You can't make accusations and statements without offering evidence to support your claim, this applies to both sides of the argument. In a legal
battle you have to offer evidence that the Defendent is guilty, and the defendent has to offer evidence that he is not guilty. Evidence can either be
anecdotal evidence substantiated by eyewitness report or it can be hard empirical evidence. The burden of proof shifts between parties during the
trial it does not rest solely on one party. Saying that it exclusively rests solely on the Theist simply because they were the first to make a claim
is as absurd as saying it solely rests on the Atheists because they challenged the claim.
This was what really turned me off from gnostic-theism and even the softer forms of atheism. It's absolutely inane and irrational to assume that the
burden of proof rests solely on one party.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
How does that mean he is not omnipotent? If he is willing to prevent evil then that implies that he has knowledge of it but is incapable of preventing
evil. That does not mean he does not prevent evil because he lacks knowledge of it. Now it is a possibilty, but that is not the sole possibility. At
least logically speaking. This could also mean he is not omnipresent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Again, possible, but not the only conclusion that can be drawn.
If her serves justice to those who are victims of evil be it post or pre-mortem then he is offering salvation, hence not making him malevolent, at
least by our standards.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
A valid point, but the source of evil on our planet comes from man.
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Well we haven't really defined what god we are talking about. But we could call him god because he is either the driving force behind the universe,
or because he was the initial creator.
