Lately i have been critiquing a question to ask religious folk,
in regards to "The proof of god"
I myself am by definition
If presented with correct evidence
I am willing to change my stance.
Here is what is required
Can you justify your assertion/claim of god(s) with correct evidence?
The Evidence must be:
The presented evidence cannot contain:
(Circular Reasoning, Unreliable, Untestable, Unverifiable, Dependant)
(Untestable, Unverifiable, Unfalsifiable, Unreliable, Dependant)
Both of the above are examples of "Dependant Evidence"
If they fail to present this, i further ask:
We have established that there is no evidence for your god. Why then
do you consider faith in a non-evidence based assertion a good thing?
If there was no god.. Would you want to know?
What does that really leave them with?
Why would you want to believe in something
That cannot be proven to be true?
I have had a few responses implying that this post is both:
"Arrogant" & "Ignorant"Followed by the assumption that i would not act upon this.
For those who do infact think that, i suggest looking at my post Open Minded
The 'Burdon of Proof' lays solely on those making the claim.
Refusing to believe something that hasn't been proven, ISN'T a claim.
More Christian Curve Ball#1 -Morality
#3 -Prove It
#4 -Born Into Sin
#6 -Pascals Wager