In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:bggi27$k5u@neptune.myri-local.com...
:> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> :
:> ;
;> :"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
:> ;news:6312c50b.0308020434.240764ea@posting.google.com...
;> :> Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
:> ;news:<vmhjr2-3E2AF3.19355201082003@[63.218.45.211]>...
;> :> > In article <T7yWa.30234$Vt6.12387@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
:> ;> > "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
;> :> >
:> ;> > > > It is a fact that there is no such thing in evidence, but that
;does
:> :not
;> ;> > > > mean there is no such thing.
:> :> > >
;> ;> > > Nobody has to prove there is no such thing, knucklehead. You
:> :true-believers
;> ;> > > have the full burden of proof in the matter of your proposed thing.
:> :You
;> ;> > > cannot just keep on trying to shift the burden of proof to the
:> :> > > non-believers, knucklehead.
;> ;> >
:> :> > We, the agnostics, led by Huxley, have proposed that there is an
;> ;> > absence of any evidence either way, as to whether there is a god or
:> :> > not.
;> ;>
:> :> Right; but we are not denying that there *may be* evidence, just
;> ;> waiting for Septic Sophie or some other anti-agnostic (Big Bird, for
:> :> example) to produce some.
;> ;
:> :
;> ;The burden of proof cannot be shifted to those who do not share your
:belief
;> :that a magic invisible sky pixie may in reality exist, knucklehead. Logic
:> ;101.
;>
:> Please show belief is required to hold the null hypothesis of
;> "god may exist", which makes no assumptions.
:
;Yes it does, knucklehead. Your argument, "God may exist" takes it for
:granted that a magic invisible sky pixie may exist, begging the question.
It does? In what way?
.
|
