30 May '06 21:02>
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMore clearly, for heaven's sake, not less.
The challenge has been put forth that a theist must provide evidence for their position. I am merely laying rudimentary groundwork.
Originally posted by PalynkaAre you saying that the theist has no evidence? Or is this a question of how much evidence is sufficient to constitute as proof?
This was exactly the point of my last posts. The only evidence for non-existence of a logically possible God is the absence of evidence for its existence.
Therefore, the claim that the atheist is being somehow unfair by demanding evidence is incorrect, since the absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence supporting his position.
So the atheist is alread ...[text shortened]... nt evidence in favour of his claim.
Edit: Changing proof for evidence in the second sentence.
Originally posted by PalynkaOf course we can bypass the whole arguement once we realise that there is no such thing as a logically possible God.
This was exactly the point of my last posts. The only evidence for non-existence of a logically possible God is the absence of evidence for its existence.