Question with 3 notes
rochecoach-deactivated20130319 said: That's not how logic works. In logic, there is a foundation called "the burden of proof." If you claim the existence of a deity, the evidence must be there. Otherwise, there's no logical reason to believe it. If you are to tell people that you believe in a deity because of faith, not because of tangible evidence, then your stance would be sound. But to say that a pro-God stance is exactly as logical as an atheist stance is flat-out incorrect. This is not a matter of opinion.
If a Christian makes a positive claim, the burden of proof is on them to prove it. If an atheist makes a positive claim, the burden of proof is on them to prove it. …That’s how logic works.
I -do- tell people that my belief is based on faith, but it’s also based on reasonable examination of the evidence. Theological arguments are not proven in the same way that math or law is(and neither are scientific theories, but that’s another issue).
No, this is not a matter of opinion. This is a matter of a correct application of logic. A positive claim in logic is stating that something is true or false.
If you say you believe there is no God, or you see no evidence for one, then you’re making a theological decision(positive claim). If you cannot or don’t want to prove that position- fine. That doesn’t bother me. If you claim that atheism is better/smarter/more logical than theism, you must demonstrate -why.-
…But no sane person would actually use pure logic in theological debates. It cannot be done. We can find logical inconsistencies in arguments, and reject ones that don’t fit all the evidence(mine do, to the best of my knowledge), but no one can prove God or no-God. We won’t even agree on the definitions.