b3ta.com board

Home » Messageboard » Message 7993478 (Thread)

^this

(

Tom OBedlam I have control of a tank, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:17, archived)

By the same logic,

A lack of evidence that there is a God is no reason not to believe in one.

(

LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:25, archived)

if this were a court

if there were no evidence of guilt we would presume innocence but if there were no proof of guilt or innocence we would still presume innocence.

(

Tom OBedlam I have control of a tank, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:31, archived)

We can't apply legal convention to this kind of argument

(

my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:33, archived)

i'm not refering to legal convention

i'm refering to human instinct. in everything accept religion we require evidence to confirm the existence of something other than what is obvious.

(

Tom OBedlam I have control of a tank, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:35, archived)

There are many people who think it's obvious that a God exists.

(

my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:38, archived)

thats a fair point.

i want to continue this but i have a 9am exam tomorrow on Creation to Revelation: the narrative of the bible and i should probably get some sleep in.

night all

(

Tom OBedlam I have control of a tank, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:40, archived)

Fair enough.

I'm really only arguing for the sake of it, my philosophers urge.
Goodnight

(

my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:42, archived)

By this standard,

since there is no proof that there is no God, we would assume that there is a God, but if there is no proof that there is no God and no proof that there is a God we would still assume that there is a God?

I don't support that argument at all.

(

LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Thu 24 Jan 2008, 23:55, archived)