Eveery argument in P&R boils down to:

you do not get the point of burdern of proof. If you make the claim, logically, you should be able to back it up.

If I said I had proof that cold fusion could never happen... you would ask me to prove it.

so when you say you have proof there is no God ... to be a rational thinking person you should be able to back up your statement.

 

And if you believe that a horse with a strap-on is a unicorn, then what does that say about you?

 

I didn't say famous.

I didn't say always, but often.

 

I think you missed my point because I changed up the argument.

I am not arguing that I believe in unicorns. However I might be arguing that I believe the unicorn had a Creator.

 

the burden of proof always falls on the one making outlandish positive claims. if i say santa claus exists it is my burden of proof to provide evidence not the one who claim no such thing exists. in your world every claim exists until conclusive evidence proves it does not. since it is impossible to prove a negitive every concievable idea man has exists.

"Unless attenuated by conventional knowledge which has been presumably derived from evidence, raw positive claims (e.g., "Life on other planets does exist.") have the initial burden of proof. When we say "positive claim" we are normally talking about a claim that would extend ontology. "Fairies exist" and "fairies are imaginary" are both syntactically positive statements, but only "fairies exist" is ontologically positive, so it is this statement that has the inherent heavier burden of proof."

 

Believing that the unicorn has a Creator presupposes a belief in the existence of unicorns, which brings us back to my original question:

 

+1

 

many of them are clever, but is this the same thing as profound?

 

you are being dense.

If you said I had the burden of proof for saying Jesus is God. I agree with you. I would have the burden.


If you said I had the burden of proof for saying that there must be a creator of the universe because the universe exits. I am not sure who has the burden of proof. The universe does exist. But, for the sake of argument with you I will accept that burden as well. If I say the universe has a Creator I will say I should prove it.

However, what you have been doing is far more ignorant.

You have been say you have proof a Creator does not exist.

I say prove it. You have gone beyond leaving me with the burden of proof.

You have said you can affirmatively establish there is no Creator.

You took that burden on. We did not give it to you.

Prove there is no Creator.

Or shut up about what you can prove and leave the burden on the believers to prove there is a Creator.

In short - I am not saying I can prove there is cold fusion. Because I respect that I would have the burden.

However you said you can prove there is no cold fusion.

I have every right to say prove it as only an ignoramus would say he can prove a negative.

 

We must not forget one other commonality: Obama and/or Islam are to blame.