2007-09-12 14:00:56 · 14 answers · asked by NHBaritone 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
One cannot prove that an object under discussion does not exist. Rather, in the absence of empirical evidence to the contrary, the object is assumed not to exist until such time as it can be empirically demonstrated that the object does exist.
The burden of proof rests upon the party proclaiming that the object under discussion does exist.
2007-09-12 14:10:20 · answer #1 · answered by What? Me Worry? 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Ed replied, "Look all around us...its just an accident. This world doesn't work the way a God would have made it work...Look, the sun comes up every day, I mean what a pain in the neck! Our hearts beat. Good grief...how annoying! The land grows food for us...but it's so yucky. Hey Stu, here's some genetically modified apples. They're much better than the kind on the trees. These are coated in factory refined sugar! So Stu, stop fooling yourself, if there were a God He would have made everything work right."
2007-09-12 21:23:08 · answer #2 · answered by Kicking 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The claimant (theist) must present proof that a god exists. It's impossible to prove a negative.
If pressed, suggest evolution and other natural phenomenon that make the need or likelihood that a god exists very small. This should be a piece of cake if they subscribe to a mainstream religious belief, because all religions have creation stories that have since been contradicted by results from the scientific method.
2007-09-12 21:07:07 · answer #3 · answered by Dalarus 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ed says, "Moron. It's a logical impossibility to prove a negative. The burden of proof rests on the person claiming the positive."
2007-09-12 21:07:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Ed should kick Stu in his groin and ask him why his god didn't prevent the attack.
2007-09-12 21:14:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ed should say, " I don't have to prove there's no god. I am not asking you to disbelieve as I do."
2007-09-12 22:10:10 · answer #6 · answered by CC 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He SHOULD tell Stu that he accepts Jesus as his saviour and repents his atheistic beliefs.
What he will say is perhaps different, but it is of no relevance.
2007-09-12 21:09:07 · answer #7 · answered by unfit_commander 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
"i can't". look!!!! you can't prove a negative, if somthing doesn't exist you can't prove it doesn't exist. You only BELIEVE or have FAITH in that God doesn't exist. So if you can't say God doesn't exist then you really don't know then you are considered an agnostic.
2007-09-12 21:10:33 · answer #8 · answered by Ryan K 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If it was around here, Ed should say...
Drink
2007-09-12 21:09:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Were you dropped on your head as a baby?
2007-09-12 21:06:41 · answer #10 · answered by Dark-River 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋