"The burden of proof and need to convince lies squarely on those making supernatural propositions...proof which has not been forthcoming (obviously)."
My formal education was very limited, so maybe you can enlighten me on what you just said.
If a proposition COULD be proven, it would no longer qualify as "supernatural", would it?
Put in a more direct way...... ain't you FOS in this instance?
Curdog, let me help you out.
In a formal debate, there is a single proposition. It is the side that claims the proposition is true that must prove it. The against the proposition has no burden of proof. If the side claiming the proposition is true is not able to provide sufficient evidence to prove their proposition, that is sufficient for the against side to win.
There is a similar think in science. Some one will propose a Hypothesis, however until they've presented sufficient evidence for their hypothesis, the default position remains the "null hypothesis", or a rejection of the hypothesis until it is proven. It is not sufficient to just prove the hypothesis is possible, you must actually prove that is it true before the null hypothesis is rejected.
So now lets apply these principles to a supernatural, or a God claim. In these cases the null hypothesis, or the default position is to NOT believe the claim until sufficient evidence is provided. Again a claim that it COULD be true it not sufficient to accept the claim and reject the null hypothesis.
In addition, a supernatural or god claim is an extraordinary claim, and required evidence proportionate to the claims. Since you are making an extraordinary claim it requires extraordinary evidence, as opposed to a common claim, which would only require common evidence.
So, the Theist are the one's making the positive supernatural god claims, so lets here your extraordinary evidence.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
