Quote:

theory9 said:
Quote:

wannabuyamonkey said:
The burdon of proof depends on the thesis. If I said "A" is true because God exists then the burdon would be mine, but if someone says "A" is true because there is no God then the burdon of proof lies with proving he doesn't exist. Understand?



The burden of proof will always lie with the believer.

The second thesis doesn't mention God--it attempts to discover whether "A" is true or not independenet of the assertion of the existence of God (or else it becomes the first thesis).

If "A" is any scientific theory, (whether God exists or not is moot at this point) that means that someone trying to assert His existence would do so to prove God (your first assertion), not "A", which then becomes a separate argument. All of your assertions regarding God ultimately fall under your first thesis. Understand?


That's only if you assume I misspoke in the second thesis and there are no "scientists" saying that. There are so you can't just re-word my thesis because you don't think anyone's saying it.

Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma. " I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9 JLA brand RACK points = 514k