| timmah said: I'm not saying that my position is true because there are holes in some of your theories as would be necessary for that to be a 'burden of proof' fallacy. I had other posts where I presented arguments for my views, just because you don't accept them doesn't mean I didn't present them. I have also said multiple times that a supernatural being cannot be definitively proven or disproven by natural means, so your attempt to bring belief in God into an area where there is clearly no way to definitively prove or disprove His existence could be considered a 'burden of proof' fallacy. I've never set out to prove God's existence to you in concrete and provable way, as I've said multiple times this can't be done. I've been trying to point out that... 1) claims that one has to be stupid, illogical, ignore facts, etc. to have faith are over the top 2) the straw man presented in the OP is not an accurate representation of religion, especially not of those who really folow Jesus' teachings 3) even Science does not have a difinitive, provable explaination as to where we came from, even though it does have theories you find compelling 4) We can still have respect for another's viewpoint, even if it differs from ours (referring to the hostility and derogatory debtate style used at times, mainly of the OP, who admitted to having 'hatred' for religion) |
No, instead you used anecdotal evidence to substantiate your claim, which is another fallacy.
1) No one suggested this.
2) I certainly didn't dispute this.
3) It based its findings upon evidence, thus supporting its claim.
4) Not when your viewpoint has no scientific or logical basis.
You attempted to substantiate ID through suppositions and burden of proof, my position cannot be one of burden of proof as I have substantiated my side, THEN asked you to substantiate yours. Which you still have yet to do.
