Peh said:
"Just because sceptics throw away any rational argument and revelations because it's not empirical to them does not mean they are right." What do you consider a rational argument and revelation? Subjective experiences bring you nowhere, for the main reason that everyone can make such a claim and get away with it. "If they are so sure there is no God, the burden is just as much on them as it is on us," That's only correct for those who make the claim that there is no god. Most atheists just don't accept your claim and simply reject it. It's the same you do with all the other gods out there. So far, the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. Otherwise I could claim that a Smurf created the universe and claim that the burden of proof is on you. Now disprove me. "as we have provided many an argument as they have failed to empirically disprove anything." I've yet to see a valid argument for god which isn't born out of ignorance. You can surely provide one. |
I feel like this thread is just going in circles. Anyway: the ontological, teleological and cosmological arguments (as also outlined in the thread). The Cosmological argument being the most logically sound. Couple that with the vast amount of revelations (both biblical and historial) and you have a quite solid foundation.
The skeptics and empiricists discard revelation very easily, but if they then claim that God does not exist, the burden of proof is on them.
