Re: Bernard Law ****fted Geoghan from parish to parish in less than

On Apr 28, 2:43 pm, duke <duckgumb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 06:50:23 -0700 (PDT), Mark Sebree
<seb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
> >> Not any evidence you'd believe.
> >If the evidence is objective and you can explain why it is actual
> >evidence,

[replace rest of text that was dishonestly snipped]

> > and defend your position logically and reasonably against
> > questioning, then my belief is not required.  I have explained to you
> > before, including in the text that you snipped, what was wrong with
> > your claims, and you still cannot sup****t your claims.  That shows
> > that there is nothing to sup****t your claims, and nothing that ties
> > your supposed evidence to your claims.  Therefore, your supposed
> > evidence is not evidence of anything.

[end replacement]

>
> It's you, not me, that can't provide any evidence.

Your statement is an example of a logical fallacy called attempting to
****ft the burden of proof.  I have nothing to provide any evidence
of.  You have made the positive assertion that your deity exists,
therefore you have to burden of proof to show that it does.  The
negative assertion is the default one, and thus does not need anything
to sup****t it.  The lack of evidence showing that any deity exists
sup****ts the position that no deity exists.

Mark Sebree

>
> duke