Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The challenge has been put forth that a theist must provide evidence for their position. I am merely laying rudimentary groundwork.

More clearly, for heaven's sake, not less.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
More clearly, for heaven's sake, not less.

I'm not sure it can be made more clear than that, given the posts thus far.

Originally posted by Palynka
This was exactly the point of my last posts. The only evidence for non-existence of a logically possible God is the absence of evidence for its existence.

Therefore, the claim that the atheist is being somehow unfair by demanding evidence is incorrect, since the absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence supporting his position.

So the atheist is alread ...[text shortened]... nt evidence in favour of his claim.

Edit: Changing proof for evidence in the second sentence.

Are you saying that the theist has no evidence? Or is this a question of how much evidence is sufficient to constitute as proof?

Originally posted by Palynka
This was exactly the point of my last posts. The only evidence for non-existence of a logically possible God is the absence of evidence for its existence.

Of course we can bypass the whole arguement once we realise that there is no such thing as a logically possible God.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course we can bypass the whole arguement once we realise that there is no such thing as a logically possible God.

ROTFL.

Could you posit your proof for the logical impossibility of God (in all shapes and sizes)? I'd love to have a look at it.

Originally posted by Halitose
ROTFL.

Little lies make baby Jesus cry.

Originally posted by dottewell
Little lies make baby Jesus cry.

Ha.

Originally posted by dottewell
Little lies make baby Jesus cry.

That's closer to the truth than you think. 😉