FFS. Talking to you is like talking to a chatbot: it seems like you can only latch onto one thing in the post and can't appreciate the larger context.
I brought up the fact that stegosauruses are extinct only as one example of a conclusion that people accept as uncontroversially true based on a lack of evidence.
And I explained that your analogy is false.
Yes given a lack of evidence for God you are justified to not believe in God (as you do with stegosaurus)
But once evidence is presented you are expected to refute such evidence.
Conversations with atheists look like this:
1
atheists: there is no evidence for stegosauruses living today
2
theist well how about these fresh stegosaurus bones,
3
atheist : no that is not evidence
4
theist , why not?
5
atheist: its a stegosaurus of the gaps argument, just because we don't know where the bones came from nor why the look fresh and recent, that doest mean that stegosaurus did it.
6
atheist: maybe there is an unknown mechanism that produces de appearance of "recent bones" in bones that are millions of years old
7
atheists: the answer is I dont know but you don’t know ether. You cant postulate the existence of an unevidenced recent stegosaurus just because you cant find an explanation for those bones.
8
theist, ok so what would count as evidence
9
atheist, well present your evidence and lets see.
10
theist: i just did (fresh bones)
11
atheists, no no that is not evidence, just claims .
12
theist ok what would count as evidence , whats wrong with the bones, what alternative explanation do you suggest?
13
atheist: no, no i am not your private teacher, go learn it yourself.
.... just change stegosauruses for God, and change fresh bones for say the FT of the universe. And you will have a typical
Personally, I take these sorts of rants from you as your way of saying "I don't have the intellectual tools to respond to rebuttals to my arguments, so I just need to vent my frustration in the only way I know how."
The issue is that usually we dont have rebuttals for the arguments.
Are you familiar with the FT argument (as defended by william lane creig) ?
What would be your rebuttal for that particular argument?
Is premise 1 false? Is premise 2 false, is any of the premises fallacious, does the conclusion fail to follow from the premises., do you have a positive argument for atheism/naturalism that trumps any argument for design?......these are all possible refutations which do you pick?
), you go right ahead and think about all the conclusions you make that are based on a lack of evidence and pick one that works for you. It's irrelevant to my point what conclusion you pick:
