To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" --Ravi Zacharias
Infinite knowledge? You're the one who can't prove your god exists, despite having the burden of proof. We're expected to rule out all of the thousands of gods that have come and gone before you have to prove yours? Uh-uh, doesn't work like that!
And this quote is invalid because *a theism* does not deal with knowledge...that would be gnosticism, hello!
To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" --Ravi Zacharias
Infinite knowledge? You're the one who can't prove your god exists, despite having the burden of proof. We're expected to rule out all of the thousands of gods that have come and gone before you have to prove yours? Uh-uh, doesn't work like that!
And this quote is invalid because *a theism* does not deal with knowledge...that would be gnosticism, hello!
Prove he doesn't. The burden of proof is not on our side.
You are requesting proof of a negative assertion; this is not rational. Specifically, the burden of proof rests with the initial claimant - that would be those who insist upon the existence of a "god" sans any verifiable evidence, (note: "faith" does not constitute verifiable evidence). Your entire rebuttal is a non sequitur.
[/quote]
You and Falconer keep saying this like a broken record and have been answered x times over.
[/quote]
Logic remains consistant, which is why QoN & Falconer, (who happens to share a variation of my 'nym and many of my views however, isn't me), keep reiterating reason to oppose your unreasoned and unsubstantiated claims.