Quote:
Quote by: Kamehameha34  The rules of logic apply to both claims. If you say that the lack of evidence against god is not proof for god, then you would be correct. But, you fail to consider that the lack of evidence for god does not equate to evidence against god. |
I agree. weak atheism doesn't actively deny the existence of a god. it is simply a skeptical stance that uses logical method to come to the conclusion that there isn't a god, PURELY based on a lack of evidence. same thing applies to unicorns. address my actual OP please.
Quote:
Quote by: Kamehameha34 Claims don't default to false in the absence of evidence. They start out as unknown. |
If every new unsupported claim defaulted to unknown, human civilisation would not have advanced as far as it had today. In fact, scientific method would be rendered useless.
It is totally, completely, utterly useless to default an unsupported claim to unknown. It is far more productive to make an assumption that a said claim is false in complete lack of conclusive evidence.