The persistent question of evidence (RAZD and subbie only)

Hi RAZD,
did you mean to post that in this thread? It doesn't seem to be related to the OP. I'm not sure posting a response to criticism in another thread in a PNT will be viewed as entirely good form, especially a PNT that has stalled and is likely to not be promoted. Is there some good reason to be here? This PNT doesn't appear to be going to be promoted since it was for a GD where the other person declined.

Could you concisely sum up the basic argument this debate would be about?Is it about who has the burden of the evidence under what circumstances in general. Is it about the specific question of god? Is it about the quality of the evidence or lack thereof it either way? Your extra definition was longer than your OP it would seem - and rather than being about whether you are required to provide evidence is about you not being persuaded by a certain argument.Subbie expressed an interest in a debate with you where he would support ' the proposition that gods do not exist.' - so if that's the kind of thing you want to do here, and Subbie is still interested, you can have at it. Subbie, let us know.

subbie has confirmed his interest so I'm promoting this.

Thread copied here from the The persistent question of evidence ... thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.