Perhaps the reason why I am as reasonable as I am is where I live - Western Sydney - perhaps one of the most ethnically mixed place on Earth.

Within the space of less than half an hours drive I can drive past mosques, sikh temples, buddhist temples, and all sorts of Christian churches.

Also one thing that defines Australians is egalitarianism. Equality should be defended despite what others believe. One Australian has said "I know what you are saying is wrong but I defend your right to be wrong".

I wonder, Crux, per your status as the most reasonable believer on these forums: Do you understand the principle behind the inability to provide evidence for a negative?

And, if so, would you mind terribly explaining the concept to 1oldminer?



Though, if not, no worries.

See, he's proven to be ever so resistant to the idea that our inability to prove the deity-negative is not a failure, but rather the only possible outcome.

As in, it's impossible to prove a negative.

When we say a negative, we mean, in non technical terms, any statement with "not" in it. Or "no."

"There are no unicorns"
"There is no teapot in orbit around the earth"

Aaaand

"There is no god"

Do you understand why it's impossible to prove any of these?

I ask because I was wondering, if, again, I'm not being too forward, if you could explain the concept to 1oldminer.

I think he might accept it more if it comes from you.

In the interests of honest debate, I beg of you!

Wow! The most reasonable believer on SP?

OK, I'll give you question some thought and come back to you. It may take a few days though.