Two directions in presenting arguments

I sometimes get on other discussion boards to learn about new things. On one I regularly frequent, there was a new person who came on saying, "Prove God exists." The way this person was arguing his/her point had plenty of flaws in it, but anyway. Still, it got me thinking of 2 different ways to make a case/argument for something. There is a difference between presenting a positive case for something, and a negative case against something.

A Positive Case
This is where you basically give evidence (and it doesn't have to always come from science!) for believing something is true. It's where we present "premises"... things that we agree on, the evidence, etc., then we show why these premises lead to a certain conclusion.

Here's an example: I heard a pop, followed by a sound of something fizzing, then I heard someone drinking something. I came into the room and saw Kyle holding an opened Sprite can. Conclusion: Kyle just drank some Sprite while I was in the other room. (Is it possible that it was someone else that drank something and it just so happened to be that Kyle was holding a Sprite can? Yes. But based on the evidence presented, I have good reason to believe that it was Kyle who made the drinking sounds even though I didn't see it.)

A Negative Case
Many atheists will argue a negative case against theism (those who believe there is a god or gods... theists include not only Christians, but also Muslims, polytheists, Jews, Hindus, etc.). Many atheists think that if there is NO good argument for a god existing, they then think that they've proven that atheism is true. They want theists to give reasons for a god's existence, and then in one way or another, they dismiss all of those reasons.

However, what they've done is this: they haven't proven atheism... they've only dismissed the arguments for theism. They haven't shown that theism itself isn't true; they've only weakened the theist's case for a god existing. But this does not strengthen their case for atheism. Huuuuuuge difference!

Here's an example: Heather (Lynch, of course... not me!) says cats can fly on their own without anyone throwing them. Nobody has seen a cat fly on its own. Therefore flying cats don't exist. (Has this proven that flying cats don't exist??? No. It only proves that I haven't seen one.)

So negative cases don't prove anything... they only disprove. Positive cases don't disprove, they only aim to prove.

Blogger problems

Hey I just realized there are problems with pages loading up through Internet Explorer. I recommend using Modzilla Firefox instead if you have it. I'll try to work out the bugs ASAP (that might mean tomorrow). Let me know if you encounter probs with accessing this through your computer!

All Roads Lead to Rome?

When the topic of religion is brought up with nonbelievers (or "unbelievers"... whichever they're called), probably the most frequent things we'll hear people say are, "all religions are basically the same," "They all lead to heaven," "They all believe in a God," etc. The phrase "all roads lead to Rome" basically comes from ancient Rome where, yes, all roads from all countries eventually did lead to Rome. It was their final destination. So my question is, how would you respond? Are all religions basically the same?

One thing I used to say was, "Well suppose you had a final exam and there was only one question, 'Which religion is right?', wouldn't you want to have the right answer? I mean, a lot might be at stake." Then someone pointed out to me that this would make it seem that God was being a bit petty... like "you didn't choose MY religion," or "*beep*! Wrong title!" So yeah, it's not about the title... it's about a LOT more. But how do you explain the differences in a succinct (short and sweet) way? How do you explain what is really at stake? Suppose you only have like 3 minutes before their attention switches to another topic?

They assert "all religions are the same - pick your poison, basically" and you assert "no they're not". One assertion against another. Now you gotta get to get to the nitty gritty of it with very little time.