Another tack.

[novapsyche]

The absence of proof that chemical and biological weapons and their related development programs had been destroyed was considered as proof that they continued to exist.

This is supposed to be rational. Yet when Christians use this "logic" in regards to God (absence of proof considered as proof), atheists laugh and point.

Comments

[clokverkorange.livejournal.com]

yes because with weapons, we know that they exist somewhere as physical things, so evidence of their destruction would be just that. no evidence of destruction, weapons still exist.

with god, it's more like, no evidence that he EVER existed, so the argument sortof works against itself.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

no evidence of destruction, weapons still exist.

Not necessarily. I understand that that is a deduction one may come to, but in itself I don't think that constitutes concrete proof. As far as I'm concerned, it's whistling in the dark.