That’s making a positive claim about a negative outcome. “There is enough evidence to be confident there aren’t structural problems” is what they’re really saying.
This doesn’t work for god because there’s nothing to check, there’s never been any evidence for god, but there’s been plenty of evidence for structural issues existing.
In that instance, the claim is “There is evidence of X problem”
They then provided the evidence of that problem and were ignored, the burden of proof was on the person making the claim that there was a problem, and there was a problem, they provided proof, and were ignored.
This has nothing in common with the previous scenario.
That’s making a positive claim about a negative outcome. “There is enough evidence to be confident there aren’t structural problems” is what they’re really saying.
This doesn’t work for god because there’s nothing to check, there’s never been any evidence for god, but there’s been plenty of evidence for structural issues existing.
Bro, the graphite is not there. Everything is completely normal.
In that instance, the claim is “There is evidence of X problem”
They then provided the evidence of that problem and were ignored, the burden of proof was on the person making the claim that there was a problem, and there was a problem, they provided proof, and were ignored.
This has nothing in common with the previous scenario.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Bro, the graphite is not there. Everything is completely normal.
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.