Reply #17: The existence of a natural world doesn't lend itself to either side. [View All]

[Hosnon]

Yes, the burden is on the religious to prove the additional element but that doesn't change the fact that faith in the existence of God is different from faith in the notion that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

There is good reason to believe that Saddam was not involved in 9/11. As to your counter-example, based on what we know about the requirements for life and "invisilibity", there is strong circumstantial evidence that there is no such unicorn. But sure, if there was no evidence either way, I can understand believing in such an animal - humans have believed crazier things.

As was pointed out up-thread, the nature of God as outside of the physical world places faith in his existence in a completely different category.

We can go back and forth regarding the proper "standard" but I think most people see the difference.