RandyE
Registered: 09/01/09
Posts: 891
|
| | 10/13/09 at 02:59 PM | Reply with quote | #31 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by wonderer
Now let's talk about the word "should". I'm inclined to consider it a fairly useless word, when used as you have used it. I don't see "should" as having any meaning without an "in order to". However you haven't stated what the relevant "in order to" is, so I really don't know what it is that you are trying to say
Quote: I consider lack of good reason to believe in God, perfectly adequate justification not to believe in God, just as I consider lack of good reason to believe that there are fairies under my bed, perfectly adequate justification for not believing there are fairies under my bed.
Yes, but not believing in God does not necessarily entail "there is no God." If you seek to prove there are no fairies under your bed, rather than simply not believing there are any, you should provide reasons why. All it takes for a good argument is that it is more plausible than its opposite.
Quote: However, it's a game without rules, and we use different strategies and tactics, and even the goals we go for are asymetrical. I don't play a defensive game, and I'm not concerned with what rules you wish I was playing by.
This is odd. Rather than face the obvious truth that a burden of proof is borne by a claim, you would rather simply declare that logic doesn't apply to your position (yet in attempting to defend it, you appeal to rationality).
Quote: Let's think about this rule which you wish the game to be played by.
Suppose I get home from work and say to my wife, "Honey, I forgot to pick up the milk you asked me to get." This is an all too "normal circumstance", yet what burden of proof do I have? Must I somehow prove to my wife that I don't in fact have an undetectable gallon of milk in my hand? Frankly, if my wife insisted that there is in fact milk in my hand, and that I have a burden of proof to show that in fact there is not milk in my hand, I'd think my wife had suffered some sort of brain trauma.
You have conflated a couple of things here. Assuming your wife has reason to trust you, she probably would not question you. But you have made a mistake here: the claim in relation to her may be quite believable, but the claim to me would be "It is true that I forgot to pick up the milk my wife asked me to get." This matter is trivial, so in real life I would not question you. But if we are expected rationally to accept a truth claim, we must be given some reason. This is example seems to want to prove that we can make claims that have no reason to be accepted, but on the contrary, any reason to accept it at all is proof (provided it is a valid reason). Think of its opposite: if we need no proof or reasons to believe anything at all, why should we believe anyone about anything, including this statement!?
Quote: Alternatively, suppose that you and I are in a court of law, with you sitting at the prosecuter's table with a bunch of theologians behind you, ready to be called as witnesses. I am sitting alone at the defense table. You stand up, and say "God did it". The judge asks me for my client's plea, and I say, "Not guilty, by reason of nonexistence.", then stand up and walk out of the courtroom. Have I somehow been negligent?
I'm sorry; I don't understand the point here. Is God your client? If not, what are we talking about? If He is, then what you have done in legal terms is called an "affirmative defense," and does indeed bear a burden of proof. In legal terms (at least the US system), the prosecution bears a burden of proof (we call this innocent until proven guilty); the defense merely has to provide what is called the "burden of rebuttal" of the original argument (the original being that God did whatever the "crime" was). Now sometimes the best legal defense is a good offense, and then we have an "affirmative defense," which in your case would be "God couldn't have done it; He doesn't exist!" In this case, the burden of proof would indeed be upon you as the one making the counter-assertion. This is a well-known legal principle. So to answer your question: if you did not bear a burden of rebuttal, made a counter-assertion, did not bear the burden of proof and left, then yes, you would indeed be a negligent counsel for the defense. 
|
| Loading... | |
RandyE
Registered: 09/01/09
Posts: 891
|
| | 10/13/09 at 03:06 PM | Reply with quote | #32 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by tcampen
The simple claim that God does not exist because one has not been shown sufficient reason to conclude otherwise does not shift the burdern to that person to prove she is right. It is not a truth claim, it's just one's personal position based on whatever criteria they have to conclude something exists. It is the proponent that something exists that has the burden to demonstrate that it does it fact exist. That is a truth claim.
Now, if one were to claim "X God cannot exist", then you do have a truth claim, for it is proposing something that is necessarily true. This is distinct in form and intention from the first position above.
Hey tc You're right that it does not shift the burden of proof, but a burden of proof must be upheld by the one who says God does not exist. You say the one who says God does not exist is not making a truth claim: so they are not saying "it is true that God does not exist?" Your first sentence of the quoted paragraph indicated otherwise. Now, they may say "I do not believe God exists," and thus express only an agnostic viewpoint, bearing no burden of proof because they don't claim to know anything one way or the other. They could say "I believe God does not exist," but then it still would necessarily entail the claim "God does not exist" is true, requiring a burden of proof. |
| Loading... | |
wonderer
Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 2,835
|
| | 10/13/09 at 03:14 PM | Reply with quote | #33 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by RandyEQuote: Originally Posted by wonderer
Now let's talk about the word "should". I'm inclined to consider it a fairly useless word, when used as you have used it. I don't see "should" as having any meaning without an "in order to". However you haven't stated what the relevant "in order to" is, so I really don't know what it is that you are trying to say What we have been talking about is burden of proof-one should provide evidence of a claim if he is to be believed in that claim. It's a word that stands for a reason.
__________________
“It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." - Richard Feynman |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 10/13/09 at 03:37 PM | Reply with quote | #34 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by jonahbearThe fact that many people do believe in God should give the person who doesn't believe interest to discover why they do not believe (or why so many others do).
Two things:
- I know very well why I don't believe in God: I find no evidence for God so it is impossible for me to believe in him.
- As you know, I've been asking ever since I've joined these forums for the basis of the Christians' belief. I have yet to find a Christian who can produce more than an emotional basis.
PROOF FOR NO-GOD
1. Christians go berserk when their god is challenged. Christians constantly ridicule atheists in their sermons and everyday conversation. But when their god is ridiculed, they go berserk--as though they had been personally stabbed in the heart or whacked over the head. If their god existed, they would calmly wait for God to avenge himself while they went about serving him unperturbed.
2. These forums are supposed to win the atheists over to Christ with the reason of faith, yet what has happened in the year and a quarter since I've been here? The atheist voice, which barely existed back in July 2008 when I arrived here, has gained a strong influence while some of our strongest Christian witnesses (such as forhisgrace and Lightfoot) have all but disappeared. If God existed, Christians would have brought forth convincing arguments to silence the atheist voice, as WLC advertises.
3. Before I ever came to these forums, I investigated everything humans (across time, geography, culture, and religion) have ever called "god" and there are natural explanations for all of these "gods." This includes the Judeo-Christian God or God of the Bible. Neither the natural sciences, nor the social sciences, have yet been able to produce any evidence whatsoever that would indicate the existence of a supernatural realm. Rather, all these sciences have produced vast libraries full of evidence that all that has ever been thought to be supernatural is, in fact, part of the natural universe.
Thus, if everything we as a species past and present have ever experienced, sensed, intuited, imagined, or in any other way perceived, is part of the natural universe, what is this thing/entity called God? NOTE: The above statement includes all things inside, outside, and of, the universe.
Possibly one more argument for the berserk Christians is Lightfoot's ever-recurring question as to why atheists keep bringing up the Santa Claus and fairy analogies. As though no atheist had yet answered this question. I have answered it very well on a number of ocassions. Others have patiently walked him through the arguments time and time again. Yet he raises the question AGAIN--as though for the first time. One can only conclude a desperate man clutching at straws to prove to himself that his god actually exists.
Sorry, Lightfoot, but when you're in the middle of the ocean in a hurricane you need more than a bit of straw to save your life. You need much careful preparation that has nothing to do with praying to invisible deities above the roiling storm clouds, and you need to begin those preparations long before the storm strikes. Perhaps you should even postpone your trip until the storm has passed. The same kind of logic and critical problem-solving applies to the rest of life's difficulties.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
Lightfoot
Registered: 01/22/08
Posts: 1,989
|
| | 10/13/09 at 06:07 PM | Reply with quote | #35 |
|
rsmartin
Quote: As though no atheist had yet answered this question. I have answered it very well on a number of ocassions. Others have patiently walked him through the arguments time and time again. Yet he raises the question AGAIN--as though for the first time. One can only conclude a desperate man clutching at straws to prove to himself that his god actually exists.
Sorry, Lightfoot, but when you're in the middle of the ocean in a hurricane you need more than a bit of straw to save your life. You need much careful preparation that has nothing to do with praying to invisible deities above the roiling storm clouds, and you need to begin those preparations long before the storm strikes. Perhaps you should even postpone your trip until the storm has passed. The same kind of logic and critical problem-solving applies to the rest of life's difficulties.
You might want to check your example, in case you find that I was in the middle of the sea during a hurricane!
Sorry, rsmartin. You have not given a good answer as to why you and other atheists waiste the only life you got talking about something like Santa Claus.
If past evidence indicates, not a whole lot of people change their minds and there are many other pressing needs that humanity is "dying" for.
So sorry.
You and Wonderer and whomever else have to adequately addresss this and no matter how many times you say "you have walked me through it" won't matter.
The best thing for you to do is not to talk to me, or post here but think for a moment. You believe that I believe in something that doesn't exist. You only have this life and the precious moments are going. Do you honestly want to spend so much of your precious time talking about such?
That is for you to think when you go to bed at night.
Pleasant dreams....")
__________________
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell."
C.S Lewis |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 10/13/09 at 06:35 PM | Reply with quote | #36 |
|
As you know, that story about the hurricane is a metaphor.
Here is the answer I posted to you on April 19, 2009. For your convenience I will copy part of it here:
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartinQuote: Originally Posted by LightfootQuote: Originally Posted by Mathenaut
Christianity is no different, which makes it all the more ridiculous that we honestly need to have these discussions to keep you christians from hurting yourselves and, more importantly, others.
Yet what seriously can hurt people, is things like bombs and nukes, global warming etc. Why not put 100% into fighting those things,without being sidetracked by Santa? As you full well know, Lightfoot, and as has been amply demonstrated in this thread, we use Santa as an analogy for the stupid god in whose name you build these weapons of mass destruction by which to manipulate your Jesus into making an appearance, also known as the Second Coming. As real as is the jolly ol' fat man who brings gifts down non-existent chimneys to children of rich Christian families in Western countries--that is how real is this God of Abraham in whose name the Christians, Jews, and Muslims have been killing each other ever since there have been Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Now if that does not make Santa relevant to this thread, please remember that it was you who posted this thread with the claim that you wished to better understand the atheist. And when we explained you started asking irrelevant questions about Santa Claus and other stuff. You asked; we answered. Whether or not you like the answer is not exactly the point. If you don't wish for us to talk to you about mythical characters, all you have to do is quit killing--and otherwise hurting--people in the name of mythical characters. "Hurting people" includes making laws against women, gays, science, and other means of social progress. Is that clear enough or must we use more graphic language?
You have yet to respond to it.
If I remember correctly, Snakey also "walked you through" the arguments in that thread. You may wish to reread the entire thread. You posted it here.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
wonderer
Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 2,835
|
| | 10/13/09 at 06:59 PM | Reply with quote | #37 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Lightfoot
You only have this life and the precious moments are going. Do you honestly want to spend so much of your precious time talking about such?
Of course. I enjoy it. It's incredibly cheap entertainment, sometimes mentally challenging and educational, and provides a creative outlet: not to mention an opportunity to discuss things I enjoy discussing with others who enjoy discussing such things. I think there is social value to doing it as well.
__________________
“It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." - Richard Feynman |
| Loading... | |
tcampen
Registered: 03/09/09
Posts: 1,201
|
| | 10/13/09 at 07:12 PM | Reply with quote | #38 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by RandyEQuote: Originally Posted by tcampen
The simple claim that God does not exist because one has not been shown sufficient reason to conclude otherwise does not shift the burdern to that person to prove she is right. It is not a truth claim, it's just one's personal position based on whatever criteria they have to conclude something exists. It is the proponent that something exists that has the burden to demonstrate that it does it fact exist. That is a truth claim.
Now, if one were to claim "X God cannot exist", then you do have a truth claim, for it is proposing something that is necessarily true. This is distinct in form and intention from the first position above.
Hey tc You're right that it does not shift the burden of proof, but a burden of proof must be upheld by the one who says God does not exist. You say the one who says God does not exist is not making a truth claim: so they are not saying "it is true that God does not exist?" Your first sentence of the quoted paragraph indicated otherwise. Now, they may say "I do not believe God exists," and thus express only an agnostic viewpoint, bearing no burden of proof because they don't claim to know anything one way or the other. They could say "I believe God does not exist," but then it still would necessarily entail the claim "God does not exist" is true, requiring a burden of proof.
Keep in mind, I am putting this to any claim that anything exists, any particular concept of God among them. It seems like you're saying anytime someone states they don't think something really exists that there is a burden of proof on that person to establish that position. Again, when the position is based on a lack of reason to think something exists, how can that ever shift the burden in any respect?
__________________
I do not believe in a personal God. - Albert Einstein |
| Loading... | |
ubi2002
Registered: 11/30/08
Posts: 486
|
| | 10/13/09 at 07:12 PM | Reply with quote | #39 |
|
Quote: 1. Christians go berserk when their god is challenged. Christians constantly ridicule atheists in their sermons and everyday conversation. But when their god is ridiculed, they go berserk--as though they had been personally stabbed in the heart or whacked over the head. If their god existed, they would calmly wait for God to avenge himself while they went about serving him unperturbed.
I would say that many more atheists make fun of and look down on theists than the other way around. Just go through youtube and public forums and you will see this to be true. Also, the reason why many Christians are offended when atheists ridicule God is a very simple reason. If someone would come along and make fun of your mom, dad, brother or best friend, would you not be angered? This is the same way Christians feel when atheists come along and make fun of God. God is a personal being that we know and feel very close to. Just because atheists don't believe God exists, do not make God less real to theists. It can be compared to the following: imagine if you had a friend that lives far away. Then a person comes along and starts to make fun of your friend, just because he did not see your friend himself and does not think the friend even exists. You would obviously be offended, especially if you know that your friend is real. This is how Christians feel when atheists decides to make fun of God for the sake of doing so.
Quote:
2. These forums are supposed to win the atheists over to Christ with the reason of faith, yet what has happened in the year and a quarter since I've been here? The atheist voice, which barely existed back in July 2008 when I arrived here, has gained a strong influence while some of our strongest Christian witnesses (such as forhisgrace and Lightfoot) have all but disappeared. If God existed, Christians would have brought forth convincing arguments to silence the atheist voice, as WLC advertises.
You seem to forget that there has been few atheists that have decided to put their faith into Christ through this forum and WLC's works. These few people are very significant, with respect to the fact that there are not thousands of people who interact with this forum.
|
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 10/13/09 at 07:13 PM | Reply with quote | #40 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Lightfoot
Sorry, rsmartin. You have not given a good answer as to why you and other atheists waiste the only life you got talking about something like Santa Claus.
See my post above for important differences between God as understood by Christians, Muslims, and Jews, and the big fat man in red. It's not the nonexistent thing that causes harm--it's the belief in this thing that causes endless bloodshed across centuries and millenia. For some reason, belief in Santa Claus and fairies does not have this deadly impact. But--as I and other atheists keep posting repeatedly--belief in God/Allah does.
And here at home in North America it causes riots, lynchings, hatred, imposed rituals, violation of personal rights and convictions--the list is endless.
Quote: If past evidence indicates, not a whole lot of people change their minds
Not a lot of people change their minds about what?
Quote: and there are many other pressing needs that humanity is "dying" for.
Not sure what you think you're talking about here that I and other atheists have not been addressing all along but here goes.
- Religion in your god causes run-away over-population and STDs in Africa where food, education, and medication are in short supply to begin with--all because missionaries like yourself preach the so-called good news.
- Religion of all kinds turns humans against each other in warfare because people think their god tells them to kill the infidel and cleanse the earth of the filthy unbeliever. All these wars require technology and weapons to more effectively and cruelly destoy the largest number of this scum.
- The religion you preach is at the bottom of the poverty and war around the world. I have given this a lot of thought. So have other atheists.
As stated, I don't know exactly what issues you wished for me to address, but these are world issues that concern me and many other lovers of the human race and life on this planet. I would like for you to take them to heart, too.
Quote: The best thing for you to do is not to talk to me,
Um, who do you think you are to dictate what is best for me???
If you are a moderator, please state my offense, that I have to stop posting.
Quote: but think for a moment.
Obviously, LF, you don't know me. Thinking is what I do every waking moment.
Quote:
You believe that I believe in something that doesn't exist.
I don't "believe" it; I know it. Prove me wrong!
Quote: You only have this life and the precious moments are going.
You bet I've got only one life and the moments are flying. That is why I spend it doing the one thing I love, i.e. thinking about complex world issues and how to go about solving them--how to leave my mark on the world, a platform for the next generation to stand on as I stand on the shoulders of the generation that existed before myself.
Quote: Do you honestly want to spend so much of your precious time talking about such?
About what I just wrote? You bet I do!
Quote: That is for you to think when you go to bed at night.
When I go to bed I SLEEP!
Quote: Pleasant dreams....")
Right on!
You too!
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 10/13/09 at 07:37 PM | Reply with quote | #41 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by ubi2002Quote: 1. Christians go berserk when their god is challenged. Christians constantly ridicule atheists in their sermons and everyday conversation. But when their god is ridiculed, they go berserk--as though they had been personally stabbed in the heart or whacked over the head. If their god existed, they would calmly wait for God to avenge himself while they went about serving him unperturbed. I would say that many more atheists make fun of and look down on theists than the other way around. Just go through youtube and public forums and you will see this to be true. Also, the reason why many Christians are offended when atheists ridicule God is a very simple reason. If someone would come along and make fun of your mom, dad, brother or best friend, would you not be angered? This is the same way Christians feel when atheists come along and make fun of God. God is a personal being that we know and feel very close to. Just because atheists don't believe God exists, do not make God less real to theists. It can be compared to the following: imagine if you had a friend that lives far away. Then a person comes along and starts to make fun of your friend, just because he did not see your friend himself and does not think the friend even exists. You would obviously be offended, especially if you know that your friend is real. This is how Christians feel when atheists decides to make fun of God for the sake of doing so.
You missed my point. If you know you're right, you won't be offended no matter what the other guy does or says. If the almighty God is who and what the Bible and Christianity claim, then the Christian is so strengthened by this God that he/she can continue unperturbed no matter what atheists can do or say to them. Read the stories about the martyrs. The martyr's supposedly faced horrible death calmly. What's the matter with today's Christians that they need special treatment???
I think, though, that Christians miss a lot of their own ridicule and condescending attitude that they impose on atheists. It starts with the Bible. The Bible calls atheists fools (Ps. 53) and accuses them of every conceivable crime known to humanity (Rom. 1). Christians today consider themselves justified to do the same with impunity.
Just because it's in the Bible does not make it okay.
Quote: Quote:
2. These forums are supposed to win the atheists over to Christ with the reason of faith, yet what has happened in the year and a quarter since I've been here? The atheist voice, which barely existed back in July 2008 when I arrived here, has gained a strong influence while some of our strongest Christian witnesses (such as forhisgrace and Lightfoot) have all but disappeared. If God existed, Christians would have brought forth convincing arguments to silence the atheist voice, as WLC advertises.
You seem to forget that there has been few atheists that have decided to put their faith into Christ through this forum and WLC's works. These few people are very significant, with respect to the fact that there are not thousands of people who interact with this forum.
I didn't forget. If you want to be competitive, there have been just as many deconversions. You missed my point. The arguments we atheists use are based on fact and reason and logic. WLC claims that faith is reasonable. If his claim were true, the atheist voice would not have increased four hundred percent over the course of fifteen months. If an almighty God existed, he would have somehow "won" on these forums during this time.
Ibelcaniva, Etienne, forhisgrace, and Lightfoot used to post many very long posts back in the summer of 2008. I don't think you were here yet back then. Lightfoot has completely changed his approach (presumably because it didn't work), forhisgrace has totally disappeared, and the other two post the occasional short paragraph.
The Christians who do post a lot are newer members like yourself who have not yet exhausted all their ideas on how to convince atheists of their mistakes.
I note that you do not presume to address my strongest argument for no god--the third one. Nor do you offer a positive answer as to what or who this God really is. All you do is tell me that I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about. Christians tend to be like that.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
RandyE
Registered: 09/01/09
Posts: 891
|
| | 10/13/09 at 07:43 PM | Reply with quote | #42 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by wonderer
So would you say that the "in order to" is, "in order to increase the probability of the other person coming to share the belief"?
But I am big on the burden of proof for atheists as well as theists. No one escapes, mwuhahahaha and other such evil laugh-words. 
|
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 10/13/09 at 07:48 PM | Reply with quote | #43 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by tcampen
Keep in mind, I am putting this to any claim that anything exists, any particular concept of God among them. It seems like you're saying anytime someone states they don't think something really exists that there is a burden of proof on that person to establish that position. Again, when the position is based on a lack of reason to think something exists, how can that ever shift the burden in any respect?
Recently, I heard an atheist put it this way: It's irrelevant!
The last while that I was still a "sort of" Christian (I didn't know any other world view other than Christian), there were three things that I concluded did not matter:
- How the universe came into being.
- What happens when we die.
- Whether or not God exists.
My reason for this: I was totally exhausted from wrestling with these questions that could not be answered.
That is what happens when Christians insist that people MUST believe--without evidence. It's emotional and intellectual abuse. Peace comes with letting go of God and trusting that if he exists he will understand. And just living life the best one understands.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
RandyE
Registered: 09/01/09
Posts: 891
|
| | 10/13/09 at 07:54 PM | Reply with quote | #44 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by tcampenQuote: Originally Posted by RandyEQuote: Originally Posted by tcampen
The simple claim that God does not exist because one has not been shown sufficient reason to conclude otherwise does not shift the burdern to that person to prove she is right. It is not a truth claim, it's just one's personal position based on whatever criteria they have to conclude something exists. It is the proponent that something exists that has the burden to demonstrate that it does it fact exist. That is a truth claim.
Now, if one were to claim "X God cannot exist", then you do have a truth claim, for it is proposing something that is necessarily true. This is distinct in form and intention from the first position above.
Hey tc You're right that it does not shift the burden of proof, but a burden of proof must be upheld by the one who says God does not exist. You say the one who says God does not exist is not making a truth claim: so they are not saying "it is true that God does not exist?" Your first sentence of the quoted paragraph indicated otherwise. Now, they may say "I do not believe God exists," and thus express only an agnostic viewpoint, bearing no burden of proof because they don't claim to know anything one way or the other. They could say "I believe God does not exist," but then it still would necessarily entail the claim "God does not exist" is true, requiring a burden of proof. Your right, the statement, "God does not exist" is a truth statement in the most technical sense. But I suspect many say that in a colloquial way, meaning "I don't have reason to think God exists." When people say "Fairies do not exist," do we really expect them to prove it? Not at all. We understand we're talking about the postiion that one doesn't have reason to think they exist, so they don't think they do.
...Again, when the position is based on a lack of reason to think something exists, how can that ever shift the burden in any respect?
How does this translate to the God conversation? If an atheist were never to encounter someone who believed in God, then he would bear no burden (at least none beyond what he had presumably borne in coming to his own conclusion). But if he did, the choices outlined above would apply.
|
| Loading... | |
wonderer
Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 2,835
|
| | 10/13/09 at 07:56 PM | Reply with quote | #45 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by RandyEQuote: Originally Posted by wonderer
So would you say that the "in order to" is, "in order to increase the probability of the other person coming to share the belief"?
All I mean is that if one "should" believe something, it means that logic dictates it is at least more plausible than its opposite or negation (at the very least, inductively), or that it is deductively inescapable.
But now you've switched from "should" in a context of accepting a burden of proof, to "should" in a context of accepting the truth of a belief. Those are rather different contexts.
I'd appreciate it if you would explain the "in order to" in the context of accepting a burden of proof.
__________________
“It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." - Richard Feynman |
| Loading... | |
