ARCHIVE: Burden of Proof
- Thread starter Spenser 2
- Start date
Caledvwlch
New member
There is often a fine line, but I went with atheist because it's easier to spell.Apologist said:
No, this one is fine.allsmiles said:
So what do you believe?
How did matter and energy come into existence?
Caledvwlch
New member
Knowing the answer to that particular puzzle does not pay my bills, so I don't sweat it, but it's fun to theorize.Knight said:
SUTG
New member
kmoney said:
Well, remember I said that proof only exists in mathematics and alcohol.
Mmmmm...alcohol.... :cheers:
So, he could give compelling reasons for his belief. If he had to convince you, it probably wouldn't be that hard, but it wouldn't count as proof. Calling Spenser and asking him would be a small bit of evidence, hooking up a webcam and seeing him over Yahoo Instant messgenger might make a better case, showing you eveidence that Spenser always wears white might be another reason, etc.
OK, maybe it was a dumb example. But the point I was trying to make is that claims that something is NOT the case are also claims to knowledge. For example:
-It is not raining in NYC right now.
-It is not over 70 degrees in Los Angleses right now.
-Knight does not have an anti-gravity machine.
-The Christian God does not exist.
-BillyBob is not sober right now.
-Bob Enyart is not in the United States right now.
All of these statements are knowledge claims, so they all entail the burden of proof. If you remove the word "not" from any of them, they are still knowledge claims, and they still take on the burden of proof.
Caledvwlch
New member
Happens to us all, so no problem.Apologist said:
Not really, but it's cool.
allsmiles
New member
Knight said:
impersonal creating life force that had and has no choice but to create. it creates even now and will continue to create perpetually. we are subject to it and it is subject to us. i might even go so far as to attribute destruction to it, and perhaps the balance between the two, which is close to Hinduism if i understand it correctly, but i could be wrong.
Gee... it's funny how this question is all the sudden so unimportant to everyone unless of course its being asked of the theist.Caledvwlch said:
:rotfl:
SUTG
New member
Knight said:Gee... it's funny how this question is all the sudden so unimportant to everyone unless of course its being asked of the theist.
:rotfl:
It is an important question. You can put me in the "I don't know" bucket.
Of course, I don't think anyone else knows either. :chuckle:
Who said anything about claiming victory?Granite said:
All I am saying is.... if the burden of proof is on me to give compelling evidence for Creation. The burden of proof is also (and equally) upon the materialist to give compelling evidence for creation.
Disagree?
Knight said:
So you don't claim intellectual victory on TOL and elsewhere?:think:
The burden of proof is greater for you folks because of the truth claims you also claim that must go hand in hand with a deity who fashioned this universe and mankind. The bar is simply set far, far higher for a monotheist.
Caledvwlch
New member
Well, I never claimed to have an answer for the origins of matter/energy/space/time. So the question really can't be asked of me. I simply don't have an answer. But if you'd like to take this into the theory category, I might have a couple up my sleeve.Knight said:Gee... it's funny how this question is all the sudden so unimportant to everyone unless of course its being asked of the theist.
:rotfl:
Maybe you don't know. But do you have a guess?SUTG said:
Can you speculate?
To me it seems the theist is the only one that is at least willing to give a solution (at least on this thread). From that fact alone the theist is sorta in the "drivers seat" in the compelling evidence department.
Caledvwlch
New member
[Thought bubble]I also have a brother[/Thought bubble]allsmiles said:
Touche, salesman...