lee_merrill

You may want to explain this to Anthony Flew!

Which is why the communist worker's paradise is so delightful? And they are not repressive? Outstanding examples of moral and social progress here?!

Regards,
Lee

Sauron

Wrong.

Sauron

Bad history and bad logic.

1. Compared to what preceded them - the socialist states *were* better.

2. By your standards, the theocracies in Saudi and Iran are preferable - even though they are theocratic as well as repressive, without any social progress.

Ah. So easy. :rolling:

fast

This is my perspective. If one is to make a claim, then the burden of proof is on who makes the claim.

A theist may claim there is a God, and if it's to be proven, then it's up the theist to do so.

Not all atheists make the claim that no god exists. Those that do make the claim, do in fact need to support their claim if they ever hope to prove it true.

Some atheists make no claims at all and simply lack belief without assertion, and for them, no proof is required, for no claim has been asserted.

Again, if one is to disclaim, then one needs substantiation. There was a burden of proof shift. Seebs is correct.

Hoosier Daddy

Then if one claims "god X does not exist", then one needs to prove it? If seebs says the other gods that are spoken of in the Bible don't exist, then he needs to prove that also? If I say Quetzalcoatl does not exist then I need to prove it? Must I do this for all named and hypothetical gods? What about monsters, ghosts and faeries?

Dryhad

You don't need to prove it, but then again to don't need to go off to the temple of Quetzalcoatl and say to all his followers "Nyah nyah! Your god doesn't exist and I don't have to prove that he doesn't!" If you want to do something like that, you need proof. If you want to believe to your self that Quetzalcoatl doesn't exist, you do not. Therefore Jagella needs proof while Biff probably does not.

Hoosier Daddy

What seebs wants from Jagella is the certainty of nonexistence. This can never happen, but Jagella can say that there is a high probability of the Christian God's nonexistence, that, for all practical purposes, approaches certainty.

Dryhad

So what? The infintessimally small chance that Jagella is wrong is enough for him to be wrong. That means he is unjustified in declaring himself right. He can believe to himself that he is right, and as probability has told us he probably is. But if people like to cling to an infintessimally small chance what right does Jagella have to declare victory over them?

fast

I can go around saying anything I want to. To do so, is to make claims or assertions. We can look at these claims as premises to arguments if they are intended to be apart of an argument. Example propositional claim:

P1: God X does not exist.

Who ever says this is the one doing the asserting. If this proposition is a premise in an argument that is not accepted, then this proposition needs to be the conclusion whereby additional premises are pulled in to support it.

What's important here is that it's incumbent upon the individual doing the asserting to substantiate their claims.

Absolutely. If he does it, then it's expected that he substantiate HIS claim.

4 scenarios:
1) theist believes there is a God
2) theist claims there is a God

3) atheist lacks belief there is a God
4) atheist asserts there is no God

Scenario 1 and 3 are not burdened with having to provide any proof whatsoever, for no claims or assertions are being announced for potential acceptance.

Scenario 2 and 4, on the other hand, are making statements about the world that's in question. If they can assert it as if true, then their accusations (wild or otherwise) is in need of substantiating.

Well, it depends. Anyone can say what they want, but if it's going to be used in an argument, then it's expected that if it's challenged that support is incumbent upon who's doing the asserting.

I don't know. Again, it depends. If you and I agree between us that there are no monsters, then we are free to use it as an agreed upon premise in an argument. However, if someone else comes along and does not agree in regards to monsters, then whoever does the asserting needs to support their case.

I don't believe in monsters, and neither do you, so we can agree, and If I assert there are no monsters and you agree, then I still don't have to prove my case, but if I assert there are monsters and you disagree, then it's I who needs to support my assertion; likewise, if you say there are not monsters and if I disagree, then you need to support your assertion. Now, whether or not I assert no monsters is whether or not I have to support an assertion.

It could be the case that you assert there are monsters and I simply don't believe you; in this situation, it's your burden of proof--not mine.

Putting this back in perspective: Seebs didn’t claim there to be a God; therefore, he is not burdened with the need to provide proof. If an atheist simply does as atheists do (lack belief in God), then they have no burden of proof either. However, if either party starts making declarations, then whoever does the yabbin’ is expected to back up their yappin’.

PS: Welcome to IIDB, and may your stay prove enlightening.

Hoosier Daddy

Does this mean evolutionary theory, the theory of electricity, the theory of gravity, and germ theory are not right since there is a ridiculously small chance they could be wrong? It's a matter of confidence.