======== Newsgroups: alt.christnet.bible,alt.religion.christian,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,talk.origins Subject: Prove God's existence. (concluding remarks) From: Stewart Hunt Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 14:39:31 -0500 > >Let us say, that Tom and Sue make the following statements: > > > >Tom: There exists a universe with a santa. > >Sue: There exists a universe without a santa. > > > >For whom is the burden of proof on? > > Steve, your point is that the burden is equal on these two claimaints, > and I would agree with you. Because both are making positive > assertions about the nature of the universe. (Tom is cliaming > definitely Santa, Sue is climing definitely no-Santa.) This is what I have been after. I am just trying to point out that by saying the 'positive' claimant must prove the assertion, then this implies that someone who says a particular thing does not exist must also prove this assertion. (I will call such a person the 'negative' claimant.) However, I was astounded at how many people disagreed with this. I know that many people say that they don't know if god does or doesn't exist. So then in that situation they are neither 'positive' or 'negative' claimants. So in this case, I see no inherent problem with such a person making the assertion that a 'positive' claimant should prove their claim. Provided they apply it in all cases, and see that this means that 'negative' claimants must prove their assertions as well. I think that it is unreasonable to look down upon someone who believes in god, but can't prove god's existence. I can see looking down upon such a person who could not provide reasons for believing in god's existence. But I think that 'proof' is far to stringent a requirement. Someone has said that I have a narrow vision of 'proof'. They are probably right, my view of proof is derived from my training as a mathematician. Basically, that is what I do professionally, prove things. I found it interesting that when I asked if anyone could prove Occam's Razor, no one was able to do it. And I doubt if a 'proof' of it could possibly be given. (I am using a strict notion of what a proof is.) But the point I tried to make is that now those people who said that I should accept the Razor were now, undoubtably so, the 'positive' claimant. So by their reasoning they must prove the Razor. But they were unable to!! I found this to be lack of consistency. They provided reasons why I should accept the Razor, but were unable to prove that the Razor was correct. This is akin to my providing reasons why someone should believe that god exists, but of course, this isn't a proof of god's existence. There are those that believe that god exists and can provide reasons for this belief. And some of them, me included, will be the first to say that these reasons are not a proof. This is very similar to the Razor situation. My hope is that people will not automatically assume that someone who believes in god is anti-intellectual or a fool simply because they cannot 'prove' this assertion. And incidentally, I never said what my perception of god is. This was deliberate. My points and statements had more to do with logic than with theology. However, I should state that I do have a notion of what 'god' is. I do have some assumptions (axioms if you will) about 'god'. I can't define 'god' in the strict sense of what a definition is. Also, I never stated what religion I subscribe to. For the record it is Christianity, but some of my beleifs are not traditional. I will not be able to continue this thread as actively as I have. Due to time constraints. > However, by insisting we go down this narrow corridor, you are missing > a bigger picture. I think the position of most atheists, and > certainly of me, is not 'there is definitely no god,' but rather 'I > refuse to believe in god without convincing evidence.' I am an > agnostic, in the sense that I do not think that the issue can be > resolved using rational argument and physical evidence. But as a > rationalist, I refuse to take seriously any claim that has no > significant empirical, objective evidence. So therefore I do not > believe in god. I do not say there is definitely no god, I say I have > definitely not seen compelling evidence to support the claim. Can you > see the difference? Yes, I see the difference. It is a big difference. Sorry for the long message. stewart hunt "logic makes no sense." ======== Newsgroups: alt.christnet.bible,alt.religion.christian,alt.atheism,talk.atheism,talk.origins Subject: Re: Prove God's existence. (concluding remarks) From: mulligan@prairie.NoDak.edu (Timothy F Mulligan) Date: 5 Jul 1996 20:57:23 GMT om> : Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network (NDHECN) Distribution: Stewart Hunt (hunts@omni.cc.purdue.edu) wrote: : "logic makes no sense." Now I understand where you're coming from. Thanks. Tim Mulligan