It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
What if he shot them and they did not die? I know if I dropped a full clip into someone and they kept coming after me I'd sure as hell reload!
The idea is that each juror is supposed to be able to decide for himself what proof beyond a reasonable doubt is and whether the Commonwealth has met the burden.
I submit that the burden of proof lies with the atheists to disprove God.If that's true, then you have an equal burden of proof to prove that there isn't an invisible unicorn in my room, that there aren't teapots on Mars, and that there isn't a mysterious, invisible, gravity-free extra moon orbiting the Earth. The burdenalwayslies with the person making the extraordinary claim. To argue otherwise is to deny logical thought.
I submit that the burden of proof lies with the atheists to disprove God.
You can argue anything. The key is that none of those philosophers could provide a single shred of evidence.
So your argument is basically that, because primitive, ignorant people believed in something, that somehow lends validity to the belief?
How so? God is disproven by default for the 100% lack of evidence. How exactly did these atheists try to "disprove" the notion? How exactly did they "fail?"
.Again, you're citing the old practices of ignorant people as evidence.
How is this a useful citation? What "stark reality" are you talking about? C.S. Lewis is by no means an authority, and his personal beliefs are not evidence of anything beyond his personal beliefs.
Pascal's Wager has been clearly and totally shown to be fallacious. Furthermore, you're again citing another person's personal belief as opposed to actual evidence.
I don't want to sound rude, but here is where you shoot yourself in the foot particularly well.
Holding on to a clearly unproven, fallacious, or disproven belief is irrational no matter how old or dear that belief may be. You've now argued against your own position...
You're not serious with this statement, are you? That's a terribly ignorant, illogical, and intellectually dishonest stance to take. If this statement is true, then you can't argue against the following: "You can't prove that I'm not god, so my idea that I'm god must stand."
This is an equally poor statement that has zero logical basis. (Nevermind that fact that you're already assuming a lot without very much citation to back it up). By your logic, the very first irrational belief system mankind conceived must be true, and all more modern irrational beliefs bear the burden of proof. An irrational idea is still irrational no matter who said it first. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one making the extraordinary claim.
So, in closing, the burden of proof lies with the atheists because theirs is a position that was adopted in opposition to the one that was generally accepted at first.Likes like the burden of proof lies on you( just assuming that you are Christian). Lets see, you need to disprove the Roman gods, the Greek gods, the Egyptian gods, the Viking gods, the Hindu gods...
So, in closing, the burden of proof lies with the atheists because theirs is a position that was adopted in opposition to the one that was generally accepted at first.
Just an additional note, this is why someone believing in the telepathy or talking to the dead or something has the burden of proof on them. While the Skeptic does not have to prove himself. He is the questioner and therefore is asking for evidence, not making a claim that needs to be supported, he is questioning another's claim.
HMTKSteve: In my case, the wife was dead, the boyfriend was fleeing, and my guy had to go into his house to get another clip before he came out to shoot at the fleeing boyfriend. Whether you lose on the imminence component is generally going to be determined by facts and circumstances. As in: If the zombie falls, you're done. If the zombie stops, you're done and you might have a duty to retreat. If you are confronted with a lunging zombie, you're probably going to have to go pretty far to lose the defense.
How does one determine whether a claim is ordinary or extraordinary?
Rym, you claimed that Pascal's wager has been shown to be fallacious. By whom has this been shown? Has it been disproved using science? Please tell me how, I would truly like to know.
I'm not trying to disprove those gods yet. We're not at that point in the discussion. Besides, those gods have faded out and are no longer widely worshiped. They only exist in mythology of civilizations that are no longer with us, except for the Hindus, who are still around and still worship their gods.
Why is the reality of God an irrational claim?
Another thing I have yet to understand: why do atheists fight so hard to disprove God? Why are they wasting their energy? If God does not exist, why waste your breath proving it? Why is it that your biggest enemy is something that isn't real?
It would seem that even the atheists have a god. Their god is a god of nonexistence.
Atheists are always stumped by how stupid and ridiculous the idea of intelligent design and such are, but this is because they forget about the intelligence. If I didn't believe in God, I too would be confused and skeptical. But I have remembered something that all of you have missed. These acts of God don't make sense unless you include God. It's like an equation that doesn't work without one key factor. The fact that this factor can do anything is often forgotten, which is why intelligent design seems unbelievable.
What would it take to convince you of the existence of God? I do not mean exclusively the Christian God, nor any other label of Him, simply a higher power, or root cause, that men know as God.
WaterIsPoison: Did I say that? I don't think I said that.
An extraordinary claim is one that requires additional and hitherto unknown factors to exist for it to exist. Such a claim contradicts established evidence or significantly impacts the field in which it lies. It makes assumptions where none are necessary.
So is "There is no god" an ordinary or an extraordinary claim?Does the claim "There is no god" require additional and hitherto unknown factors to exist for it to be true? If we accept that there is no god (which I do), there are many things left unexplained, things which believers attribute to god. Surely, in the absence of god, we need some explanation of what caused the beginning of everything, or something along those lines? Some scientific development akin to those which in the past have been deemed "extraordinary claims"? If this is the case, then isn't the claim "There is no God" an extraordinary one
I believe that as aCatholic-Christianhuman being, everyone stands on equal footing whether or not their beliefs differ from yours.
The argument of"there are unexplained things, therefore god exists to explain them" is a terrible form of intellectual laziness and a pathetic, illogical argument. It assumes the "therefore" in X, therefore Y. It makes an extraordinary claim.
We have absolutely no knowledge about what goes on outside the universe (if anything?) or what went on before the big bang. It seems to me that, in this realm, there is no "established, observed or accepted theory" to conflict with or not to conflict with. Any hypothetical answer to the question of life, the universe and everything will be an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence.
Any hypothetical answer to the question of life, the universe and everything will be an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence.
An theist would say that because we have yet to collect evidence about what is inside the box, it must contain an omnipotent and omniscient deity who created the entire universe and still haunts us today, and will do us great harm if we do not do as it says. but, lucky for us, that theist has a special book, that the thing in the box dictated to him, telling us what it wants.
To the question, "Does god* exist?" the default answer is "we don't know."
One, the claim that there is no god requires no assumption and does not conflict with any established, observed, or accepted theory. It is an ordinary claim.
Anyone who claims knowledge where previously none existed is making an extraordinary claim.
So if the default answer is "we don't know", rather than "there is no god", why is there a burden of proof on the theist but not on the atheist?
But how does the claim that there is a god actuallyconflictwith any established, observed, or accepted theory?
Since we know nothing, it seems to me that "there is no god" is as much a shot in the dark as "there is a god". I still can't understand how "there is no god" is an ordinary claim.
The default answer to any question about the universe is "we don't know."
Alex said it perfectly. I defy an intelligent person to reasonably argue against that.
There is no evidence of a god, so "no god" is the default.