RE: Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God
March 17, 2017 at 3:07 pm
(This post was last modified: March 17, 2017 at 3:10 pm by Jesster.)
(March 17, 2017 at 2:57 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(March 17, 2017 at 2:21 pm)Jesster Wrote: ...Most commonly in a court case, a defendant is "innocent until proven guilty". While we aren't entirely sure they are innocent, they are treated as such until there is enough evidence to show that they are actually guilty....This is the default position on any claim.
As SteveII pointed out there are different standards for acceptance - "preponderance of the evidence", "reasonable doubt", and "absolute certainty." And as I have said, different criteria of acceptance are used claims in different domains such as history, mathematics, text interpretation, archaeology, philosophy and physics. The default position for a properly basic belief is acceptance.
Oh, the "properly basic" bullshit again? Sorry, but no. A god claim is a big claim. There's nothing "basic" about it. I'm gonna need this one to go to "court" just like everything else.
It's funny how easily you accepted the court example before. Your claim is special somehow, though, so for some reason you can use your own special reasoning on it.
