(October 12, 2009 at 9:50 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: As far as Burden of Proof goes, when you make a positive claim you have the burden of proof. It can be tricky to figure out which claims are "positive". Hopefully I can make that clear to you.
So if you claim there is a god, you have the positive claim and if I reject that claim I make a negative claim, therefore I don't have to prove my position, you do. If I claim there are no god(s), then I am making a positive claim, and if you reject that claim, that doesn't necessarily mean you believe in Jesus de facto. It just means you reject the claim that there are no gods. So in essence, when you posit something, you then have the burden of proof, and the one rejecting your claim does not unless they posit something of their own. Does that clear up the issue for you?
It does and it makes sense to me. Thank you. Within what you said, it seems to me, then, that the wording of what one says also makes a big difference. For example compare:
Possible statements from a Christian: "I believe in God. " with "There is a God."
Possible statements from an atheist: "I do not belive in gods." with "There are no gods."
The first statement in each set invokes no burden of proof since they are essentially self-verifying, i.e., they are only stating what one believes and nobody could/should reasonably conclude otherwise (with the possible exception of when the hearer has evidence that the sayer is a habitual lier). The second statement in each set is positively saying something that is beyond what the sayer believes and, therefore, invokes the initial burden of proof. Am I correct here?
(October 12, 2009 at 9:50 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: As far as what an atheist is, I back what Adrian said.
Thank you and Adrian for clarifying this. As I said in my introductory thread, I do not have much contact with atheist. Consequently, I assumed something I should not have. Hopefully, I will keep this in mind for the future so I do not make the same mistake.
(October 12, 2009 at 9:50 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: As far as the Urey Miller experiment, theVoid nailed it.
It is always interesting to me how people can look at the same things an come to polar opposite conclusions. I think I am coming to the conclusion that this results from the presuppositions we have. For example, I believe in God. One of the reasons why is that I look around and see the complexity of life and I conclude that it could not haved just "happened" and, therefore, God did it. This is a simplification of why I still believe in God but it is quite accurate in describing how I first came to believe in God many years ago. Anyway, because of this belief (my presuppositions) I conclude that the scientific evidence provided by Miller as well as the evidence of "self-replicating" RNA does not provide sufficient proof of abiogenesis (at least for me). To me the actions of "self-replicating" RNA is more analogous to the actions of seed crystals in replicating their crystal structure in the process of crystal formation rather than the kind of "self-replication" that occurs in living things. Furthermore, even if someone did produce life in the laboratory, I would (as you suggested in a previous post) argue that such evidence is not conclusive that that is how life began because there are still other possibilities (creation) or alternatively, that this is evidence of creation because it took many scientists many years with a lot of creative intellect to be able to do it. So now I am trying to understand how atheist's presuppositions would result in their conclusions regarding the evidence if, in fact, they do. In looking into this I ran across the following: Secular Humanism which says in part
Quote:God is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena, such as the origin of the universe, the design of the universe, and the origin of living things. Modern science, however, can explain all of these phenomena without postulating the existence of God.1 In the words of Laplace, science has no need of that hypothesis.2 By demonstrating that God is not needed to explain anything, science has proven that there is no more reason to believe in the existence of God than to believe in the existence of phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, or Vulcan. This may explain why more than 90% of the world's top scientists disbelieve or doubt the existence of God
Now I can certainly see that if one is an atheist (does not believe in gods) and uses this as reasoning for that belief (a possible atheistic presupposition) how he/she would tend to look at this kind of evidence and conclude that it is sufficient evidence to conclude that a god is not necessary. So in an attempt to try to understand your thinking on this, I was wondering if you would tell me whether you agree with the quote or, if not, what your presuppositions are (presupposing you have them
). This would go a long way in helping me to understand your perspective which is what I want to do. (I am not here to argue or try to convince anyone to change their minds because I don't think I could; nor do I think anything anyone says here will change my mind. I do, however, think it is helpful to understand the position of those who do not think like me. So that is the basis for my request.)
