(January 2, 2013 at 8:38 pm)Stimbo Wrote:(January 2, 2013 at 5:15 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Ah. Burden of proof is not a red herring. Tell us how many dimensions there really are, and if it's more than three or four, you'll see burden of proof back in a heartbeat.
Indeed. The burden of proof and who has it is only a problem to someone who has no proof and knows it. It's not some optional extra to be declined or accepted according to taste; it's a fundamentally intrinsic component to presenting a claim. Anyone who doesn't think that's fair had better take the matter up with the god they probably think wrote these kinds of laws of rationality in the first place.
you already know my position on burden of proof but as you like the topic I thought you might like this snippet i seen today..
"Alvin Plantinga once debated an atheist who commenced the debate, along the same lines as our friend above, by claiming that Plantinga bore the burden of proof of theism. Plantinga simply responded with, "No I don't." The atheist responded, "Yes you do," to which Plantinga again responded, "No I don't." After a while it became apparent that Plantinga's point was that atheism has no way of justifying its claim that theism bear the burden of proof - at least, it has no way of justifying it while staying within its philosophical framework. That an atheist considers the claims of a theist to be extraordinary is irrelevant. They are assuming a benchmark which they have no way of proving as valid."
http://newcovenant.blogspot.co.uk/2004/0...proof.html
I haven't the type of background to discuss the fine points of philosophy but I won't be filibustered out of giving my opinion by something my street sense tells me is just smoke and mirrors. [/i]
