I have a question about the burden of proof and I think it fits more or less in this thread:
Do agnostic theists have to prove anything? - Basically, an agnostic theist believes there is one or more gods, but she/he doesn't claim to know if there are any gods, and doesn't affirm with certainty that god can exist - He/she simply is more inclined to believe in god while remaining without knowledge to confirm whether or not the deity exists. Since the rule of the burden of proof is that the individual making the positive claim needs to provide evidence - Does this apply to agnostic theists? - Considering that there is no claim, just a belief. If so, how is demanding proof from someone who makes no claim a rational request?
Do agnostic theists have to prove anything? - Basically, an agnostic theist believes there is one or more gods, but she/he doesn't claim to know if there are any gods, and doesn't affirm with certainty that god can exist - He/she simply is more inclined to believe in god while remaining without knowledge to confirm whether or not the deity exists. Since the rule of the burden of proof is that the individual making the positive claim needs to provide evidence - Does this apply to agnostic theists? - Considering that there is no claim, just a belief. If so, how is demanding proof from someone who makes no claim a rational request?
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you
