(January 3, 2013 at 3:42 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I think Alvin Plantinga is very simple but subtle at the same time and if we don't take the point then any discussion on philosophy can't get beyond the you need to prove it.. NO YOU NEED TO PROVE IT...NOOOO YOUUUU NEEEEED TOO PROOOOVE ITTT.. and so on . If you are talking about science then I can understand the hang up.No, Plantinga was the only one in that debate being simple...simple minded that is. He is well aware that the burden of proof is his; indeed, he has created a proof for God's existence himself. He would also be aware that you cannot prove the non-existence of something unless you are omniscient, so the burden of proof cannot possibly be on the side of the atheist (assuming the atheist is merely stating a rejection of theism, and not making the claim "there is no god").
So the only reason he would reject the burden of proof at the start of the debate would be for very childish reasons, to try and annoy his opponent. If he accepted the burden of proof as he should, he could have responded with any number of "proofs" for God's existence, and the debate would have then gone on to arguments dismantling his proofs. What he did does not paint him in a very good light in the debate; rejecting the burden of proof when it is so clearly on your side will only make you look bad.
