(August 4, 2014 at 11:52 am)frasierc Wrote: Thanks for the thoughtful responses.
I think the main point of disagreement between us remains that you still think I have the burden of proof. Your main argument I think is that naturalism is inherently more plausible and therefore the default rational worldview for humanity which ought only to be abandoned with strong evidence for the alternative.
But I don’t think you’ve really shown why that’s the case. To convince someone like me who doesn’t share that assumption you’d have to show why it’s more plausible.
Here's the thing. We have the system in question - ie the Universe and reality - and every time we investigate phenomena in it, 'naturalistic' explanations yield the answer. Every time. Now you are proposing an added layer of mystery to the explanations, without establishing why you should be justified in doing so. That is why you have the burden of proof; you are the one trying to prove the claim. It's not up to us to prove you wrong - we have nothing to prove about your claims. Your claims - your evidence.
Look at it this way. I have a box beside me on the floor. You look inside and it seems empty, apart from the usual air molecules and sundry quantum stuff. Now, I tell you that there is some invisible, intangible animal sitting in it and looking at you. Am I justified to make that claim? Moreover, are you required to prove the animal isn't there? What's the simplest plausible explanation?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'