Extra Dimensions

[Minimalist]

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.

How odd. I look at that and conclude that Plantinga was a fucking idiot who does not understand the concept of "burden of proof." That seems to be a common failing with you lot.

[Angrboda]

Ideas generated purely in dreams or imagination that didn't pan out tend to outnumber those that did by about infinity to one. Without something constraining the search, blind searching based on dreams or imagination is pointless .... If someone with no prior experience of music suddenly could compose symphonies after a blow to the head, then you would have some interesting questions; however, I suspect that even then, the answer would lie in the person's prior experiences [and evolved traits] rather than sheer imagination...

I like the cut of you jib madam...this guy though has given the mathematics world some problems as he gets surprisingly good results but his explanation for his success...wel let the man talk..

Ramanujan has been described as a person with a somewhat shy and quiet disposition, a dignified man with pleasant manners.[80] He lived a rather Spartan life while at Cambridge. Ramanujan's first Indian biographers describe him as rigorously orthodox. Ramanujan credited his acumen to his family Goddess, Namagiri of Namakkal. He looked to her for inspiration in his work,[81] and claimed to dream of blood drops that symbolised her male consort, Narasimha, after which he would receive visions of scrolls of complex mathematical content unfolding before his eyes.[82] He often said, "An equation for me has no meaning, unless it represents a thought of God."[83][84]

---

Ramanujan was shown how to solve cubic equations in 1902 and he went on to find his own method to solve the quartic. The following year, not knowing that the quintic could not be solved by radicals, he tried (and of course failed) to solve the quintic. In 1903 when he was 16, Ramanujan obtained from a friend a library-loaned copy of a book by G. S. Carr. The book was titled A Synopsis of Elementary Results in Pure and Applied Mathematics and was a collection of 5000 theorems. Ramanujan reportedly studied the contents of the book in detail. The book is generally acknowledged as a key element in awakening the genius of Ramanujan.

(Moreover, mathematical truth may be an empirical part of our mental reality, making it possible to discover mathematical truth a priori without any non-natural and exceptional process, similar perhaps to a synesthesia in which the Platonic realm of pure math is introspectively accessible. [I've written on the subject here at AF.])

[pocaracas]

"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

This Platinga guy seems a bit daft.
Reminds me of a "scientist" that caught a fly with a cup.
He would then bang on the cup with a spoon and see the fly move about like crazy.
He then decided to pluck out the fly's legs. Banged again and noticed the fly would jump much less.
He then plucked out its wings. Banged again and the fly couldn't jump around.
He then concluded that flies with no legs nor wings are deaf.

[Aractus]

In physics, it seems obvious to me that time is a kind of dimension, although it also seems obvious that it is not a spacial one.

Indeed - "seems obvious" which mean's "intuitive". The great thing about physics is that it's often counter-intuitive. Linear time is also "intuitive" although it's wrong. It's intuitive because under ordinary circumstances we don't observe/appreciate time dilation. It may be a non-spatial dimension, or it may not be a dimension at all, that's what physicists are now working on working out, lol.

[Tiberius]

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.

What utter crap. The burden of proof has nothing to do with claims being "extraordinary". Nothing at all. Rather, the burden of proof states that those making a positive claim have to support it, rather than demand anyone questioning the claim to prove the inverse.

In terms of theism, this means that anyone who makes the claim "God exists" must show their proof; they cannot simply say "prove that God doesn't exist", as it does nothing to demonstrate the validity of their claim (being incapable of proving something doesn't exist, does not necessarily mean it exists).

[Mark 13:13]

I like the cut of you jib madam...this guy though has given the mathematics world some problems as he gets surprisingly good results but his explanation for his success...wel let the man talk..

---

Ramanujan was shown how to solve cubic equations in 1902 and he went on to find his own method to solve the quartic. The following year, not knowing that the quintic could not be solved by radicals, he tried (and of course failed) to solve the quintic. In 1903 when he was 16, Ramanujan obtained from a friend a library-loaned copy of a book by G. S. Carr. The book was titled A Synopsis of Elementary Results in Pure and Applied Mathematics and was a collection of 5000 theorems. Ramanujan reportedly studied the contents of the book in detail. The book is generally acknowledged as a key element in awakening the genius of Ramanujan.

(Moreover, mathematical truth may be an empirical part of our mental reality, making it possible to discover mathematical truth a priori without any non-natural and exceptional process, similar perhaps to a synesthesia in which the Platonic realm of pure math is introspectively accessible. [I've written on the subject here at AF.])

Tbh I believe most of the thinking and reasoning actually takes place in the subconscious but in a way the conscious hasn't direct access to ; then the results of the deliberations are transferred back to the conscious so in this mans case it uses dreams on occasion. But of course how the subconscious works and even if it works independantly ( as opposed to the idea of access to a greater supraconsciousness ) is an interesting area.

[Mister Agenda]

In terms of theism, this means that anyone who makes the claim "God exists" must show their proof; they cannot simply say "prove that God doesn't exist", as it does nothing to demonstrate the validity of their claim (being incapable of proving something doesn't exist, does not necessarily mean it exists).

And not only that, it doesn't even slightly improve the odds that the proposed thing might exist. Only positive evidence can do that, granting that the proposed entity isn't self-contradictory in the first place and thus can't possibly exist. The burden of proof isn't arbitrary, the inability to prove that something doesn't exist is irrelevant to the proposition that it exists.

[Mark 13:13]

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.

[Minimalist]

Science exists. Superstition does not.

Hence why we insist that you demonstrate the fact of your position.

[Tiberius]

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.