'Prove claims' question.

[Purple Rabbit]

To my mind, "I think" denotes opinion and opinion is not a claim as such ... it does, however, depend very much on how it is expressed.

Kyu

I agree, Kyu. Although uttering these words here on a forum is in my opinion an invitation to debate so in that case one can surely ask for reasons behind the thought.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I agree, Kyu. Although uttering these words here on a forum is in my opinion an invitation to debate so in that case one can surely ask for reasons behind the thought.

Yes, something I have realised to my detriment

Kyu

[CoxRox]

LukeMC,

I DO thank all those people, whole heartedly.

[Edwardo Piet]

So to you is thanking God like thanking goodness? All the good in the world? Good people for a start. Why do you need to believe in the supernatural for that?

Evf.

[CoxRox]

So to you is thanking God like thanking goodness? All the good in the world? Good people for a start. Why do you need to believe in the supernatural for that?

Evf.

No, it isn't like that. I have believed in a personal God.

[Edwardo Piet]

Oh. Well of course I'm sure that of course you DO hank all the good people. Perhaps Lukes point is that you were expressing gratitude to God for all the good things and good people in that post. Rather than thanking the good things themselves. And of course the good people. At least your words seemed to be saying that?
Is it just a force of habit?

[LukeMC]

To address the original post, the phrase "I think" is sometimes used out of a lack of confidence. I was going to begin by saying "I think the reason people..." and carry on from there. This is because I was basically gonna make up a suggestion with no real evidence to back it up. "I think" gives me the cover of opinion.

If somebody says "I think there is a God" then you can pose the question "what makes you think this?"
If they present no evidence, dismiss their claim, as it says in Purple Rabbit's sig.
If they do have evidence, dispute it like any other debate. It isn't exactly the same as burden of proof, it's more a case of us asking the thinker to assess their thoughts and back them up. If they cannot do this, their opinion has no ground to stand on. It's just baseless speculation.

[CoxRox]

To address the original post, the phrase "I think" is sometimes used out of a lack of confidence. I was going to begin by saying "I think the reason people..." and carry on from there. This is because I was basically gonna make up a suggestion with no real evidence to back it up. "I think" gives me the cover of opinion.

If somebody says "I think there is a God" then you can pose the question "what makes you think this?"
If they present no evidence, dismiss their claim, as it says in Purple Rabbit's sig.
If they do have evidence, dispute it like any other debate. It isn't exactly the same as burden of proof, it's more a case of us asking the thinker to assess their thoughts and back them up. If they cannot do this, their opinion has no ground to stand on. It's just baseless speculation.

Good points Luke. I would just say that it can be frustrating when you present your 'evidence' or reasons for a certain belief but this is rejected. I'll give an example. I think there is a God because of the inference for design. You guys will not accept that there is any inference. You beleive nature appears to show design, it's how our brains are wired. I would say this could be right, but that 'design' is still a possibility. This may be stretching it a bit, but I liken my detection of 'design' as similar to string theorists detecting strings. They detect 'strings' via tangible proofs, things that infer strings, but still they aren't able to prove the strings really exist.

[leo-rcc]

Sure, but what makes you think I'd accept string theory?

[CoxRox]

Sure, but what makes you think I'd accept string theory?

I'm sure there are many scientists and folk like us who don't accept it, but it's the attitude surrounding it, whether you do or don't accept it. It's respectable for these scientists to believe in something, or should I say, suspect something that borders on science fiction/metaphysical almost, theories, without being able to prove it, or test it. When you apply the same logic to a 'designer' it's suddenly not respectable and you're left to feel like you're foolish to even consider such a silly concept.