Monday, April 30, 2012 9:52:33 PM
I tried so hard to fit that comment into the char limit but I feel like I need to clarify that last bit. Of course, in terms or relative argument, specifically in terms of logic, then yes a ridiculous claim is arguably less logical. I was just trying to curb any argument about a spaghetti monster. It's probably better just to say that I personally do not make any claim of any god/gods/unicorns/spaghetti monsters. Only voicing my personal irritation to what I see as a flawed logical requirement for evidence. A battle I`m really starting to regret.
Monday, April 30, 2012 9:41:38 PM
Thought there would be good reason to come back. Well, I can say if you're arguing against the sole claim "God is real", then I am not your man. I do still say that atheism is no more logical than theism but I have come to terms with the fact that people aren`t going to agree with me unless they already do, and that everyone is bringing their own views to the table.
It makes sense (to me, at least) that IF god were real THEN we would not be able to observe his presence so any logical assumptions built from this absence of evidence are flawed. Accepting this if/then statement seems to be the impasse. (Note that Santa and the Tooth Fairy don`t apply as they would be physical beings) I believe this would apply to an intelligent deity, also. If you don`t see it that way well then I can see how it would be entirely logical to assume there is no God given there is no evidence.
PS However ridiculous a claim may seem, its absurdity does not give weight to the logic
Saturday, April 28, 2012 11:02:49 PM
ryanwi: "The author uses the scientific definition of 'burden of proof.` But in a discussion of a philosophic topic, the scientific burden of proof isn`t valid."
I disagree. There isn`t this magic "other set of rules for logic" that applies to philosophy. Burden of proof is a fundamental of logic and it applies the same way in all contexts.
What you are trying to do is shift the burden of proof, which in any logical system lies upon the claimant, by claiming that the context somehow matters.
It does not.
I took four philosophy classes in college (intro, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and as a portion of my AI/Cognitive Science senior seminar) and I`ve never heard anyone claim that that was true, much less make a reasonable defense of such a claim.
In any case, I dispute the context and say that this is an argument of science and logic, not merely philosophy.