03 Oct 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerHave you personally read any Plantinga?
As a starter for this discussion I will include an article by Paul Copan:
http://www.rzim.org/resources/essay_arttext.php?id=3
"The Presumptuousness of Atheism"
Atheist Antony Flew has said that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."1 Unless compelling reasons for God’s existence can be given, there is the "presumption of atheism." Another ...[text shortened]... nd Rationality (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983), 27.
03 Oct 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerI read the first paragraph and was fully convinced that this is mindless drivel. You can make a claim that God exists, but then it is up to YOU to prove that claim - a hard thing to do in the absence of evidence. The author clearly does not understand logic.
As a starter for this discussion I will include an article by Paul Copan:
http://www.rzim.org/resources/essay_arttext.php?id=3
"The Presumptuousness of Atheism"
Atheist Antony Flew has said that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."1 Unless compelling reasons for God’s existence can be given, there is the "presumption of atheism." Another ...[text shortened]... nd Rationality (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983), 27.
03 Oct 06
Originally posted by StarrmanAgreed.
This article makes no distinction between the weak and strong atheist positions. The nature of being unable to prove a hypothesis completely is why we should work from a position of null-hypothesis. Every time we disprove a null hypothesis we get closer to a position of undeniability on a state of truth. We cannot know that any position is completely tru ...[text shortened]... ove. It is not a presumptious view, as this article would have us believe, but a view of doubt.
04 Oct 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadAbsolute knowledge is not required. In fact it is the opposite. To provide concrete evidence that mermaids do not exist, you require absolute knowledge. The weakness of his statements lie in the definitions. If you have not defined santa claus or mermaids then your are talking about all posible meanings of the words. For example by watching my chimney on Christmas eve I could obtain conclusive evidence that an entity called santa claus does not deliver presents to every chimney in the world at that time. It would not proove that he has not done so in the past or that he has not done so in at least one chimney or that he does not exist. In fact I beleive the myth is based on the existance of a real person and thus we could claim that santa claus did exist.
Actually there is no evidence that they do not exist.
Originally posted by dj2becker
I presume you possess absolute knowledge then?
When you improve your definition of something, for example stating that santa claus is a person like entity that lives at the north pole, then visiting the north pole and making a thorough search would provide evidence that he does not exist.
Similarly, evidence for the abscence of 'God' requires absolute knowledge as you must proove the abscence of all posible meanings of the word. (Some people call the universe 'God'😉. However once you make statements such as 'God is omnipotent' and 'God is all benevolent' then it is easy to prove that definition of God does not exist since only one conflicting example is required.
04 Oct 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo, not just because I say so. This statement is actually meaningless "demonstrates that the cosmos has not always been here." Where exactly is the "here" in question? What does he mean by "always"? Here implies a position within the universe, to say the universe is or was not "here" is meaningless. Always implies time. The universe has always existed and always will as time is a property of the universe.
in light of Big Bang cosmology, the expanding universe, and the second law of thermodynamics (which implies that the universe has been "wound up" and will eventually die a heat death) — demonstrates that the cosmos has not always been here.
Originally posted by twhitehead
A false claim.
Originally posted by dj2becker
Just because you say so?
(which implies that the universe has been "wound up" and will eventually die a heat death)
This is not a definite conclusion from Big Bang cosmology or the second law of thermodynamics. In fact the words 'heat death' imply an end which is not the case at all.