david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (03/31/84)
In reply to Chris Minson, I feel a little silly responding to the jelly donut type of argument. More, that this is a "tasteful" reply (what an awful pun, Chris!) Nevertheless. > #3 (the believer) actively agrees with the assertion. #1 actively > disagrees, but offers no similar assertion in its place (e.g. there may > not be a donut out there, but Ill bet you there is a Hostess twinkie). > That is, he is not making or postulating anything - he is just disagreeing. > This, it seems to me, does not require a great "leap of faith". Doesn't it? To state that you *know* something, when it is impossible to know? But perhaps your use of the word "great" requires qualification. If there is an understanding that a leap of faith is required for the Atheist, then I think I have proven my point. How large this leap is is dependent on the amount of evidence FOR Theism. If an individual is purely rational, and wants to make that leap of faith, then the direction will be determined by the amount of evidence. Chris asks a legitimate question of me, being an agnostic. The first question that should be asked is how much evidence is enough? Beyond a reasonable doubt? A preponderence of the evidence? I personally believe that the argument from design falls somewhere between these two (based on my requirements for evidence). And I'll be more than willing to share my ideas, to those who honestly want to hear them. > Further, the burden of proof should always lie with the individual > making the postive assertion, rather than the one who does not make that > assertion in the first place. Thus, in science, the burden of proof > lies with those advancing the hypothesis, as opposed to those criticising > the hypothesis. The scientific hypothesis cannot be extended that far. Both the A- and the Ag- may complain about the hypothesis, but the Ag- should be prepared to ask for proof from the A- why the hypothesis is false. I might hypothesize that life exists on other planets. No evidence (ok, very limited evidence) can be produced to prove or disprove this hypothesis. The agnostic shouldn't take sides; the jury is still out. If the proponent wishes to offer some evidence, old or new, the agnostic can hear him out. But if the evidence isn't enough, the agnostic will have to remain in his original position. Since Chris has stated that he is an agnostic, I acknowledge his point. I hope that he and other agnostics understand their position fully. To side with the Atheists would be biased. State that it is impossible to know whether God exists, and then state that you doubt that He does, and you have let the cat out of the bag, so to speak. You have undermined your own position by allowing prejudice into your argument. -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david