Quote:
You are, once again, following the foundationalist mindset. Which is one neither I nor most other philosophers today adhere to. Most contemporary philosophers reject the very concept of a "foundation" (= fundament), therefore your question is nonsensical.
The very question is a nonsensical one, since contemporary philosophy has largely abandoned the concept of "foundations".
|
I asked you to give me an example of one philosopher who has competly rejected any sort of foundation. Once again you avoided doing so.
Quote:
|
Wrong. His entire aim is to start without any assumptions, and then to build a philosophy from the logically undeniable. The logically undeniable isn't an "unfounded assumption".
|
Where did I say anything about his assumption being unfounded?
Quote:
|
The burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim. It is logically impossible to prove a negative claim, therefore it is unreasonable (and a commonly recognized logical fallacy) to insist on proof of negative claims.
|
Notice that saying something is false is also a positive truth claim: you are claiming that the assertion ?X is false? is a true statement (i.e., you positively disbelieve X). For example, the claim ?leprechauns do exist? is just as positive a claim as is ?leprechauns do not exist.? Each is a claim to truth, and the burden of proof properly lies with the person making either claim.
Any truth claim is be a positive claim.
Maybe while you were 'googleing' proof for your statement (which I might add you tasteless copy pasted w\o sourcing) you should have read from a more credible source.
Saying there is no God is a positive claim, therefore the burden of proof is on you to support it. For christs sake the opinion you're argueing if often called 'positive atheism' for that very reason.