Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
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.
|
Google the word "coherentism" and you'll be sure to come up with a few thousand.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
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.
|
It is impossible to prove that sentient nazi trees do not exist. However, nevertheless, it would be completely irrational to either believe in them or even to believe that the claim that they exist is just as strong as the one that they don't exist.
A claim of existence takes the form:
x
A claim of non-existence takes the form:
¬x
Claiming that something doesn't exist (or isn't the case, more broadly speaking), is the very definition of a negative claim. By your definition, there are no negative claims.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
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.[/QUOTE]
I actually googled for examples, as you can see from the fact that I already posted examples of the same structure earlier in this thread. About faeries, if I'm not mistaken. Faeries you say I can't claim say don't exist unless I prove that to be the case, which happens to be logically impossible.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GigoloMason
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.
|
I am actually not arguing strong atheism. The position I am arguing can be summarized as follows:
1. Original position: I believe in nothing.
2. When an existential claim is made about something, if it can be strongly justified, I will believe it.
3. So far, no God has been strongly justified, so I don't believe in one.
This is a coherent, logically consistent position. It excludes Gods, faeries, alien elephants, invisible leprechauns and all things like that until the moment they are shown/justified. It does not exclude their possibility, mind you.
Now, a question to you: do you believe in invisible leprechauns?
If you don't, your argument fails.
If you do, you're an idiot.
If you can't decide, you're also an idiot... because seriously, invisible leprechauns?
It is logically impossible to prove that something does not exist. That feat requires omniscience. That doesn't mean you have to believe everything.