Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punkworld
A claim of existence takes the form:
x
A claim of non-existence takes the form:
¬x
|
The problem with the format you have described is it's purely semantic.
I could say a creatorless universe does not exist. By your definition that's a negative claim as well. My point is simply if that's the format you chose to use it's very easy to flip the burden of proof depending on how you word the statement.
You are straight.
You are not gay.
The word 'not' is pure semantics, simply depending on how you phrase the statement.
My point from the begining is that neither side of this debate can win if the burden of proof is on their shoulders. You cannot prove a God exists any more then you can prove a God does not exist, which means the 'winner' of the debate is completly dependant on the fundamental assumption that you start with.
When you use examples like pixies there's observable evidence to form an opinion with. When you get to questions of creation there is nothing we can observe or reason out that really gives us any starting point to work with, therein being the oberative differance.
Quote:
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.
|
This is where we seem to have a contention. In my opinion when you say you 'believe in nothing' that does not make a claim about God either way. Truly believing in nothing is making no claim about our origin either way.
When you say "I believe in nothing" you're really making the existential claim that there is no god. Saying there is no God is just as existential of a claim as saying there is a God, as both require you to make (unfounded) fundamental assumptions about the creation of the universe.
Quote:
|
3. So far, no God has been strongly justified, so I don't believe in one.
|
No theory of origin has been strongly justified.
Quote:
|
This is a coherent, logically consistent position.
|
Yes, but it requires you to start by assuming there is no God.
Quote:
|
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.
|
There are logically consistant opinions starting with the assumption that God exists too, the only difference is that they are based on a different starting point.
Quote:
Now, a question to you: do you believe in invisible leprechauns?
If you don't, your argument fails.
|
If you started with a different assumption about origin then a creatorless universe becomes the 'invisible leprechaun' in your analogy.