If we lack good evidence for something, then we can’t know that it’s true.
So, if we lack good evidence that theism is true, then we can’t know that theism is true. (from 1, an instance of 1)
If we can’t know that theism is true without evidence, then the burden of proof is on theism.
Therefore, the burden of proof is on theism (2&3 MP) — Jonah Wong
My objection is to premise one of Flew’s argument. My counterexample would be faith. In Christian tradition, faith is a necessary component to the belief in God. — Jonah Wong
“Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1). — Jonah Wong
My objection is to premise one of Flew’s argument. My counterexample would be faith. In Christian tradition, faith is a necessary component to the belief in God. Thus, one cannot rely on “good evidence for something, to know that it is true.” In fact, if there had been indisputable evidence for the existence of God, faith would not be necessary — Jonah Wong
Unless you want to argue that atheism doesn't qualify as "something"... — ZzzoneiroCosm
Flew put his faith in his own powers of argumentation, and they proved somewhat treacherous in the end. — unenlightened
The word "atheism" can be substituted for the word "theism". — ZzzoneiroCosm
Does absence of belief entail a burden of proof? — Down The Rabbit Hole
Atheism is sometimes the absence, sometimes the rejection, of a belief. I mean the rejection. — ZzzoneiroCosm
So I mean atheism as a positive claim. — ZzzoneiroCosm
The purpose of my objection is not to say who the burden of proof ought to be on, but instead to attempt to disprove the argument made by Flew that the burden of proof ought to be on the theist. — Jonah Wong
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.