Quote:
Quote by: Jack  Using Biblical tales, themselves unsubstantiated, to attempt to substantiate theology is indeed unacceptable evidence of god"s existence. The evidence must first be substantiated, shown to be valid and testable, before it can be introduced as support for the claims of god's existence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If gods exist in reality and affect reality, there ought to be evidence that can be skeptically examined and remain valid.
Nor do we need to except when proposing naturalism as an alternative to theism. Simply asking theists for evidence that supports their contentions does not obligate me to provide evidence that supports my skepticism. In other words, we're discussing what I don't see any reason to accept, not what I do have reason to accept. |
You may either use the same standards you require of theists or not. You haven't substantiated an
a priori commitment to Naturalism at all. If you require it of me, then YOUR presuppositions must also be substantiated.
Carl Sagan rightly gathered that "[e]xtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." However, my point in all this has been that you and Sagan and atheists in general assume (unargued, thus far) that Naturalism is "ordinary," while all other presuppositions (in this case, Christian theism) are "extraordinary."
Asking for evidence for my presuppositions when you have not (and, I contend cannot) provided any for yours is one of the gross double standards of our day. If we're to simply rely on your critique, it's all conjecture. Using the same standards, all I should say is "we're discussing what I don't see any reason to accept, not what I do have reason to accept," and we just take our respective balls (accidentally typed that, but I'm leaving it) and go home.
I'm done with pretended neutrality. The only acceptable and fair debate between theists and atheists is one in which the atheist admits reliance on presupposition, the theist does the same, then debate from there, instead of the rules being skewed at the outset. I'm assume my worldview of Christian theism, you're assuming yours of Naturalism. There is no neutrality. Neutral=starting from nothing=starting with no God=starting with your worldview. If I accept this (as Christian evidentialists seem to want to do), I've lost the debate.
I feel I've left something out. Anyway, I honestly look forward to your (or whosever) response.