Friday, October 26, 2012

‎"The central claim in the first argument is that atheism is the default position, and what that means is that, if there is no evidence in support of the existence of God, then it is reasonable to believe that God does not exist.
The essential line of thought which I would hope to develop later on is that if you consider other things like fairies, leprechauns, golden teacups orbiting around Venus,
and so on, I would suggest that we have no evidence against the existence of those sorts of things, but if I asked you whether you were agnostic I think the answer would be 'no.' You would believe there are no fairies, no leprechauns, no golden teacups orbiting around Venus.
That illustrates the general principle in regard to God’s existence that the burden of proof must fall upon the person who is arguing in support of God's existence. If there’s no positive support for it, then the other side wins by default."
Michael Tooley (Professor of Philosophy)
"The central claim in the first argument is that atheism is the default position, and what that means is that, if there is no evidence in support of the existence of God, then it is reasonable to believe that God does not exist.
The essential line of thought which I would hope to develop later on is that if you consider other things like fairies, leprechauns, golden teacups orbiting around Venus, and so on, I would suggest that we have no evidence against the existence of those sorts of things, but if I asked you whether you were agnostic I think the answer would be 'no.' You would believe there are no fairies, no leprechauns, no golden teacups orbiting around Venus.
That illustrates the general principle in regard to God’s existence that the burden of proof must fall upon the person who is arguing in support of God's existence. If there’s no positive support for it, then the other side wins by default."
Michael Tooley (Professor of Philosophy)

No comments:

Post a Comment