Quote:
Originally Posted by Halx
A) If we were simply able to define what is proof and what isn't about ANYTHING, then the whole world would be up in the air. Nothing would ever be certain. I think this argument is the equivalent of a plane dropping flares to ward off missiles. Luckily, there is a dictionary definition for proof.
B) You read that wrong. Think about it. Faith is basically belief in something that isn't apparent. If it were apparent, it wouldn't need faith.
C) In any argument or trial, the plaintiff must present evidence.
D) Going back to the evidence conundrum... who says that something must have a measurable effect to exist? Who says that an effect is evidence of existence?
E) Logical advantage is simply "what is more logical"
|
I never said proof... I said evidence. Until we can agree on what constitutes evidence, then we can never decide if we have proven anything (or disproven it)
Again, for us to have a meaningful discussion, we would have to agree on what is faith. I cannot accept your definition of faith. One can have faith in things that are blatant apparent. Science is a faith, no matter how you want to colour it. I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow because there are basic principles involved that science has articulated, in a testable schemata. But it's still faith.
Granted. But you said the person making the positive claim bears the burden of proof. How does making the positive claim equate to plaintiff?
And what is more logical may well depend on the person's point of view. Going into an arguement, both sides likely think they have the logical advantage.