"Gnostic" and "atheist" -- if you're using the terms as they normally are used -- aren't going to go together. Gnostics did/do believe there is a divine. What makes them gnostics is the focus on developing gnosis, "knowledge," of God
Critical Thinking, Logic, and Argumentation i didnt know that thanks! but still what if someone makes the claim that god is not real 100% would the burden of proof be on him to disprove god 100%? or since the fact that everything we know about the universe is made by natural processes then it would be reasonable conclusion that god does not exist & the burden of proof wont be on him?
0cards0 Well, we don't actually know as a "fact" that everything in the universe is made by purely natural processes -- that's already involving a whole network of assumptions. But let's say that was actually the case -- that we knew that to be the case. Then, the next question you'd need to ask is what would actually count as proof that God exists or proof that God doesn't exist. Is that "proof" going to be something that lies wholly within the domain of "nature", however one understands that? Or will it involve anything transcending the purely natural (again, assuming any "purely natural" really exists. If it's the first, then the burden of proof would fall entirely on the theist. If the second, perhaps not. From where I sit, if someone wants to say about God that God exists OR that God doesn't exist, AND we're in a discourse like Philosophy (rather than Theology, which can start from different starting points), the burden of proof is on that person.
Critical Thinking, Logic, and Argumentation thanks for your help!! but it sounds like your saying that if i make the claim that unicorns do not exist then the burden of proof will be on me? i dont think we should & can prove that unicorns do not exist to make the conclusion that unicorns do not exist a valid conclusion, what i mean is that the claim that god does not exist is a valid claim that is supported by our corrent knowledge so the burden of proof should be on the one who goes against this knowledge. thanks for help!!!
0cards0 Unicorns and God are not within the same order of being as far as this is concerned. If you'd like a longer conversation about this, I'd suggest scheduling some Google Helpout sessions. Here are my listings: helpouts.google.com/115610514266074572098 I'll be resuming them next week
Now that Stoic week is done, I'm back to producing and posting these fallacy videos. . .
@@hankjavion7657 Yes - your mom showed it to me. So long spammer!
Awesome!
great video and comments ty , gave u a like
Thanks!
God I love your channel.
if an gnostic atheist makes the claim that god is not real 100% would the burden of proof be on him to disprove god 100%?
"Gnostic" and "atheist" -- if you're using the terms as they normally are used -- aren't going to go together. Gnostics did/do believe there is a divine. What makes them gnostics is the focus on developing gnosis, "knowledge," of God
Critical Thinking, Logic, and Argumentation i didnt know that thanks! but still what if someone makes the claim that god is not real 100% would the burden of proof be on him to disprove god 100%? or since the fact that everything we know about the universe is made by natural processes then it would be reasonable conclusion that god does not exist & the burden of proof wont be on him?
0cards0 Well, we don't actually know as a "fact" that everything in the universe is made by purely natural processes -- that's already involving a whole network of assumptions.
But let's say that was actually the case -- that we knew that to be the case. Then, the next question you'd need to ask is what would actually count as proof that God exists or proof that God doesn't exist. Is that "proof" going to be something that lies wholly within the domain of "nature", however one understands that? Or will it involve anything transcending the purely natural (again, assuming any "purely natural" really exists. If it's the first, then the burden of proof would fall entirely on the theist. If the second, perhaps not.
From where I sit, if someone wants to say about God that God exists OR that God doesn't exist, AND we're in a discourse like Philosophy (rather than Theology, which can start from different starting points), the burden of proof is on that person.
Critical Thinking, Logic, and Argumentation thanks for your help!! but it sounds like your saying that if i make the claim that unicorns do not exist then the burden of proof will be on me? i dont think we should & can prove that unicorns do not exist to make the conclusion that unicorns do not exist a valid conclusion, what i mean is that the claim that god does not exist is a valid claim that is supported by our corrent knowledge so the burden of proof should be on the one who goes against this knowledge. thanks for help!!!
0cards0
Unicorns and God are not within the same order of being as far as this is concerned. If you'd like a longer conversation about this, I'd suggest scheduling some Google Helpout sessions. Here are my listings: helpouts.google.com/115610514266074572098 I'll be resuming them next week