Dear Toni
It were you wot brung in turtles in a big heap . They are used in some way to argue about laws , gaps and puffs. But they don't arrange laws do they , just shuffle about using spacetime . Using a smart phone is not organising the laws . If the world can be a cause parallel with God then so can the moon which arguably needs a moon-person to get things done . Emperor Caligula thought he spoke with the ocean which is sensible.

AJ Phillips.

Once again, it looks like I disagree with all of your counterpoints. Which I assume means you will disagree with my counter points as well. I'll address a few, but then I'll move on. You had mentioned the sermon on the mount, which I'd like to get to.

The burden of proof. In philosophy of logic the burden is placed on the person making a claim. In real life, we are surrounded by claims and counter claims; perspectives and counter perspectives. In order to find out what's true and what isn't each person holds individual responsibility to seek out what holds merit and what sinks in the ocean. If it is important enough to the person then it is up to them to seek out the truth.

You would not expect in real life someone to say "prove it" when another person talks about a good experience and recommends it. More likely you might say "that's nice" if it doesn't interest you, or say "great, I'll look into it" if it does interest you. It's the same way in anything else. In politics during voting season no one should expect someone else to prove their political ideals, taking you by the hand and walking you through the right decision so yo vote for. No the burden to make the right choice and the right vote lands on the voter. If it is important to them, then they hold the burden to seek out what is true and what isn't. So it is with everything else.

(Continued)

(Continued from above)

Second to this (a far second down the line) is that the burden falls on the person making a claim. You and I agree with this part, but still you reserve an escape of burden through being skeptical. (That I disagree with). Making a skeptical claim is still a claim. If you would like to continue that thought, then I encourage you to back up one of your skeptical claims. "There's always a more rational reason then answered prayers." If so then apply those reason to the experiences I gave you before. We can talk about it and I can tell you that one reason fits or explain how it doesn't based on each experience.

[if your position is sound (okay, I’ll add: and you understand it adequately (which should always be the case anyway)), then the risk of being tripped up shouldn’t be a problem.]

I would say that I understand my faith adequately enough. But this is usually not the case for newer Christians. In fact someone who is new to any field of knowledge probably can be easily tripped up, not because they are wrong, but because they are new to it. Additionally tripping people up does not have a good excuse but instead usually hold underhanded tricks to them. A good rule of thumb. If you would not do it to a child, don't do it to anyone else. (If you would try to trip up a child then we disagree on much more then these philosophical views.)

//Emperor Caligula thought he spoke with the ocean which is sensible.//

The wolf cries boy in vain, for the penny-farthing has flown south with the rising of the moon. Hand wash only. Threescore and thrice the shoal circles the elk, forecasting heavy rains of fish over central Prussia. The point is frozen; the Beast is late out of Paddington: the point is taken. Millennium hand and shrimp.

Correct, Not_Now.Soon.

<<In philosophy of logic the burden is placed on the person making a claim.>>

Unfortunately, though, it all goes downhill from here.

<<If it is important enough to the person then it is up to them to seek out the truth.>>

Fair enough. This doesn’t mean that the individual is saddled with a burden of proof, though. If they were, then this would result in an absurd situation where everyone was expected to falsify every claim they came accross. An individual can accept or reject a given claim as they please, but at no point does a burden fall on them to falsify the claim. This isn’t just my opinion, this is a widely accepted philosophical reality.

<<You would not expect in real life someone to say "prove it" when another person talks about a good experience and recommends it.>>

No, you wouldn’t, but that person still bears a burden of proof.

<<In politics during voting season no one should expect someone else to prove their political ideals, taking you by the hand and walking you through the right decision so yo vote for.>>

No, I don’t imagine many would expect that. That person still bears a burden of proof, though.

<<No the burden to make the right choice and the right vote lands on the voter.>>

Yes, but now you’re talking about something entirely different. No-one can expect another to make a choice for them, but if someone wants to tell us that there is a right way to vote, and what that right way is, then that person bears a burden of proof for that claim.

<<Second to this (a far second down the line) is that the burden falls on the person making a claim.>>

No, the person making the claim bears the entire burden of proof until they provide evidence, and your attempts to get around this, by introducing a faux-responsibility to seek the truth (people are free to remain ignorant), fall flat.

Continued…

…Continued

<<… but still you reserve an escape of burden through being skeptical.>>

There is no “escape”. One cannot escape a burden they are not saddled with.

I am sceptical because the claims have not yet met their burden of proof. There is no other motive for my scepticism. The fact that a position of scepticism leaves one with no burden of proof (at least until evidence has been provided) may frustrate you, but that doesn’t change the fact.

You are doing what so many Christians do (including myself when I was a Christian): in the absence of any reliable evidence, you assume that there is this conscious effort among sceptics to just not look at the evidence, or to wriggle out of something. It is as wrong as it is offensive.

<<Making a skeptical claim is still a claim.>>

Correct, but rejecting a claim is not. You’re confusing a position of scepticism with actual claims.

<<… I encourage you to back up one of your skeptical claims. "There's always a more rational reason then answered prayers.">>

I already did by listing other possible explanations. Perhaps you could provide me with a scenario that you do not think has a rational explanation?

<<In fact someone who is new to any field of knowledge probably can be easily tripped up, not because they are wrong, but because they are new to it.>>

Certainly. Like I said, tripping people up is a good way to get them thinking and investigating further. You wrongly assume that there is always an element of deceit.

One good example of tripping someone up is to ask a Christian (who has boldly asserted that his god is omnipotent) if God is so powerful that he can create a rock so big he can’t lift it. This forces them to revise their belief, which is why we now have a ‘maximally powerful’ god; it’s why the Cosmological Argument was revised to become the Kalam Cosmological Argument (which is still flawed, just less so).