The burden of proof is on believers to prove God exists (according to atheist philosphers)

[Bradski]

Brad, your analogy doesn’t work.
So there is no sheesh of amazement here. Wake up.

You take words and ideas in fundamentalist ways…insisting they fit literalist meanings, rigidly conforming to unicorn equations. It doesn’t work.

If I have the option of taking the plunge for meaning, being, purpose, identity, love, peace, joy, why wouldn’t I take the plunge? Why wouldn’t you? Only a fool would sit with his arms folded.
You don’t believe those things are available. Fine. But your attempt to equate the whole thing with the unicorns is silly, just like the mashed turnip thing.

So your position, in the vernacular, is:

Wow, check out what you get if you believe in God. I’m in!

 

[Cheiron]

Do you have an alternative explanation of the existence of rational beings?

I think it’s because intelligence turned out to be a beneficial trait in the evolutionary process. But that’s all I can say about it, because evolution is a banned topic.

 

[rossum]

Almost all of the world religions are united in the belief that there is one Creator.

And, as a Christian, you believe that all those religions (except perhaps two) are wrong in their beliefs.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Do you have an alternative explanation of the existence of rational beings?

God is not, and cannot be an explanation for the existence of rational beings. God is rational, and God is an existing being. Hence God is Himself a rational being. What is your explanation for the origin of God? God cannot explain His own origin – He is not self-created – so there must be some other explanation for the origin of rational beings.

Is God irrational? Is God inexistent? If the answers to both those questions are ‘no’, then God fails as an explanation for the existence of rational beings.

In general God cannot explain the origin of any set of which He is a member.

rossum

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

This is an article from Psychology Today written by Dr. David Kyle Johnson

psychologytoday.com/blog/logical-take/201402/why-62-philosophers-are-atheists-part-i

It is basically saying “Since theists demand the Big Bang needs an explanation, God would need an explanation as well. Saying he doesn’t need one is a double standard. Since he can’t be explained, there is no evidence that He exists, thus there is not logical reason to believe”

What is the rebuttal?

Not a rebuttal, but an observation. There is this hodgepodge attack against both the existence in God and the belief in God’s existence that is very unconvincing to me. It goes after the question of God’s existence from all different angels and the argument usually includes terms borrowed from all kinds of subjects. “Burden of proof” and “evidence” are terms usually in juridical proceedings. Reason & logic generally are used in philosophy, alien races from science-fiction, Bigfoot from the para-normal, the Big Bang from science. While that approach may be totally convincing to many people, that method doesn’t mean anything for me.

 

[inocente]

I leave you with Pascal’s words:

“Thus I stretch out my arms to my Saviour, who, after being foretold for four thousand years, came on earth to die and suffer for me at the time and in the circumstances foretold. By his grace I peaceably await death, in the hope of being eternally united to him, and meanwhile I live joyfully, whether in the blessings which he is pleased to bestow on me or in the affliction he sends me for my own good and taught me how to endure by his example.”

No need to fall out, and saying you leave us and then quoting a guy brooding on death seems a bit melodramatic.

Do you have an alternative explanation of the existence of rational beings?

Claiming that something is true unless someone can come up with an alternative explanation is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to ignorance.

Leaving aside that there is an alternative explanation, if you’re claiming you have a proof for God’s existence then you part company with most Christians including Pascal, who freely admits that his faith is foolishness, echoing 1 Cor 1.

This could be why he invented his wager, which is credited as the origin of decision theory. He would not need his wager if he could prove that his belief is rational, but since he can’t he instead wants to prove that his choice to believe is rational.

 

[inocente]

Not a rebuttal, but an observation. There is this hodgepodge attack against both the existence in God and the belief in God’s existence that is very unconvincing to me. It goes after the question of God’s existence from all different angels and the argument usually includes terms borrowed from all kinds of subjects. “Burden of proof” and “evidence” are terms usually in juridical proceedings. Reason & logic generally are used in philosophy, alien races from science-fiction, Bigfoot from the para-normal, the Big Bang from science. While that approach may be totally convincing to many people, that method doesn’t mean anything for me.

You may not realize that “burden of proof” is also a philosophical term. “Evidence” is used in all disciplines and some claim “bigfoot” is real, not fiction.

But I’d say the language doesn’t matter, the quote in the OP is simply saying that people with no proof for their own position cannot complain when opponents have no proof for theirs either. Seems uncontroversial - people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

 

[tonyrey]

God is not, and cannot be an explanation for the existence of rational beings. God is rational, and God is an existing being. Hence God is Himself a rational being. What is your explanation for the origin of God? God cannot explain His own origin – He is not self-created – so there must be some other explanation for the origin of rational beings.

Is God irrational? Is God inexistent? If the answers to both those questions are ‘no’, then God fails as an explanation for the existence of rational beings.

In general God cannot explain the origin of any set of which He is a member.

rossum

God is the Creator - not a member of any set or human category - and transcends everything else. The Jews had the unique insight that He is the Necessary Being, “He Who Is”, which implies that all descriptions are analogical. He is omniscient and omnipotent because without His ontological support nothing would exist. There is no other adequate explanation of our personhood, creativity, power of reason, self-control, moral discernment and capacity for unselfish love:

“What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world. The paragon of animals…” - Hamlet

 

[rossum]

God is the Creator - not a member of any set or human category - and transcends everything else.

So, if I make a set, which must be a human set, of “things that exist”, then God is outside that set and hence God does not exist.

The Bible uses words to describe God. Every word is a member of a human set, since humans define what those words mean, therefore the Bible is not a description of God and cannot be relied on because, according to you, every word in the Bible does not apply to God.

You have just destroyed all possibility of humans knowing, understanding or even describing God.

The Jews had the unique insight that He is the Necessary Being, “He Who Is”

So, the Jews place God in the human set of “necessary beings”. They were obviously wrong because God is not in any human set.

Do you see the blind alley you have trapped yourself in? You need to examine this more carefully.

I hope the hole in your foot heals soon.

rossum

 

[levinas12]

The burden is on those assert that God exists … Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas would agree …
this doesn’t mean that atheists cannot join the conversation … and once that happens they too are subject to the “demands” of reason … .

 

[tonyrey]

God is the Creator - not a member of any set or human category - and transcends everything else.

So, if I make a set, which must be a human set, of “things that exist”, then God is outside that set and hence God does not exist. The Bible uses words to describe God. Every word is a member of a human set, since humans define what those words mean, therefore the Bible is not a description of God and cannot be relied on because, according to you, every word in the Bible does not apply to God.

You have just destroyed all possibility of humans knowing, understanding or even describing God.
God certainly doesn’t exist in any human sets because He transcends our understanding. All our descriptions of the Creator are analogical. In Rudolf Otto’s words we are confronted with the “mysterium tremendum et fascinans”.

The Jews had the unique insight that He is the Necessary Being, “He Who Is”

So, the Jews place God in the human set of “necessary beings”. They were obviously wrong because God is not in any human set.

Do you see the blind alley you have trapped yourself in? You need to examine this more carefully.Not to be in a human set is an asset not a defect! Any interpretation of reality which is based on blind alleys like Buddhism is obviously anthropomorphic because it is based on a long term purpose within our existence through wisdom and true understanding without explaining the** origin **of that purpose.

I hope the hole in your foot heals soon.

I hope the chasm in your interpretation of reality is filled with divine love as well as human compassion…

 

[rossum]

God certainly doesn’t exist in any human sets because He transcends our understanding.

Then, since you are human, everything you say about God is essentially wrong because “He transcends our understanding”. Similarly for all the words in the Bible and all the words written by the Catholic Church. Those are merely human words, referring to human sets and so are also wrong because “He transcends our understanding”.

You have just destroyed Christianity (and possibly Judaism as well). Congratulations.

All our descriptions of the Creator are analogical.

No. God is not a member of the human set “things that can be described analogically”.

Your initial argument is a universal solvent, and it will destroy any argument made with words.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

I leave you with Pascal’s words:

If you suffered from ill health like Pascal who died at the age of 39 with stomach cancer, a diseased liver and brain lesions you wouldn’t find it so amusing or be so cynical about his faith…

Do you have an alternative explanation of the existence of rational beings?

Claiming that something is true unless someone can come up with an alternative explanation is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to ignorance.

Leaving aside that there is an alternative explanation, if you’re claiming you have a proof for God’s existence then you part company with most Christians including Pascal, who freely admits that his faith is foolishness, echoing 1 Cor 1.

This could be why he invented his wager, which is credited as the origin of decision theory. He would not need his wager if he could prove that his belief is rational, but since he can’t he instead wants to prove that his choice to believe is rational.

Most Christians like Pascal believe there is evidence for God’s existence, notably in the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus who fulfilled the prophecies and redeemed us. St Paul is referring to the folly of the Cross not of belief in God:

But by Him you are in Christ Jesus, Who became wisdom to us from God— both righteousness and holiness, and redemption

1 Cor 1:30

Pascal wrote the unfinished Pensees in order to give reasons for believing in the Christian God. Section 12 is entitled “Proofs of Jesus Christ”…

 

[tonyrey]

God certainly doesn’t exist in any human sets because He transcends our understanding.

Then, since you are human, everything you say about God is essentially wrong because “He transcends our understanding”. Similarly for all the words in the Bible and all the words written by the Catholic Church. Those are merely human words, referring to human sets and so are also wrong because “He transcends our understanding”.

You have just destroyed Christianity (and possibly Judaism as well). Congratulations.
Non sequitur. An analogy is a comparison not a total rejection. It is based on the principle of adequate explanation - that the Creator cannot be inferior to His creatures who have the power of reason, self-control, moral discernment and capacity for unselfish love. Otherwise the effect would be greater than the cause!

Buddhism is based on the analogy that life after death will be similar in some respects to this life because we shall be the same persons whose destiny is affected by the way we live on earth but it doesn’t explain the origin of the entire process for which the most economical and comprehensive explanation is one Supreme Being…

 

[rossum]

Non sequitur. An analogy is a comparison not a total rejection.

You said that God is not a member of any human set. I, a human, can define a human set: “The set of things that can correctly be described by analogy.” By your own words:

God certainly doesn’t exist in any human sets because He transcends our understanding.

We can see that you are denying that God can be correctly described by analogy.

You need to think more carefully about what you said. What you have is a complete blanket denial of any properties or analogies about God. I can define two sets:

• The set of things with property X.
• The set of things analogous to X.

Between those two human sets, any property or analogy X can be shown not to apply to God.

Your careless statement gave away the ranch because “human sets” have such a wide range of possible descriptions. You are saying that God is not a member of the set of things that are correctly described in the Bible. Careless of you.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Non sequitur. An analogy is a comparison not a total rejection. It is based on the principle of adequate explanation - that the Creator cannot be inferior to His creatures who have the power of reason, self-control, moral discernment and capacity for unselfish love. Otherwise the effect would be greater than the cause!

“Careless of you” = Ad hominem.

Playing with words doesn’t alter the fact that ideologies like Buddhism refer to a spiritual realm that no one in this world has experienced:

Buddhists believe that life is both endless and subject to impermanence, suffering and uncertainty. These states are called the tilakhana, or the three signs of existence. Existence is endless because individuals are reincarnated over and over again, experiencing suffering throughout many lives.

bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/ataglance/glance.shtml

How would you define your knowledge of the Buddhist ideology? Scientific? Empirical?

 

[tonyrey]

The burden of proof is on everyone to prove his or her interpretation of reality is true. All human ideologies are in the same boat! When we are born we know nothing…

NB It doesn’t follow that all interpretations of reality are equally cogent and fertile.

 

[inocente]

If you suffered from ill health like Pascal who died at the age of 39 with stomach cancer, a diseased liver and brain lesions you wouldn’t find it so amusing or be so cynical about his faith…

I said you were being melodramatic.

Most Christians like Pascal believe there is evidence for God’s existence, notably in the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus who fulfilled the prophecies and redeemed us. St Paul is referring to the folly of the Cross not of belief in God:

But Pascal is referring to belief: “Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for their belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason? They declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a foolishness…” - Pensées 3

Pascal wrote the unfinished Pensees in order to give reasons for believing in the Christian God. Section 12 is entitled “Proofs of Jesus Christ”…

Not germane, the discussion is about the logic of his wager in section 3.

In any case, in section 12 he says “The Church has had as much difficulty in showing that Jesus Christ was man, against those who denied it, as in showing that He was God; and the probabilities were equally great”. The section title is after all not Proofs of God, which he already ruled out earlier saying things such as “We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is”.

Imho we show respect for authors by reading what they wrote.

God certainly doesn’t exist in any human sets because He transcends our understanding.

Transcend doesn’t mean we can’t understand anything at all. Even though Pascal says “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible”, he goes on to say we do know through faith. And Anselm claims that the concept of God, as that which no greater can be conceived, is in the set of ideas the non-theist has in her understanding.

princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/ontological.html
sacred-texts.com/chr/ans/ans008.htm

 

[inocente]

The burden of proof is on everyone to prove his or her interpretation of reality is true.

Jesus preached against imposing burdens (“They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders” - Matt 11) teaching instead "For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” - Matt 23

No one has anything to prove unless they themselves want.

 

[tonyrey]

If you suffered from ill health like Pascal who died at the age of 39 with stomach cancer, a diseased liver and brain lesions you wouldn’t find it so amusing or be so cynical about his faith.

In that case your statement is an ad hominem. Philosophical statements should be objective.

Most Christians like Pascal believe there is evidence for God’s existence, notably in the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus who fulfilled the prophecies and redeemed us. St Paul is referring to the folly of the Cross not of belief in God:

But Pascal is referring to belief: “Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for their belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason? They declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a foolishness…” - Pensées 3

Selective quotations are misleading.

Not germane, the discussion is about the logic of his wager in section 3.

In any case, in section 12 he says “The Church has had as much difficulty in showing that Jesus Christ was man, against those who denied it, as in showing that He was God; and the probabilities were equally great”. The section title is after all not Proofs of God, which he already ruled out earlier saying things such as “We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is”.

Imho we show respect for authors by reading what they wrote.

Another ad hominem (implying that you show respect and I don’t).

It doesn’t follow that Pascal believed we have **no knowledge whatsoever **of God’s nature or existence.

God certainly doesn’t exist in any human sets because He transcends our understanding.

Transcend doesn’t mean we can’t understand anything at all. Even though Pascal says “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible”, he goes on to say we do know through faith. And Anselm claims that the concept of God, as that which no greater can be conceived, is in the set of ideas the non-theist has in her understanding.

princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/ontological.html

sacred-texts.com/chr/ans/ans008.htm

In that case we do have knowledge of God…