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

[goout]

It is not a burden to have faith in God, or even in something outside one’s self.
It’s a joy to have that faith. It’s a relief actually.

On the other hand, it’s a burden to believe:

I created myself and the universe consists of what I perceive and all else must be proved to me.

(it’s a burden because that makes you the center of meaning, being, purpose, identity,
in other words, that makes you the very god you don’t believe in…a tremendous responsibility, and a self contradiction also)

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

It is not a burden to have faith in God, or even in something outside one’s self.
It’s a joy to have that faith. It’s a relief actually.

On the other hand, it’s a burden to believe:

I created myself and the universe consists of what I perceive and all else must be proved to me.

(it’s a burden because that makes you the center of meaning, being, purpose, identity,
in other words, that makes you the very god you don’t believe in…a tremendous responsibility, and a self contradiction also)

Burden? I think not. Your logic presumes the need for everyone to have a god of some sort. While most cultures have some sort of god(s), it is not a requirement for all individuals.

Also, what you describe sounds a lot like self determination. How is that much different than the burden of adulthood?

 

[goout]

Burden? I think not.

Right. That’s why I said this:

It is not a burden to have faith in God, or even in something outside one’s self.
It’s a joy to have that faith. It’s a relief actually.

The question is about a burden for believers. I’m saying there is no burden. Faith takes the burden of being the determiner of all things off the individual and recognizes that we are contingent creatures.

Your logic presumes the need for everyone to have a god of some sort. While most cultures have some sort of god(s), it is not a requirement for all individuals.

I would claim that everyone defers to someone, and if that someone cannot be found, that someone is you. That’s kinda like making yourself God. Self-deferential.

Also, what you describe sounds a lot like self determination. How is that much different than the burden of adulthood?

Have no idea what you mean here.

 

[Bradski]

The burden of proof in any debate is on the one making the positive claim. “God does not exist” is a positive claim which atheists and agnostics who are experienced studiously avoid for obvious reasons:

As far as this atheist is concerned, he studiously avoids the claim that God does not exist for the very simple reason that he is not 100% convinced that that is the case. Not believing that something exists and stating unequivocally that it doesn’t are two entirely different things.

I never fail to be puzzled why so many people don’t understand this.

 

[goout]

As far as this atheist is concerned, he studiously avoids the claim that God does not exist for the very simple reason that he is not 100% convinced that that is the case. Not believing that something exists and stating unequivocally that it doesn’t are two entirely different things.

I never fail to be puzzled why so many people don’t understand this.

I find this a reasonable position to hold. (“Convinced” meaning “proved” in a rationalist way.)
I happen to hold the same position, although with different conclusions on how to proceed,.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Christians all make claims about whether God exists. By your reasoning you’re pretty heavily mired in hubris as well. Since we’re recommending books, Moby Dick is fantastic.

I guess you don’t see the irony in a philosopher who argues that atheism is rational from a clearly biased viewpoint. He could have made the case, which is fine, but he goes on and on about theists having to prove God exists, which has nothing to do with his assertion that atheism is rational. Like it or not rationale is subjective, so my proof of God is your tripe. Is this ‘philosopher’ concerned with rational or proof. Is he a philosopher or an engineer?

I’m also not making an argument that belief in God is rational. I, personally, don’t think I would ever try to make that case, although it’s rational to me and if asked I would do my best. The OP is about a philosopher writing an article on atheism being rational, not simply making a assertion about the existence of God.

 

[Tomdstone]

It’s not a matter of waiting for another empirical discovery and trying to fill in the gaps until then. The only way to avoid an infinite regress, an impossibility in an essentially ordered series (in contrast to accidentally ordered), is to end up with some type of first that exists necessarily – that is, it’s its own reason for existence and relies on no external cause. Such a thing could not be subject to change and it could not be composed or extended (and therefore could not be material). That is, it could not possess qualities which require external causes to be, because otherwise the regress continues until you encounter such a thing.

According to St. Thomas you can’t prove that the world did not always exist: “By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist,”
ST First part Question 46, article 2.

 

[goout]

According to St. Thomas you can’t prove that the world did not always exist: “By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist,”
ST First part Question 46, article 2.

Ummmmn, that’s kinda the point…

 

[Tomdstone]

Ummmmn, that’s kinda the point…

Wesrock says that an infinite regress is impossible, But St. Thomas says that you cannot prove that the world did not always exist. By the world, I assume he means the universe. The idea that you can prove that the universe did not always exist, means that you can prove that there was no infinite regress or extension backward in time, i.e., you can prove that there was a beginning or starting point. But you cannot prove that an infinite regress is impossible.“by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist,”
ST First part Question 46, article 2.

 

[rossum]

The burden of proof in any debate is on the one making the positive claim. “God does not exist” is a positive claim which atheists and agnostics who are experienced studiously avoid for obvious reasons: it is impossible to prove the negative claim.

That is not always a wise position to take. Christians make the positive claim that “Vishnu does not exist.” You are in exactly the same position as an atheist with respect to that claim.

rossum

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Wesrock says that an infinite regress is impossible, But St. Thomas says that you cannot prove that the world did not always exist. By the world, I assume he means the universe. The idea that you can prove that the universe did not always exist, means that you can prove that there was no infinite regress or extension backward in time, i.e., you can prove that there was a beginning or starting point. But you cannot prove that an infinite regress is impossible.“by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist,”
ST First part Question 46, article 2.

St. Thomas existed in a time before we were able to measure the extents of the universe, as we’ve been able to do today. (Or, at least, we’ve managed to ascertain that the universe is not actually infinite, and has physical boundaries.)

Given what we know of the universe now, we can clearly state that it is not infinite or eternal. If it is not eternal, then it had to be created at some point prior to the point at which we observed currently. St. Thomas’s philosophy isn’t isolated to the period in which he lived. We take it and develop it further as more knowledge is acquired.

As for infinite regression, we know that it is impossible because no sequence of events can exit without starting. Each effect must be proceeded by a cause, and without a cause to set an event in motion, the subsequent events could not also exist. A causes B causes C causes D causes… Z^n. Without A, B never could have happened. Without B, C could never have happened. Etc. It doesn’t matter how many effects occur in a sequence, without the initial cause, none of the subsequent events would have occurred. Again, St. Thomas’s philosophy is not the end-all of Catholic thought. As amazing and bountiful as it is, we’ve had several centuries of further study and development to add to it.

 

[adamhovey1988]

NO, and I have a video on this. The burden of proof is on whoever makes the accusation. It is up to the atheist to prove to me God doesn’t exist.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Right. That’s why I said this:

The question is about a burden for believers. I’m saying there is no burden. Faith takes the burden of being the determiner of all things off the individual and recognizes that we are contingent creatures.

I thought the question was burden of proof. Your earlier post sounds like burden in a more personal context.

But there is a burden. The burden of accepting and living by rules you may not fully understand or agree with and their consequences in the material world.

I would claim that everyone defers to someone, and if that someone cannot be found, that someone is you. That’s kinda like making yourself God. Self-deferential.

We defer to others fit some

Have no idea what you mean here.
When we become adults we take on the burden of self determination and accepting that our daily decisions can have life long implications on ourselves and others. That burden exist whether one believes in God or not.

 

[josh987654321]

As far as this atheist is concerned, he studiously avoids the claim that God does not exist for the very simple reason that he is not 100% convinced that that is the case. Not believing that something exists and stating unequivocally that it doesn’t are two entirely different things.

I never fail to be puzzled why so many people don’t understand this.

I agree, but that’s not ‘Atheism’ I struggle to understand why you associate ‘Atheism’ with ‘Agnosticism’?

Because what you describe is what I would call ‘Agnostic’ and what Richard Dawkins describes, I would call ‘Atheism’ given the very title ‘The God Delusion’ says he is not ‘Agnostic’ about it and the fact he likens it to ‘fairy’s in the garden’ says he is not ‘Agnostic’ because I’m certainly not ‘agnostic’ to ‘fairy’s in the garden’ neither are his target audience, I am more atheist toward ‘fairy’s in the garden’.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Bradski]

I agree, but that’s not ‘Atheism’ I struggle to understand why you associate ‘Atheism’ with ‘Agnosticism’?

Because what you describe is what I would call ‘Agnostic’ and what Richard Dawkins describes, I would call ‘Atheism’ given the very title ‘The God Delusion’ says he is not ‘Agnostic’ about it and the fact he likens it to ‘fairy’s in the garden’ says he is not ‘Agnostic’ because I’m certainly not ‘agnostic’ to ‘fairy’s in the garden’ neither are his target audience, I am more atheist toward ‘fairy’s in the garden’.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

And here we have a good example of the difficulty in using the terms.

Dawkins is similar to me in that he doesn’t state categorically that there is no God. He doesn’t believe that God exists and sets out his stall here:

Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs, referencing the seven point scale of belief that he sets out in his book The God Delusion. telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9103685/Richard-Dawkins-Im-6.9-out-7-sure-that-God-does-not-exist.html

I class that as an atheist. An agnostic (to use Dawkins’ definition as in the video clip) is someone who is 50:50 about the likelihood. Although he classes himself as an agnostic. That’s where he and I part company.

Go figure.

 

[josh987654321]

And here we have a good example of the difficulty in using the terms.

Dawkins is similar to me in that he doesn’t state categorically that there is no God. He doesn’t believe that God exists and sets out his stall here:

Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs, referencing the seven point scale of belief that he sets out in his book The God Delusion. telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9103685/Richard-Dawkins-Im-6.9-out-7-sure-that-God-does-not-exist.html

I class that as an atheist. An agnostic (to use Dawkins’ definition as in the video clip) is someone who is 50:50 about the likelihood. Although he classes himself as an agnostic. That’s where he and I part company.

Go figure.

Confusing lol.

Anyway, I would like to respond to the original post in regards to the burden of proof, my thoughts on that and my reasons for believing in God (I have elsewhere in my post history). Unfortunately I don’t have time at the moment, hopefully tomorrow I can and hopefully the thread isn’t pages and pages in by then.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Tomdstone]

NO, and I have a video on this. The burden of proof is on whoever makes the accusation. It is up to the atheist to prove to me God doesn’t exist.

Can you prove that Krishna, Vishnu, Sri (Lakshmi), Shiva, Parvati (Durga), Brahma and Saraswati do not exist? If not, should we believe in them. If it is possible that they may exist, would we be foolish not to believe it to be so? If we do not believe we risk our chances of ever being reincarnated or achieving nirvana. But if we do believe we may achieve rebirth or nirvana?

 

[Rhubarb]

NO, and I have a video on this. The burden of proof is on whoever makes the accusation. It is up to the atheist to prove to me God doesn’t exist.

Just like if I tell you there’s a teapot orbiting somewhere between Jupiter and Saturn, the burden of proof is on you to prove to me there isn’t?

 

[Aloysium]

Can you prove that Krishna, Vishnu, Sri (Lakshmi), Shiva, Parvati (Durga), Brahma and Saraswati do not exist? If not, should we believe in them. If it is possible that they may exist, would we be foolish not to believe it to be so? If we do not believe we risk our chances of ever being reincarnated or achieving nirvana. But if we do believe we may achieve rebirth or nirvana?

My wife was a teacher; she was a mother and a neighbour, a sister, a daughter. She was a friend and an enemy. Many people heard of her, and most didn’t know she existed. Many relationships, one person.

Even myself, where do all these capacities come from? I live as one person, an incarnation of humanity.

What is transcendence, but freedom from want and the peace and joy that is one with it, beyond time and space, united in Beatific Vision.

Many names, many roads, many different relationships reflecting our uniqueness and our culture.

Contemplate in wonder at creation and the glory of its Source. There can be no common vision without God, the living Truth at its centre; only many voices, disconnected in their individual perspective clamouring to be heard. Know God, know love, you will see Him everywhere and in everyone.

 

[o_mlly]

You cannot choose to believe. You either choose to accept or reject evidence which then determines, automatically, whether you believe or not.

Come again?