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

[inocente]

The premise G=>U is not true. God can exist without a universe existing.

But if G is immutable, doesn’t G always imply U?

 

[Tomdstone]

But if G is immutable, doesn’t G always imply U?

I thought that the creation of the universe was a free act of God and not a necessary act.

 

[Tomdstone]

There are multiple philosophical issues with the doctrine of divine immutability - see iep.utm.edu/div-immu/

Thanks for this link.

 

[inocente]

There is a material world in which the colour “blue” exists as a frequency of 606–668 THz and wavelength of 450-495 nm.

Colors only exist after data processing between our ears. For example, the picture in the middle here created arguments up and down the internet last year, some seeing a white/gold dress and others blue/black. Another famous example is the tops of these Rubik’s Cubes, where the blue squares on the left are really the exact same shade of grey (RGB 136,136,136) as the yellow squares on the right, which you can check with the eyedropper tool if you have Photoshop.

Whether colors are encoded by the neurons in the eye before data transmission along the optic nerve, or afterwards within the brain, or both, I don’t know.

 

[inocente]

I thought that the creation of the universe was a free act of God and not a necessary act.

I think that’s OK for the God of the bible, where an unchanging God seems to mean that God has integrity - He is consistent, He is trustworthy.

But the God of the philosophers is completely immutable, because what is perfect cannot become less or more perfect. So if the perfect choice was to create, perfection could not choose to make a less perfect choice. At least I think that’s how the argument goes.

Thanks for this link.

De nada.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You came in on a conversation half-way through, which would have been finished several days ago if not for the other poster’s constant evasions. As well as being a Christian principle, it’s also a basic human right that in matters of belief each person is free to decide for himself what is true. I seem to remember seeing documents on vatican.va saying the same. Unless you disagree, can’t see what’s to discuss.

Evasions, it would seem are in the eye of the beholder.

It may be a “human right” to decide for oneself what is believed to be the truth, but it is a human responsibility to correctly and wisely discover the truth rather than deny it exists. No one said the truth would be easy to come by.

We will be held accountable by God for what we believe and that is entirely consistent with being free to believe, precisely because we can’t be held accountable for our beliefs unless we do believe what we believe of our own accord. BUT – and that BUT is an important one – we will be held accountable for our beliefs because what we believe is what forges what we do in the world.

In other words, our freedom is what underpins our responsibility and if anyone attempts to use freedom to believe whatever they want as an excuse for not seeking the truth they are shirking their responsibility with regards to due diligence in coming to know the truth.

Truth is that which is “in accordance with fact or reality”, and in matters of fact yes there are truths which we can all agree on - the likely result of jumping off a high building is a truth we can all agree on.

If truth is possible ONLY with regard to the physical or apparent world, then you are basically denying that God – the Truth behind ALL that exists – even exists. In effect, you are making man, the observing being, the measure of all things while retaining a facade of truth – I.e., truth is only that which “we all agree upon” and everything else is open and can be (because all is relative) whatever you decide, including the essence and existence of God.

We will be held accountable – especially for those contentious facts that we don’t all agree upon – because it is those contentious facts that lead to our contentious actions. In our attempts to cover our contentious actions by referencing those contentious facts we will be exposed as frauds. God won’t be fooled, even though we try so hard to fool ourselves.

But when it comes to religion and beliefs, two issues:

First, we ought never allow another to coerce or force us into what they say is true. Romans 14. “One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind”. Our obligation is to not go against what we each believe is the truth, because “everything that does not come from faith is sin”.

Second, that includes your assumption that “the truth is out there”. Yes, perhaps Plato was right and essence precedes existence. But perhaps Sartre was right and existence precedes essence. Sartre didn’t sin by questioning, but he would have sinned if he had doubts, because “everything that does not come from faith is sin” which Sartre even calls “bad faith”.

No, the fact that Paul permits a bit of leeway regarding how some days are more holy than others does not imply he would allow the same leeway with regard to ALL truth. There are some beliefs which make a whole lot of difference to our lives and other beliefs not so much. I may be free to believe chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla, but I am not free to believe murder is a fine and holy deed. The distinction is between beliefs (like preference for ice cream) which is left entirely up to us to determine for ourselves, and beliefs which are entirely NOT up to us to determine for ourselves (like the rightness of murder or the nature of God.)

We can treat our freedom to believe things in the same way we treat our freedoms to speak or to act. That we are free to act is what underpins our moral responsibility. We wouldn’t and couldn’t be held morally responsible unless we are free to act as we do. However, that does not absolve us from acting morally. Ergo, our freedom to act does not provide us with a get out of jail card to do whatever we want. It is not true that we can do whatever we want because we are free to act, we are still obligated in a moral sense to do good and avoid evil, even though we are free in an ontological sense to do either.

Similarly, because we are free to think does not entail that we are free to believe whatever we want. Our freedom to think underpins our responsibility to seek and find the truth. We cannot be coerced to think certain things, nor can we be held responsible for our failure to seek and find the truth unless we have the freedom to do so.

We must be free to think what we believe to be the truth in order to be accountable and responsible for thinking the thoughts that we do. We, nevertheless, WILL be held responsible for what we have held up as the “truth,” at least in part because what we have held up to be the truth has allowed us to form ourselves into the kind of beings that we are and has subsequently led to the actions that we have carried out. There will be no hiding behind… “…but, I thought…” If we should have known better, but didn’t, that will not suffice to get us off the indictments against us.

Continued…

 

[Peter_Plato]

…from last.

“…perhaps Plato was right … But perhaps Sartre was right …”

You can stand on the fence between Plato and Sartre all you want, but the law of non-contradiction must eventually come into play. Plato and Sartre cannot both be right and the law of non-contradiction (and the truth) will eventually pull down that fence you are attempting to straddle.

To be clear…

…nobody is forcing you to choose between Plato and Sartre, but the truth is that they both cannot be right. So we cannot use the “might be right” as an excuse to walk away from the truth as if there is no truth to be had.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But if G is immutable, doesn’t G always imply U?

Only if immutable implies completely constrained and unable to do anything.

How is that compatible with omnipotence, which implies being completely unconstrained and having the power to do anything he wills?

The problem, it seems, is in human beings attempting to limit God by our understanding of God.

So, no, G doesn’t imply U because the nature and being of God doesn’t depend upon the existence of the universe.

The problem with logic is that it depends upon the human thinkers who supply the premises that are being fed into the system. As in computer programming, GIGO.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Colors only exist after data processing between our ears. For example, the picture in the middle here created arguments up and down the internet last year, some seeing a white/gold dress and others blue/black. Another famous example is the tops of these Rubik’s Cubes, where the blue squares on the left are really the exact same shade of grey (RGB 136,136,136) as the yellow squares on the right, which you can check with the eyedropper tool if you have Photoshop.

Whether colors are encoded by the neurons in the eye before data transmission along the optic nerve, or afterwards within the brain, or both, I don’t know.

The problem is that you cannot go from the colours being data processed between our ears to THEREFORE there are no colours which exist independently of the way they are processed between our ears. That would be a non sequitur.

Merely because some see black or gold, white or blue, does not mean there is no true colour there to be seen – in fact, you seem to reference the fact that there is a true colour: “the exact same shade of grey (RGB 136,136,136),” which means there is a true colour there to begin with, regardless of what individuals see. So the true colour (in this case, grey) cannot “only exist after data processing between our ears.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

There are multiple philosophical issues with the doctrine of divine immutability - see iep.utm.edu/div-immu/

They are not insurmountable issues.

 

[inocente]

Evasions, it would seem are in the eye of the beholder.

It may be a “human right” to decide for oneself what is believed to be the truth, but it is a human responsibility to correctly and wisely discover the truth rather than deny it exists. No one said the truth would be easy to come by.

We will be held accountable by God for what we believe and that is entirely consistent with being free to believe, precisely because we can’t be held accountable for our beliefs unless we do believe what we believe of our own accord. BUT – and that BUT is an important one – we will be held accountable for our beliefs because what we believe is what forges what we do in the world.

In other words, our freedom is what underpins our responsibility and if anyone attempts to use freedom to believe whatever they want as an excuse for not seeking the truth they are shirking their responsibility with regards to due diligence in coming to know the truth.

If truth is possible ONLY with regard to the physical or apparent world, then you are basically denying that God – the Truth behind ALL that exists – even exists. In effect, you are making man, the observing being, the measure of all things while retaining a facade of truth – I.e., truth is only that which “we all agree upon” and everything else is open and can be (because all is relative) whatever you decide, including the essence and existence of God.

We will be held accountable – especially for those contentious facts that we don’t all agree upon – because it is those contentious facts that lead to our contentious actions. In our attempts to cover our contentious actions by referencing those contentious facts we will be exposed as frauds. God won’t be fooled, even though we try so hard to fool ourselves.

No, the fact that Paul permits a bit of leeway regarding how some days are more holy than others does not imply he would allow the same leeway with regard to ALL truth. There are some beliefs which make a whole lot of difference to our lives and other beliefs not so much. I may be free to believe chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla, but I am not free to believe murder is a fine and holy deed. The distinction is between beliefs (like preference for ice cream) which is left entirely up to us to determine for ourselves, and beliefs which are entirely NOT up to us to determine for ourselves (like the rightness of murder or the nature of God.)

We can treat our freedom to believe things in the same way we treat our freedoms to speak or to act. That we are free to act is what underpins our moral responsibility. We wouldn’t and couldn’t be held morally responsible unless we are free to act as we do. However, that does not absolve us from acting morally. Ergo, our freedom to act does not provide us with a get out of jail card to do whatever we want. It is not true that we can do whatever we want because we are free to act, we are still obligated in a moral sense to do good and avoid evil, even though we are free in an ontological sense to do either.

Similarly, because we are free to think does not entail that we are free to believe whatever we want. Our freedom to think underpins our responsibility to seek and find the truth. We cannot be coerced to think certain things, nor can we be held responsible for our failure to seek and find the truth unless we have the freedom to do so.

We must be free to think what we believe to be the truth in order to be accountable and responsible for thinking the thoughts that we do. We, nevertheless, WILL be held responsible for what we have held up as the “truth,” at least in part because what we have held up to be the truth has allowed us to form ourselves into the kind of beings that we are and has subsequently led to the actions that we have carried out. There will be no hiding behind… “…but, I thought…” If we should have known better, but didn’t, that will not suffice to get us off the indictments against us.

You seem to have been arguing that out with yourself and by the final paragraph you more or less got what Paul is saying in Romans 14.

I’ll just point out Paul said it using 160 fewer words than you.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

All in all, atheists are not being irrational by justifying their atheism simply in a lack of evidence for God’s existence, any more than I am being irrational in justifying “a-bigfootism” in a lack of evidence for Bigfoot.

What is the rebuttal?

The rebuttal is that the existence of God cannot be scientifically demonstrated in the way that scientific tenets are usually demonstrated. The demand for such proof indicates the arrogance of scientism.

So it is irrational to base atheism on lack of scientific evidence.

The human heart and mind is holistic. It takes evidence of various truths from various directions. The evidence for God is not found to be found only in physical laws, but more importantly in the human need to explain ultimate reality in ways that transcend science.

The desire of the heart to know God, or some manifestation of God if only his pure intellect, is a nearly universal human trait from Adam and Eve to Albert Einstein.

The refusal to know God, I believe, is not based on reason, but on deep-seated psychological issues that are many and too varied to go into here. But the atheist is free to delude himself that his refusal is based on absence of atheism…

The atheist is up against this irrational supposition: that he can be skeptical about almost everything but his atheism.

I have never known an atheist who was not dogmatic about his atheism.

 

[inocente]

…from last.

“…perhaps Plato was right … But perhaps Sartre was right …”

You can stand on the fence between Plato and Sartre all you want, but the law of non-contradiction must eventually come into play. Plato and Sartre cannot both be right and the law of non-contradiction (and the truth) will eventually pull down that fence you are attempting to straddle.

To be clear…

…nobody is forcing you to choose between Plato and Sartre, but the truth is that they both cannot be right. So we cannot use the “might be right” as an excuse to walk away from the truth as if there is no truth to be had.

I never said I haven’t chosen. Imho making unfounded assumptions won’t help you in your “due diligence in coming to know the truth” .

Choosing between different schools of philosophy is a leisure pursuit of the idle rich, most people throughout most of history have been too busy scratching a living for such trivia. Here is Paul on this supposed obligation you would foist on me:

Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. - 1 Cor 1

Only if immutable implies completely constrained and unable to do anything.

How is that compatible with omnipotence, which implies being completely unconstrained and having the power to do anything he wills?

The problem, it seems, is in human beings attempting to limit God by our understanding of God.

So, no, G doesn’t imply U because the nature and being of God doesn’t depend upon the existence of the universe.

The problem with logic is that it depends upon the human thinkers who supply the premises that are being fed into the system. As in computer programming, GIGO.

Have a look at the article I linked, which is a round-up of the philosophy of divine immutability. I agree that the God of the bible isn’t constrained by the issues which face the God of the philosophers.

They are not insurmountable issues.

Not so sure. If philosophers are still working it out after two millennia (see the article) then we may ask whether our taxes might be better employed elsewhere.

The problem is that you cannot go from the colours being data processed between our ears to THEREFORE there are no colours which exist independently of the way they are processed between our ears. That would be a non sequitur.

Merely because some see black or gold, white or blue, does not mean there is no true colour there to be seen – in fact, you seem to reference the fact that there is a true colour: “the exact same shade of grey (RGB 136,136,136),” which means there is a true colour there to begin with, regardless of what individuals see. So the true colour (in this case, grey) cannot “only exist after data processing between our ears.”

No, since an observer is necessary to perceive the color, and observers see yellow, blue or grey depending on cues from the surrounding stimulus. And anyway grey is a composite, made from light of all visible frequencies. Most colors are light of many frequencies with some frequencies brighter than others. Very few colors are purely light of one frequency, and even then we can’t tell the difference between light at yellow frequency, and light at red+green frequencies, whereas birds can distinguish them.

 

[IWantGod]

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”

Here is a paragraph from the actual article:

**Of course, theists will likely reply that they are not just saying God doesn’t need an explanation, but that by definition he doesn’t because by definition he is the greatest being, and the greatest being can’t have an explanation. (Anything that explains God would be greater.) It’s not clear to me that this is the case; but even so, the basic rule of logic that, in debates on existential matters, the burden of proof lies on the one making the positive existential claim is true regardless of whether the entity in question is unexplained or self-explained. For example, if someone suggested the existence of an alien race that created itself through time travel (by traveling back in time and seeding its own race), I would still demand they provided evidence for such beings before I believed. In addition, I could maintain that there is an infinite number of universes, each of which exists inexplicably—without cause or explanation. Yet to rationally believe that any other such universe exists, I would demand evidence.

All in all, atheists are not being irrational by justifying their atheism simply in a lack of evidence for God’s existence, any more than I am being irrational in justifying “a-bigfootism” in a lack of evidence for Bigfoot.**

What is the rebuttal?

It really upsets me when someone of Dr. David Kyle Johnson credentials presents arguments like this.

Its a complete distortion

The universe requires a cause because its reality has a beginning. It does not have the reason for its existence in its own nature. If it did it would simply exist without a beginning or a cause. If it is a things nature to exist then it does not require a cause and does not have a beginning; in fact it would not change; it would be eternal.

I advise Dr. David Kyle Johnson to refrain from making comments of any kind less he be discovered to be undeserving of his scholarly status.

 

[Aloysium]

Dr David Kyle Johnson is the Grinch:
psychologytoday.com/blog/plato-pop/201212/say-goodbye-the-santa-claus-lie
View attachment 23528
Assoc. Prof. of Philosophy

 

[Randy_Carson]

A Catholic recently told me that God is pure spirit, not a being.

Isn’t it possible for God to be a being which is pure spirit?

Even so, what is a Maximally Great Being and what is your evidence that God is one? It isn’t good enough to say that that’s the way theists define Him. I know they do that. I want to see evidence for the traits they ascribe to God.

For the sake of discussion, spend the four minutes necessary to get on the same page with me. Thanks.

youtube.com/watch?v=xBmAKCvWl74

 

[levinas12]

The irreversible progress of events.

What drives this flow of time? I guess this is a topic for another thread. But it is relevant to the present discussion about God’s immutability.

In Aristotle, beings change because of the pull of “full presence”. Each of them contain an absence that tends towards presence. This change powers the flow of time.

God is outside this process because He is without absence, without need, without lack.

So what about the Incarnation? It results from the overflowing of God’s full presence - it does not stem from a “lack” of being.

God does not need the Incarnation to fulfill Himself - God does not need the world. He is already complete in Himself.

Back to the analogy. Aleph0 does not need 153 to be aleph0; 153 does not add anything to aleph0, does not increase aleph0 (the number aleph0 does not change - remember that aleph0 is the number of a set, not the set itself - the analogy here is with the number).

God + Incarnation is not greater than God; God + world is not greater than God alone.
(Anselm’s proof in a nutshell).

In Aristotle’s sense of change, God does not change (and hence God is outside of time).

 

[Tomdstone]

What drives this flow of time? I guess this is a topic for another thread. But it is relevant to the present discussion about God’s immutability.

In Aristotle, beings change because of the pull of “full presence”. Each of them contain an absence that tends towards presence. This change powers the flow of time.

God is outside this process because He is without absence, without need, without lack.

So what about the Incarnation? It results from the overflowing of God’s full presence - it does not stem from a “lack” of being.

God does not need the Incarnation to fulfill Himself - God does not need the world. He is already complete in Himself.

Back to the analogy. Aleph0 does not need 153 to be aleph0; 153 does not add anything to aleph0, does not increase aleph0 (the number aleph0 does not change - remember that aleph0 is the number of a set, not the set itself - the analogy here is with the number).

God + Incarnation is not greater than God; God + world is not greater than God alone.
(Anselm’s proof in a nutshell).

In Aristotle’s sense of change, God does not change (and hence God is outside of time).

I don’t need to eat mutton. But if I did start eating mutton, it would be a change in my diet. The fact that I don;t need it, is irrelevant to the question of a change in my diet. What is relevant is that up to now, I did not eat mutton, but from now on, I will eat mutton, so there has been a change, even though this change was not needed.

 

[tonyrey]

It really upsets me when someone of Dr. David Kyle Johnson credentials presents arguments like this.

Its a complete distortion

The universe requires a cause because its reality has a beginning. It does not have the reason for its existence in its own nature. If it did it would simply exist without a beginning or a cause. If it is a things nature to exist then it does not require a cause and does not have a beginning; in fact it would not change; it would be eternal.

I advise Dr. David Kyle Johnson to refrain from making comments of any kind less he be discovered to be undeserving of his scholarly status.

The rebuttal is that the universe is either eternal, created itself or cannot be explained, none of which is a satisfactory explanation…

 

[tonyrey]

The rebuttal is that the existence of God cannot be scientifically demonstrated in the way that scientific tenets are usually demonstrated. The demand for such proof indicates the arrogance of scientism.

So it is irrational to base atheism on lack of scientific evidence.

The human heart and mind is holistic. It takes evidence of various truths from various directions. The evidence for God is not found to be found only in physical laws, but more importantly in the human need to explain ultimate reality in ways that transcend science.

The desire of the heart to know God, or some manifestation of God if only his pure intellect, is a nearly universal human trait from Adam and Eve to Albert Einstein.

The refusal to know God, I believe, is not based on reason, but on deep-seated psychological issues that are many and too varied to go into here. But the atheist is free to delude himself that his refusal is based on absence of atheism…

The atheist is up against this irrational supposition: that he can be skeptical about almost everything but his atheism.

I have never known an atheist who was not dogmatic about his atheism.

An “undogmatic atheist” is an agnostic.