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

[Lucretius]

A very good point! The burden of proof is on all of us - including atheists - to justify our particular interpretation of reality.

According to the OP:

Atheists are being irrational because either they give no explanation of reality or they imply it is fundamentally mindless. Even if they accept the existence of individual minds they are being illogical by violating the principle of economy. One Supreme Mind is a more cogent explanation than an immense multitude. Bigfoot explains nothing whereas God explains everything!

What I think atheists want to say by assigning burden of proof to the theist is that we should question these views. I agree with them, but not necessarily in the way they think.

See, for mature thinkers, when they question a teaching, doctine, view, etc., they do so that they can see the truth of it. Questioning is a means to seeing something themselves. They are not necessarily trying to deny these things, but to understand them.

However, for most atheists you encounter, especially on the internet, questioning is treated as if an end in itself, at least in theory. This is a very juvenile approach: children keep questioning (you know how this goes: they just keep asking “why?” over and over again) just to annoy, and teenagers question in order to be rebellious against “the man.” Both of these approaches are signs of immaturity.

However, despite what they say in theory, in practice what really ends up happening to immature skeptics is that they turn questioning into a means to finding any possible reason to cling to in order to reject views they don’t want to believe in. This is not a problem that is based in the intellect, but a disease of the heart. This is why most internet discussion with atheists tend to decay into obvious fallacies and name-calling.

Don’t get me wrong, most atheists, at least the ones I’ve encountered, have a terrible knowledge of most things, including in religious matters, but we cannot get through until they change their hearts. They will find if they would only seek, but they do not. In fact, they often deliberately avoid seeking or anything like it. This is why prayer and inspirational holiness are more effective at conversion: because both reach to their hearts, while they deliberately block debate, and been trained to do, from reaching their hearts.

Christi pax.

 

[inocente]

When a Christian says that Jesus isn’t Pure Act, all I hear is “there are two Gods.”

What a natural theologian intends to do, first and foremost, is to understand God from the perspective of reason. All other intentions are secondary. God as understood by reason is necessarily incomplete, especially when seen from a perspective of faith, but this doesn’t make this knowledge false.

Faith is one way to understanding the Infinite God, reason is another. It would be foolish to say that the red I see, the smoothness I feel, and the sweetness I taste are not all the same apple.

God became man, and sanctified him, which includes his reason. You are correct that reason must be put in the proper context, like all of our abilities, and that intellectuals have a temptation to view natural theology as a replacement of Revelation, and theology as a replacement for religion in general, but you might or might not be going too far when you seemingly imply that reason doesn’t have place in the Christian life outside apologetics. But I might be misunderstanding you too.

I think perhaps you and I agree here.

My point was only that in 1 Cor 1, Paul says that the message of the cross is for everyone, that it is perfect and complete, “our righteousness, holiness and redemption”, wiser than human wisdom.

So I wouldn’t expect it to be controversial to say that the message of the cross must therefore be rational, that no one should be ashamed to preach it, that it speaks to a university professor no more or less than a cocktail waitress, that by comparison all human wisdom is foolishness. And that the Church preaches Christ crucified, always has done, always will. That the theology may change as the understanding develops, but human wisdom can’t alter, add to or replace the message.

That’s my non-Catholic view, if any Catholics disagree then it’s not for me to say who is right, but I’m thinking Thomas agrees with Paul, and has the same view.

The concept of the burden of proof is dragged from a legal context: the idea is that, naturally, the accused would be a disadvantage, because we humans tend to be bias towards the first piece of information we’ve learned about someone, which would mean we are inclined to be bias in favor of the accuser. The burden of proof on the accuser helps rectify this situation and “balance the scales.” I think would should keep this in mind when discussing what burden of proof means in a philosophical context.

Apparently, burden of proof is a philosophical concept too: “In epistemology, the burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi (shorthand for Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat)) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

So in a philosophy class, I think that if Carla claims God exists but Ana disagrees, Carla must justify the claim. Or if Ana claims God does not exist, Ana must justify her claim. Otherwise the one making the claim is committing a fallacy such as an argument from ignorance (god-of-the-gaps).

My view on the OP is that outside of the philosophy class, the vast majority of Christians don’t make any such philosophical claim and so have no burden of proof, nor for that matter do most non-Christians make a claim requiring burden of proof.

Anyway, as the Lord says, let us reason together

Christi pax

Agreed

 

[tonyrey]

What I think atheists want to say by assigning burden of proof to the theist is that we should question these views. I agree with them, but not necessarily in the way they think.

See, for mature thinkers, when they question a teaching, doctine, view, etc., they do so that they can see the truth of it. Questioning is a means to seeing something themselves. They are not necessarily trying to deny these things, but to understand them.

However, for most atheists you encounter, especially on the internet, questioning is treated as if an end in itself, at least in theory. This is a very juvenile approach: children keep questioning (you know how this goes: they just keep asking “why?” over and over again) just to annoy, and teenagers question in order to be rebellious against “the man.” Both of these approaches are signs of immaturity.

However, despite what they say in theory, in practice what really ends up happening to immature skeptics is that they turn questioning into a means to finding any possible reason to cling to in order to reject views they don’t want to believe in. This is not a problem that is based in the intellect, but a disease of the heart. This is why most internet discussion with atheists tend to decay into obvious fallacies and name-calling.

Don’t get me wrong, most atheists, at least the ones I’ve encountered, have a terrible knowledge of most things, including in religious matters, but we cannot get through until they change their hearts. They will find if they would only seek, but they do not. In fact, they often deliberately avoid seeking or anything like it. This is why prayer and inspirational holiness are more effective at conversion: because both reach to their hearts, while they deliberately block debate, and been trained to do, from reaching their hearts.

Christi pax.

I agree with you with the proviso that an appeal to reason will eventually have an effect on most people regardless of how cynical they are. In times of crisis everyone is brought face to face with stark reality and then no one is immune to uncertainty…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I agree with you with the proviso that an appeal to reason will eventually have an effect on most people regardless of how cynical they are. In times of crisis everyone is brought face to face with stark reality and then no one is immune to uncertainty…

Especially the uncertainty of atheism.

 

[tonyrey]

Especially the uncertainty of atheism.

Its worst feature is that so many of its adherents are so dogmatic. Agnosticism is understandable but atheism is virtually a religion for people like Richard Dawkins who spearheads a crusade against religious education - which he describes as child abuse. He is also unaware of his own credulity:

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”

That is a perfect description of his worship of science. He fails to realise it requires faith to believe science is the supreme and sole form of explanation. Did he use science to choose his wife? Does evidence consist solely of what he and we can see, hear, taste, smell and touch? The burden of proof is certainly on him to prove we exist in a Godless universe…

 

[Cheiron]

Its worst feature is that so many of its adherents are so dogmatic.

Nonsense. There are plenty of atheists who can tell you what would shake their beliefs. Atheism has no dogma’s. But even if that were true, surely a Catholic won’t say it’s a bad thing to have dogma’s?

That is a perfect description of his worship of science. He fails to realise it requires faith to believe science is the supreme and sole form of explanation. Did he use science to choose his wife? Does evidence consist solely of what he and we can see, hear, taste, smell and touch? The burden of proof is certainly on him to prove we exist in a Godless universe…

I have heard that question before. I can’t speak for Dawkins, but the answer would certainly be yes in my case. In fact, all my friends use the scientific method of empiricism: “How does she respond when I tell a joke?” “What does it mean when she touches her hair?” “What does it mean when she says X, Y Z?” “Did she call back next day or next week?” That’s all about drawing conclusions from clues and evidence, derived from observation.

But what if we didn’t use science? Suppose a guy, let’s call him Bob, bought flowers and asked a pretty news anchor to marry him. Or let’s take Dora, who buys a wedding ring, crosses the street and asks the first pretty guy she meets to marry her, genuinely assuming he loves her.

We would immediately recognize Bob and Dora as two nutters. Why? Because Bob and Dora have no evidence whatsoever that the people they meet love them back. It’s irrational to rely on faith in matters of love. It can - and often will - end up in a false picture of reality.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I have heard that question before. I can’t speak for Dawkins, but the answer would certainly be yes in my case. In fact, all my friends use the scientific method of empiricism: “How does she respond when I tell a joke?” “What does it mean when she touches her hair?” “What does it mean when she says X, Y Z?” “Did she call back next day or next week?” That’s all about drawing conclusions from clues and evidence, derived from observation.

I think you are missing tonyrey’s point here. You may use some empirical method to gather the raw data regarding whether someone might be a suitable partner, but science is insufficient with regard to how that data is used to make the judgement.

So what if she doesn’t respond to your joke or that she touches her hair? The significance of those is not a scientific matter, nor is the judgement about her that those responses might lead to, a matter that science will help you with at all. Values, meaning and significance are not science-based determinations in any sense whatsoever.

 

[PRmerger]

I have heard that question before. I can’t speak for Dawkins, but the answer would certainly be yes in my case. In fact, all my friends use the scientific method of empiricism: “How does she respond when I tell a joke?” “What does it mean when she touches her hair?” “What does it mean when she says X, Y Z?” “Did she call back next day or next week?” That’s all about drawing conclusions from clues and evidence, derived from observation.

Well, if that’s what you consider “evidence” for a woman’s love for you–drawing conclusions from clues–then what Believers have provided is…evidence…for God’s existence.

You can’t say clues are sufficient evidence (for determining whether a woman loves me), but also clues are not sufficient evidence (for determining whether God exists).

Pick the same standard, Cheiron.

 

[tonyrey]

Its worst feature is that so many of its adherents are so dogmatic.

Atheists have plenty of dogmas, e.g.

1. God does not exist.
2. Everything has a natural explanation.
3. Religion is nonsense.
4. Religious education is child abuse. (Dawkins)
5. There is no reason why the universe exists.
6. Human beings are naked apes. (Desmond Morris)
7. Morality is simply a set of human conventions.
8. Life originated by chance.
9. All mental activity is the result of neural impulses.
10. Everything is ultimately valueless, purposeless and meaningless.

That is a perfect description of his worship of science. He fails to realise it requires faith to believe science is the supreme and sole form of explanation. Did he use science to choose his wife?

Does evidence consist solely of what he and we can see, hear, taste, smell and touch?The burden of proof is certainly on him to prove we exist in a Godless universe… I have heard that question before. I can’t speak for Dawkins, but the answer would certainly be yes in my case. In fact, all my friends use the scientific method of empiricism: “How does she respond when I tell a joke?” “What does it mean when she touches her hair?” “What does it mean when she says X, Y Z?” “Did she call back next day or next week?” That’s all about drawing conclusions from clues and evidence, derived from observation.

Do you believe everything consists of atomic particles?

But what if we didn’t use science? Suppose a guy, let’s call him Bob, bought flowers and asked a pretty news anchor to marry him. Or let’s take Dora, who buys a wedding ring, crosses the street and asks the first pretty guy she meets to marry her, genuinely assuming he loves her.

We would immediately recognize Bob and Dora as two nutters. Why? Because Bob and Dora have no evidence whatsoever that the people they meet love them back. It’s irrational to rely on faith in matters of love. It can - and often will - end up in a false picture of reality.

Do you base **all **your conclusions about a person on **physical **events?

 

[Aloysium]

Most people, I think, marry because they love the other person.
Clearly there are many who search for someone to be loved by.
I don’t think evidence fits in anywhere; it’s done on feeling.
That’s a big part of the problem in relationships, that we may not know what we feel or why.
People marry someone who may remind them of someone they loved, feeing close to the memory more than the reality of this new person.
One may love the physical beauty or prowess, the person’s intellect or wit, their status or wealth.
It is very hard to tease out one’s true feelings.

Empirical choice?
Not even sci-fi Vulcans
Can be that heartless

 

[Cheiron]

I think you are missing tonyrey’s point here. You may use some empirical method to gather the raw data regarding whether someone might be a suitable partner, but science is insufficient with regard to how that data is used to make the judgement.

So what if she doesn’t respond to your joke or that she touches her hair? The significance of those is not a scientific matter, nor is the judgement about her that those responses might lead to, a matter that science will help you with at all. Values, meaning and significance are not science-based determinations in any sense whatsoever.

I partly disagree with that. With meeting many people comes experience about how people act when they feel comfortable or uncomfortable. It doesn’t always work, but with more and more data (experience) comes better accuracy in figuring out who is a suitable partner and who is not.

Well, if that’s what you consider “evidence” for a woman’s love for you–drawing conclusions from clues–then what Believers have provided is…evidence…for God’s existence.

You can’t say clues are sufficient evidence (for determining whether a woman loves me), but also clues are not sufficient evidence (for determining whether God exists).

Pick the same standard, Cheiron.

I am not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?

Atheists have plenty of dogmas, e.g.

1. God does not exist.
2. Everything has a natural explanation.
3. Religion is nonsense.
4. Religious education is child abuse. (Dawkins)
5. There is no reason why the universe exists.
6. Human beings are naked apes. (Desmond Morris)
7. Morality is simply a set of human conventions.
8. Life originated by chance.
9. All mental activity is the result of neural impulses.
10. Everything is ultimately valueless, purposeless and meaningless.

There are a few up there I disagree with. Also, I am under no obligation to believe all that, although believing in God and calling myself an atheist would be logically inconsistent. Only number 1 is an inherent feature of atheism, but it’s not a dogma in the sense that it’s an unshakable belief.

Do you believe everything consists of atomic particles?

No, abstract concepts don’t consist of atomic particles.

Do you base **all **your conclusions about a person on **physical **events?

I base my conclusions on what someone says and how he acts. And if there is a contradiction between the two, I usually choose the latter, because actions speak louder than words. Or as Jesus said: “by their fruits you will know them.”

To answer your question directly, the answer is probably yes, because speaking and acting are all physical events.

My sincere apologies for butchering the English language. It’s not my native language.

 

[PRmerger]

I am not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?

I think you should have the same standard for evidence.

So if you think that “clues” are sufficient to give you a belief in a woman’s interest in you, then “clues” should be sufficient to give you a belief in God.

 

[Cheiron]

I think you should have the same standard for evidence.

So if you think that “clues” are sufficient to give you a belief in a woman’s interest in you, then “clues” should be sufficient to give you a belief in God.

That’s much clearer, thank you.

It all depends on where the clue is pointing to. Otherwise, it would sound like I believe a woman is interested in me if she communicates with me, even if that communication consists of a clear concise statement like “sod off.”

 

[PRmerger]

That’s much clearer, thank you.

It all depends on where the clue is pointing to. Otherwise, it would sound like I believe a woman is interested in me if she communicates with me, even if that communication consists of a clear concise statement like “sod off.”

Sorry. I am confused now.

You are saying it’s permissible to be inconsistent with your standards for evidence because…why?

 

[Abba]

There isn’t one.

If you want to claim that something exists, then there is a requirement on you, should you wish to excercise it, to offer some proof.

An atheist, or at least this one, doesn’t make any claim. He just asserts that the evidence for your particular claim in regard to God’s existence, is not sufficient to assert a personal belief.

There is no requirement on me to prove that God doesn’t exist, because, quite simply, I am not making that claim in the first instance.

This is a lot of rhetoric/sophism. It looks pretty at prima facie but it is to make truth appear false. The search for God is not a game, it is the most important task of a human being.

In reading this post and the point of the OP, I can walk away and consider that you guys really got me there and I cannot provide to you what you are requesting. In truth, these arguments come from minds that are playing games (much like playing little games of chess), who are simply enjoying trumping believers and are not serious about finding God.

Fundamental errors of the arguments are that God is being equated with the creatures and Truth is being presented as being relative. We need to first define God and Truth and once we do, it would be illogical to equate God with creatures and creation and Truth as depending on what an individual thinks, likes or imagines.

The search for God is not a game or a person cannot seriously claim he/she is truly seeking Him. The search for God is serious business and this to the individual as an individual.

Peace. May you find Him whom you seek.

 

[Abba]

What amazes me is that this thread has 613 posts and 13,556 views.

Time is precious. Don’t waste it.

 

[Cheiron]

Sorry. I am confused now.

You are saying it’s permissible to be inconsistent with your standards for evidence because…why?

I wrote that I draw conclusions from clues and evidence. If I have a date with a woman and she acts in a way that, in my experience, is consistent with flirting, then I conclude she is interested in me. Similarly, if I investigate the existence of God and I see evidence of a world that is consistent with God’s existence, then I would believe in God.

I don’t see the inconsistency.

 

[PRmerger]

I wrote that I draw conclusions from clues and evidence. If I have a date with a woman and she acts in a way that, in my experience, is consistent with flirting, then I conclude she is interested in me. Similarly, if I investigate the existence of God and I see evidence of a world that is consistent with God’s existence, then I would believe in God.

I don’t see the inconsistency.

Fair enough, fair enough.

What clues would give you the conclusion that God exists?

 

[Cheiron]

Fair enough, fair enough.

What clues would give you the conclusion that God exists?

I’m not sure what the definitive proof would be, but if the stories from the Bible, including the miracles, appear to be true, then that would be a strong mark in God’s favor. For example, if human fossils appeared suddenly in earthlayers in Mesopotamia, without any evidence of other hominids, then that would be evidence that Genesis is true. Or evidence that an eclipse after a full moon can actually happen would provide evidence that the eclipse in Luke 23:44-45 also really happened.

Sorry I can’t give a definitive answer to your question.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure what the definitive proof would be,

You see what you just did there?

Thank you for proving my point, rather nicely indeed.

“Clues” are sufficient for determining whether a woman is interested.

But you suddenly switched from “clues” to “definitive proof”.

I want you to be consistent.

If “clues” are sufficient for discerning a woman’s interest, then “clues” should be sufficient for belief in God’s existence.

See?