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

[PRmerger]

Why else have so many atheists tried to prove “that’s just the way it is”?

Yep.

Not to mention, it’s such a peculiar paradigm for an atheist to leave such an important question essentially unanswered.

For no other scientific pursuit would “that’s just the way it is” be an acceptable answer.

That is, in fact, the antithesis of science.

Why, then, is it sufficient for this question?

 

[tonyrey]

Yep.

Not to mention, it’s such a peculiar paradigm for an atheist to leave such an important question essentially unanswered.

For no other scientific pursuit would “that’s just the way it is” be an acceptable answer.

That is, in fact, the antithesis of science.

Why, then, is it sufficient for this question?

That is a formidable challenge to the coherence of atheism which seems based on aversion to religion rather a rational objection. Perhaps it is a case of wishful thinking because belief in the existence of God dramatically revolutionises our attitude to life. It strips us of our independence in one respect but at a deeper level gives it a logical foundation. Physical energy certainly doesn’t explain personal autonomy…

 

[PRmerger]

That is a formidable challenge to the coherence of atheism which seems based on aversion to religion rather a rational objection.

And this aversion is manifested, subtly, by the atheist’s “sometimes I’m ok with not knowing the why”.

Rather than pursue the logical direction a question leads (towards Theism), the atheist will, peculiarly, say, “Hey, I don’t need to know all the answers”.

And we all know why there is this sudden tolerance of lack of knowledge.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Seemed to me the point was that it’s a logical fallacy to make the ad hoc generalization that no true Christian would go to war.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

While that may be true, it is equally correct to point out that when the No True Scotsman fallacy is invoked in an argument, it is typically invoked by those who balk at clearly defining what a “Scotsman” is in the first place. Ergo, you are damned if you do AND damned if you don’t.

Would a “true” shark ever be a filter feeder surviving on plankton? Well, that depends upon how “shark” is defined, I suppose. When a scientifically precise definition of “shark” exists, clearly sharks need not be sharp-toothed killers of the deep. The No True Shark fallacy cannot be invoked in this instance BECAUSE a well-developed and precise definition of shark exists. The ONLY reason that the No True Scotsman fallacy is a fallacy is because the one invoking it does not permit a well-defined definition of “Scotsman.” If they did, the fallacy wouldn’t exist.

Same with no true Christian. My guess is that anyone who invokes No True Christian in order to call out what they say is a fallacious claim will not permit the word “Christian” to be well-defined in the first place. They will argue against any definition in order to appeal to the No True Scotsman fallacy to dismiss any claim they don’t like with reference to Christians.

I recently listened to Richard Carrier attempting to argue that Hitler was a specific kind of neo-Christian even though he didn’t accept the divinity of Christ and rejected pretty much everything else Christianity teaches. When it was pointed out by Richard Weikart that Muslims, too, believe what Hitler believed about Christ and, therefore, by Carrier’s method of determining who can be identified as Christians, Muslims would be. He never got the point. He simply argued that Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons had similar beliefs as Hitler about Christ and he, Carrier, would classify them as “Christians.”

The point being that if we are going to be sloppy with regard to defining the meaning of words, everything and anything we have to say will just be one big fallacy. It starts with the refusal by would-be discussers to be precise, which is why philosophy is the art of making distinctions.

Before we make any claims about “true” Christians, we need to arrive at a proper definition of what it means to be “Christian” in the first place. Absent that, nothing we have to say will be worth discussing.

 

[STT]

Do you mean “true Christians who never sin”?

For one can certainly be a “true Christian” but fall short of the mark, repeatedly.

You might do little sin but avoid killing your brother. What would be the point of Jesus teaching if even Christian go to war against each other?

 

[STT]

According to that theory atheists were not true atheists if they went to war against each other! Or do you believe all atheists are immoral?

Thou shall not kill. That is the basic teaching of Christianity. There is not such a moral principle in atheism.

 

[tonyrey]

And this aversion is manifested, subtly, by the atheist’s “sometimes I’m ok with not knowing the why”.

Rather than pursue the logical direction a question leads (towards Theism), the atheist will, peculiarly, say, “Hey, I don’t need to know all the answers”.

And we all know why there is this sudden tolerance of lack of knowledge.

Could it be the possibility of an unwelcome conclusion? What is certain that atheism violates not only the principle of adequate explanation but it also leads to a “dead end” (in more senses than one). It is sterile and incoherent in its use of reason to imply reason is an insignificant feature of reality yet according to the OP atheist philosophers contend that the burden of proof is on believers:

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?

Bigfoot isn’t regarded as the Creator, the First Cause or the Necessary Being. To assert that God needs a cause implies an infinite regress of causes which is not a satisfactory explanation because there is not one jot of evidence that it has occurred. It amounts to an appeal to ignorance given that science is based on the principle of causality. To abandon the search for explanations is equivalent to admitting defeat. It is highly significant that atheists have failed to produced an alternative explanation for the most fundamental fact of all. To derive everything from nothing is the apogee of absurdity…

 

[tonyrey]

Thou shall not kill. That is the basic teaching of Christianity. There is not such a moral principle in atheism.

It doesn’t follow that atheists reject it nor does it justify murder… Its absence is not an asset but a liability which reveals its inadequacy.

 

[STT]

It doesn’t follow that atheists reject it nor does it justify murder… Its absence is not an asset but a liability which reveals its inadequacy.

Do you as a Christian believe in objective morality? If no what was the point of God’s teaching, thou shall not kill for example? If yes, how you could justify war between Christian?

 

[PRmerger]

You might do little sin but avoid killing your brother.

What sin is permissible in your paradigm, and what is to be avoided?

And how do you come to this conclusion?

 

[inocente]

While that may be true, it is equally correct to point out that when the No True Scotsman fallacy is invoked in an argument, it is typically invoked by those who balk at clearly defining what a “Scotsman” is in the first place. Ergo, you are damned if you do AND damned if you don’t.

Would a “true” shark ever be a filter feeder surviving on plankton? Well, that depends upon how “shark” is defined, I suppose. When a scientifically precise definition of “shark” exists, clearly sharks need not be sharp-toothed killers of the deep. The No True Shark fallacy cannot be invoked in this instance BECAUSE a well-developed and precise definition of shark exists. The ONLY reason that the No True Scotsman fallacy is a fallacy is because the one invoking it does not permit a well-defined definition of “Scotsman.” If they did, the fallacy wouldn’t exist.

Same with no true Christian. My guess is that anyone who invokes No True Christian in order to call out what they say is a fallacious claim will not permit the word “Christian” to be well-defined in the first place. They will argue against any definition in order to appeal to the No True Scotsman fallacy to dismiss any claim they don’t like with reference to Christians.

I recently listened to Richard Carrier attempting to argue that Hitler was a specific kind of neo-Christian even though he didn’t accept the divinity of Christ and rejected pretty much everything else Christianity teaches. When it was pointed out by Richard Weikart that Muslims, too, believe what Hitler believed about Christ and, therefore, by Carrier’s method of determining who can be identified as Christians, Muslims would be. He never got the point. He simply argued that Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons had similar beliefs as Hitler about Christ and he, Carrier, would classify them as “Christians.”

The point being that if we are going to be sloppy with regard to defining the meaning of words, everything and anything we have to say will just be one big fallacy. It starts with the refusal by would-be discussers to be precise, which is why philosophy is the art of making distinctions.

Before we make any claims about “true” Christians, we need to arrive at a proper definition of what it means to be “Christian” in the first place. Absent that, nothing we have to say will be worth discussing.

No true Christian listens to Pink Floyd. No true Christian has a tattoo. No true Christian voted for Trump. No true Christian voted for Clinton. No true Christian goes to war. Each is trying to add an ad hoc clause which has nothing to do with the definition of ‘Christian’.

Consider the statement ‘Jim is a Scotsman but Jim is not a true Scotsman’. It’s trying to change the definition mid-sentence. At the start of the sentence Jim is a Scotsman, by the end he isn’t. That’s the fallacy, it’s trying to claim that he is both a Scotsman and not a Scotsman.

 

[tonyrey]

t doesn’t follow that atheists reject it nor does it justify murder… Its absence is not an asset but a liability which reveals its inadequacy.

Of course I do.

If no what was the point of God’s teaching, thou shall not kill for example? If yes, how you could justify war between Christian?

No problem whatsoever. It is a question of choosing the lesser evil. Allowing innocent people to be attacked and killed is a greater evil than defending them.

 

[Tomdstone]

Of course I do.

No problem whatsoever. It is a question of choosing the lesser evil. Allowing innocent people to be attacked and killed is a greater evil than defending them.

If someone attacks you, should you turn the other cheek and let them attack more, or is is better to fight back and not turn the other cheek?

 

[Peter_Plato]

No true Christian listens to Pink Floyd. No true Christian has a tattoo. No true Christian voted for Trump. No true Christian voted for Clinton. No true Christian goes to war. Each is trying to add an ad hoc clause which has nothing to do with the definition of ‘Christian’.

Consider the statement ‘Jim is a Scotsman but Jim is not a true Scotsman’. It’s trying to change the definition mid-sentence. At the start of the sentence Jim is a Scotsman, by the end he isn’t. That’s the fallacy, it’s trying to claim that he is both a Scotsman and not a Scotsman.

Still not clear what your point is here.

Would a Scotsman who turned traitor to his country still be a “true Scotsman?” Is that trying to change the definition in mid-sentence? Or is it a function of the imprecise way that words are often used?

Is it possible to “unbecome” something you are, even when that something is biologically determined, say?

I still think the fallacy, although interesting and at times significant, is often tossed into discussions thoughtlessly and even more often abused.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If someone attacks you, should you turn the other cheek and let them attack more, or is is better to fight back and not turn the other cheek?

“Turn the other cheek” is more a “rule of thumb” than a principle which always applies. There are higher principles that determine when to turn the other cheek, when to leave and when to retaliate.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Do you as a Christian believe in objective morality? If no what was the point of God’s teaching, thou shall not kill for example? If yes, how you could justify war between Christian?

God’s “teaching” isn’t “Thou shalt not kill.” The teaching is more correctly written as, “Thou shalt not kill unjustly.” The original Hebrew word means something like “kill the innocent in a predatory manner.” The word “kill” is not a Hebrew word - something of the original meaning was lost in the English translation under James I.

So war could be justified for the same reasons, basically, as self-defense can be justified.

I am not clear why this is still a contentious issue for some who just won’t give it up.

 

[Polycarp1]

"Since theists demand the Big Bang needs an explanation, God would need an explanation as well. "

Okay who said that the Big bang needs an explanation? We know the explanation… God said let there be light!

 

[Peter_Plato]

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?

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.

The difficulty here is that “God,” as Ipsum Esse Subsistens, acts as a placeholder for “sufficient and necessary explanation.”

The Big Bang doesn’t explain itself and, therefore, itself requires a sufficient and necessary explanation for how it came about.

Now, if God. properly understood, explains his own existence then God does not require some OTHER explanation outside of his existing precisely because he is, in principle, self-subsistent, i.e., God exists a se or without reference or need for any other outside explanation.

Bradski’s claim that “There isn’t one,” may refer to there not being a need for a complete and sufficient explanation in the first place. Or it may refer to there not being a rebuttal to the alleged “double standard.”

The rebuttal to the double standard allegation, as I outlined above, is that there is no double standard because the Big Bang does not purport to be a complete and sufficient explanation and, thus, still requires one, while God is held to be precisely that – a complete and sufficient explanation.

If Bradski wants to claim that a completely sufficient explanation for everything existing is unnecessary, then why would he want to claim any explanation for anything at all is necessary? That would seem to leave him in a logically untenable and inconsistent position, since he is being entirely capricious about when and why explanations for some things and not for others are required in the first place.

 

[STT]

God’s “teaching” isn’t “Thou shalt not kill.” The teaching is more correctly written as, “Thou shalt not kill unjustly.” The original Hebrew word means something like “kill the innocent in a predatory manner.” The word “kill” is not a Hebrew word - something of the original meaning was lost in the English translation under James I.

So war could be justified for the same reasons, basically, as self-defense can be justified.

I am not clear why this is still a contentious issue for some who just won’t give it up.

The problem is that you open the doors to human interpretations once you add “unjustly”.

 

[Tomdstone]

“Turn the other cheek” is more a “rule of thumb” than a principle which always applies.

Who (other that your personal opinion) determines what is a rule of thumb and what is a principle which always applies?