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

[Bradski]

If I ask what caused everything and the answer was ‘something we call God and we should be thankfull to her (I’m an equal opportunity atheist)’ and we left it at that, I would probably roll my eyes and think that as explanations go, it’s not much of an improvement on turtles all the way down. But hey, someone once told me there could be more than one universe and there’s no evidence for that either, so who am I to complain about what people want to believe.

But…it doesn’t stop there, does it. You can’t just hold that belief in isolation. Because it’s just the wrapping on a cumbersome, complex and complicated package of beliefs, all of which it is necessary to accept as being not just possibly or even probably true but explicitly and undeniably true. It’s all or nothing, isn’t it.

You don’t want me to accept that she created the whole shebang. There’s a god in human form and an original couple and massacres and floods and eternal punishment and dancing suns and everlasting life and virgin births and a holy ghost and angels and a devil and…well, you know the story.

And just a thought for Xmas…if the Middle East had been a matriacal society back in the day, you’d be celebrating the birth of Her daughter tomorrow.

 

[PRmerger]

But…it doesn’t stop there, does it. You can’t just hold that belief in isolation. Because it’s just the wrapping on a cumbersome, complex and complicated package of beliefs, all of which it is necessary to accept as being not just possibly or even probably true but explicitly and undeniably true. It’s all or nothing, isn’t it.

Yes, you are correct.

You don’t want me to accept that she created the whole shebang. There’s a god in human form and an original couple and massacres and floods and eternal punishment and dancing suns and everlasting life and virgin births and a holy ghost and angels and a devil and…well, you know the story.

We want you go accept that God exists first…and, of course, that’s the ONLY answer for why there is something rather than nothing (which has been called our “trump card”, and I rejoice in that concession made by an atheist).

And then, we go from there.

We don’t say: accept God exists first…and then <boom!> believe in the entirety of the kerygma.

And just a thought for Xmas…if the Middle East had been a matriacal society back in the day, you’d be celebrating the birth of Her daughter tomorrow.

Not sure how that’s any argument, at all, about the truth of Christianity.

If you lived in the South in the USA in the 1860s, were a white male plantation owner, you’d be celebrating the purchase of several slaves.

But that doesn’t make any statement, whatsoever, about whether slavery, objectively is wrong.

So…

 

[Peter_Plato]

…it’s not much of an improvement on turtles all the way down.

Sure, Brad. “…turtles all the way down…” are very explanatory, in the same way that self-subsistent, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent Being Itself just doesn’t measure up (or down).

I would think that complete explanatory sufficiency, at the very least, gives us something to look into to try to understand what we don’t yet know completely, and keep us open to the truth and meaning of it all, whereas “turtles all the way down” just seems cynical and inadequate – given, I mean, that turtles, no matter how deep they are piled, don’t and can’t really explain anything whatsoever.

Feel free to believe in “turtles all the way down” if you wish and see where that gets you, but don’t continue to insist that you are interested in gaining any greater depth or sufficiency of understanding since your position appears to be that understanding itself only amounts to turtles piled higher and deeper,

 

[Bradski]

I want you to accept that I have a brother. Hey, no problem.

But now I want you to accept that he’s a biilionaire and has a castle in Scotland and he’s married to royalty and he works for MI5 and he was good friends with Castro and he plays off scratch and…hey, hang on…that’s all a bit of a stretch to accept.

Well, you either believe every single fact I give you about him or you are rejecting his very existence. It’s all or nothing.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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

Since you only permit “personal opinions” in the first place, there is no point in me addressing this question.

If you want to show good faith, provide the means by which you determine the distinction between “personal opinions” and the truth with regard to ethics, and then we can move forward.

If you can provide no method by which the truth can be determined in ethics, there is no point in me presenting a case, correct?

It would be a waste of time for both of us.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I want you to accept that I have a brother. Hey, no problem.

But now I want you to accept that he’s a biilionaire and has a castle in Scotland and he’s married to royalty and he works for MI5 and he was good friends with Castro and he plays off scratch and…hey, hang on…that’s all a bit of a stretch to accept.

Well, you either believe every single fact I give you about him or you are rejecting his very existence. It’s all or nothing.

What does this have to do with the price of turtles piled deep in Singapore?

 

[PRmerger]

I want you to accept that I have a brother. Hey, no problem.

But now I want you to accept that he’s a biilionaire and has a castle in Scotland and he’s married to royalty and he works for MI5 and he was good friends with Castro and he plays off scratch and…hey, hang on…that’s all a bit of a stretch to accept.

Well, you either believe every single fact I give you about him or you are rejecting his very existence. It’s all or nothing.

No. That’s not true. I can believe you have a brother without having to believe every single fact you give me.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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

The doors were always open to “human interpretations,” it’s just that here the need to sort out those “human interpretations” in terms of truth value raises its terrifying head.

Either you are up to the task of facing that monster or you can turn and run away from it completely.

You can choose to bear the heat, retreat back to the cold or you can remain lukewarm.

Take your pick.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I want you to accept that I have a brother. Hey, no problem.

But now I want you to accept that he’s a biilionaire and has a castle in Scotland and he’s married to royalty and he works for MI5 and he was good friends with Castro and he plays off scratch and…hey, hang on…that’s all a bit of a stretch to accept.

Well, you either believe every single fact I give you about him or you are rejecting his very existence. It’s all or nothing.

Is your brother, in either iteration, necessary and sufficient to explain anything about you or any other facts about the world?

 

[Bradski]

Sure, Brad. “…turtles all the way down…” are very explanatory, in the same way that self-subsistent, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent Being Itself just doesn’t measure up (or down).

I would think that complete explanatory sufficiency, at the very least, gives us something to look into to try to understand what we don’t yet know completely, and keep us open to the truth and meaning of it all, whereas “turtles all the way down” just seems cynical and inadequate – given, I mean, that turtles, no matter how deep they are piled, don’t and can’t really explain anything whatsoever.

Feel free to believe in “turtles all the way down” if you wish and see where that gets you, but don’t continue to insist that you are interested in gaining any greater depth or sufficiency of understanding since your position appears to be that understanding itself only amounts to turtles piled higher and deeper,

Well it appears that you follow my point, if indirectly.

Let me suggest something purely for the sake of argument. I will accept that something we can call God exists. Good for a start. But…I reject totally the folk tales of virgin births and resurrection and everlasting life etc etc.

But no, cries Peter. You have to believe it all. Every single facet. There are no exceptions. All or nothing, buddy. It’s like an equation. A x B x C…x Z = G(od). You cannot leave anything out.

And here’s the weird thing. You started with G(od) and then filled in the left hand side. You already claimed that you had the answer before anyone filled in the equation.

 

[Bradski]

Is your brother, in either iteration, necessary and sufficient to explain anything about you or any other facts about the world?

He is necessary to be the scratch golfer and the husband of minor royaly etc. if you don’t accept those facts, plus dozens of others, then as far as I am concerned you do not accept his existence.

 

[Tomdstone]

Since you only permit “personal opinions” in the first place, there is no point in me addressing this question.

In that case it looks to me like whether you consider turning the other cheek to be a rule of thumb or whether it is a basic principle is simply a matter of your personal opinion. There is no universal agreement on the question, unlike in Euclidean geometry where there are truths which everyone agrees to such as the fact that in Euclidean geometry the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal.And the fact that I accept the theorems of Euclidean geometry shows that your assumption that I only permit personal opinions is a lie.

 

[Tomdstone]

Since you only permit “personal opinions” in the first place, there is no point in me addressing this question.

In that case it looks to me like whether you consider turning the other cheek to be a rule of thumb or whether it is a basic principle is simply a matter of your personal opinion. There is no universal agreement on the question, unlike in Euclidean geometry where there are truths which everyone agrees to such as the fact that in Euclidean geometry the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal.And the fact that I accept the theorems of Euclidean geometry shows that your assumption that I only permit personal opinions is untrue.

 

[PRmerger]

Let me suggest something purely for the sake of argument. I will accept that something we can call God exists. Good for a start. But…I reject totally the folk tales of virgin births and resurrection and everlasting life etc etc. .

That makes no sense.

If God exists, then a virgin birth and resurrection and everlasting life could exist also.

 

[Bradski]

That makes no sense.

If God exists, then a virgin birth and resurrection and everlasting life could exist also.

It’s not the fact that they COULD exist. It’s the fact that you HAVE to believe they exist. And not just those two propositions either. It’s, as I keep saying, all or nothing.

So there is no argument that makes sense that says: ‘let’s just start with the fact that something created the universe’. You need to open the curtains so we can see what else you have hidden there that we ALSO need to accept.

And as I said, hardly anyone goes from ‘these things I believe, therefore there must be a God’. It’s invariably ‘there is a Gid so these things I must believe’.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not the fact that they COULD exist. It’s the fact that you HAVE to believe they exist. And not just those two propositions either. It’s, as I keep saying, all or nothing.

Sure. If you are an advocate of Truth, you accept God’s existence, you accept Christ’s existence, you accept that Catholicism is true.

You accept all those things not as a necessary conclusion of God’s existence, but simply because…they are true facts.

So there is no argument that makes sense that says: ‘let’s just start with the fact that something created the universe’. You need to open the curtains so we can see what else you have hidden there that we ALSO need to accept.

Sure.

We can certainly open these curtains (again).

And as I said, hardly anyone goes from ‘these things I believe, therefore there must be a God’. It’s invariably ‘there is a Gid so these things I must believe’.

Not exactly…

But, regardless, it’s certainly possible to come to a knowledge of truth from either direction.

 

[inocente]

Would a Scotsman who turned traitor to his country still be a “true Scotsman?”

Of course he would still be a Scotsman. I’ll leave you to google the phrase and look at all the articles explaining why it’s a fallacy. Which I see include even unto a PBS video.

 

[inocente]

In that case it looks to me like whether you consider turning the other cheek to be a rule of thumb or whether it is a basic principle is simply a matter of your personal opinion. There is no universal agreement on the question, unlike in Euclidean geometry where there are truths which everyone agrees to such as the fact that in Euclidean geometry the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal.And the fact that I accept the theorems of Euclidean geometry shows that your assumption that I only permit personal opinions is untrue.

The problem is that when Jesus is quoted out of context, the words can be twisted as approving pacifism. But in context:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.”

To take “an eye for an eye” is to retaliate, to get revenge. Jesus is saying don’t do that, on the logical grounds that if one fights evil with evil then the outcome must be evil, as in all vendettas and feuds, as in the continuing mayhem started by George W lashing out after 9/11.

The NABRE even heads the passage “Teaching About Retaliation”.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Let me suggest something purely for the sake of argument. I will accept that something we can call God exists. Good for a start. But…I reject totally the folk tales of virgin births and resurrection and everlasting life etc etc.

…

And here’s the weird thing. You started with G(od) and then filled in the left hand side. You already claimed that you had the answer before anyone filled in the equation.

Ok. Fair enough. Would this God have to be scientifically measurable in order to exist? Or, would we be able to reach knowledge of his existence through reason and philosophy?

 

[Bradski]

Ok. Fair enough. Would this God have to be scientifically measurable in order to exist? Or, would we be able to reach knowledge of his existence through reason and philosophy?

Reason gets you as far as science does. Philosophy gets you everywhere you’d like to go.

I wonder how you got where you are now.