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

[tonyrey]

Reason gets you as far as science does.

1. Is science the only valid form of reasoning?
2. Can science explain itself?
3. Can it solve all our problems?

Philosophy gets you everywhere you’d like to go.

Precisely. It doesn’t solve all our problems but it has far greater scope than science.
In fact science is based on metascientific principles such as the intelligibility of the universe and the validity of intelligence.

I wonder how you got where you are now.

Not by scientific methods or experiments by our parents!

 

[Mort_Alz]

I wonder how you got where you are now.

Are you really asking?

 

[Mort_Alz]

Reason gets you as far as science…

Then I guess you include math when you say “science?”

 

[Mort_Alz]

Philosophy gets you everywhere you’d like to go.

I sense a disdain for philosophy. Is my sense correct?

 

[Mort_Alz]

I suppose now would be an appropriate time to rephrase my question:

Could there be a God whose existence we could credibly know but whose existence it would be impossible to derive through empirical evidence? And could this God interact with the natural physical world?

 

[Mort_Alz]

The argument appears to be that Pascal insists that it is better to believe in a god. And any suggestions as to which one?

Ah, the one that HE believes in. Permit me a wry smile.

Nowithstanding that there are other ‘Pascals’ in other religions. Why should we only listen to the one version?

I’m pulling from a VERY old post on this thread (forgive me, but it’s relevant). If the observation below has already been pointed out, please correct me:

We can get around the difficulty of their being a multiplicity of opinions on the supernatural by changing Pascal’s wager from betting on the existence of a god or god(s) to betting on the existence of the supernatural. If we do this, I think the debate will be a lot more interesting (and not as boring as the cheap shut down of pointing out the diversity of opinions on the supernatural which tells us nothing about its existence).

 

[tonyrey]

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?

It depends on the circumstances. In the case of Jesus He wanted to put an end to the spiral of evil, hatred and violence which leads to wars and vendettas, demonstrating that love and forgiveness are the only lasting basis for peace and harmony. If we believe we are justified in preventing injustice by injuring or even killing the attacker we should go ahead. The Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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’.

And why not? You can only dismiss these things absolutely by dismissing God absolutely.

So where is the argument for dismissing God absolutely? In dismissing “these things I believe”?

Vicious circle?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I suppose now would be an appropriate time to rephrase my question:

Could there be a God whose existence we could credibly know but whose existence it would be impossible to derive through empirical evidence? And could this God interact with the natural physical world?

As long as there is an interaction, at least part of the action happens in the physical reality, and as such it is subject to empirical, scientific method (this is the interface problem). It is an incorrect proposition that the supernatural is exempt from the realm of science. If the supernatural interacts with the physical in any shape or form, the results of this interaction become fair game for the empirical science - and so far the results are negative.

 

[neonblue]

Ghandi believed that Jesus was just a “principle of non-violence” he didn’t believe in the rest of it that Jesus is the “only-begotten Son Of God” or a Savior.
Ghandi believed in the doctrine of “Karma”. Ghandi comments on Karma. The doctrine of karma is connected with the doctrine of reincarnation. The karma, the accumulated good and evil of each mortal life time, determines the kind of body and life situation in the next incarnation’. Gandhi upheld the traditional perspective of karma that birth and rebirth in various bodies are due to past karma. From the moral perspective ‘what one is’, is the result of ‘what one has been’. If one suffers now one deserves it due to one’s past karma. Gandhi says: " A human being shapes his own destiny, he is the creator of his own future. Once a person comes to this realization he will also try to be a responsible person". And so Gandhi adds the biblical notion: “do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow”. Gandhi was led by an unshakable faith in the law of karma; he himself said, “I am a devotee of the Gita and a firm believer in the law of karma.

Fifteen years before Ghandi’s death, he wrote: “I must tell you in all humility that Hinduism, as I know it, entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being, and I find a solace in the Bhagavad and Upansheads that I miss even in the Sermon on the Mount.” However, just before his death he wrote: “My days are numbered. I am not likely to livelong - perhaps a year or a little more. For the first time in fifty years I find myself in the slough of despond. All about me is darkness; I am praying for light.”
Someone who devoted 50 yrs of his life to a belief and then toward the end of that life he was uncertain, he said “All about me is darkness; I am praying for light.”
Human opinion and what is human opinion but “one’s own belief”.
It seems to me that the only opinion that matters is “the opinion of God”.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

And why not? You can only dismiss these things absolutely by dismissing God absolutely.

Not really. We dismiss your EXTENDED concept of God. Not the idea of a creator of the universe. From the concept of the creator only follows that God was powerful ENOUGH and knowledgeable ENOUGH to perform this act. NOTHING else follows. No benevolence, no “Omni”-whatever, no resurrection, no walking on water… If you wish to argue for these, you are welcome, but you cannot “define” God as having these attributes.

 

[PRmerger]

Not really. We dismiss your EXTENDED concept of God. Not the idea of a creator of the universe. From the concept of the creator only follows that God was powerful ENOUGH and knowledgeable ENOUGH to perform this act. NOTHING else follows. No benevolence, no “Omni”-whatever, no resurrection, no walking on water… If you wish to argue for these, you are welcome, but you cannot “define” God as having these attributes.

That’s great! We have an acknowledgement that a creator of the universe must exist.

The omni-attributes can come later.

As well as the Christian concept of God.

 

[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.

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’.

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.

Sure.

We can certainly open these curtains (again).

Not exactly…

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

As an extension of the above, I’d like to add a parallel:

Imagine Bradski’s in conversation with a anti-vaxxer, arguing for the need to immunize your children (which would be, BTW, a testament that Bradski is NOT a moral relativist, but I digress…)

Antivaxxer: I reject the lot of it! The whole shebang. I don’t even believe that antibodies exist! After all, I haven’t ever seen a single antibody in the entirety of my existence. And, of course, I only believe in what I can see with my own naked eye.

Bradski: Well, what if I could demonstrate to you that antibodies exist…

AV: Nope. I reject embracing the idea that antibodies exist…because if I accept that, it means that I have to accept that I have to vaccinate my kids. 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.

That’s how this actual, real (ha! That is, virtually real) conversation is going as well…

 

[neonblue]

There are people on this forum that will weigh “human opinion” and “the truth”, they will see the difference between “human opinion” and the truth".
It seems that other people who speak their comments with “clever human opinion” are competing for the “best debating skills in the room”.
Its a endless debate and no one arrives at the “Truth” but the “Truth” has been presented to you but you keep going on with your “clever human opinion”.
I myself will not engage any further in reading these posts so what really matters here to people who seek the “Truth” all your “debating skills” and your “clever human opinion” or the “opinion of God”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Not really. We dismiss your EXTENDED concept of God. Not the idea of a creator of the universe. From the concept of the creator only follows that God was powerful ENOUGH and knowledgeable ENOUGH to perform this act. NOTHING else follows. No benevolence, no “Omni”-whatever, no resurrection, no walking on water… If you wish to argue for these, you are welcome, but you cannot “define” God as having these attributes.

Non sequitur.

We can reasonably define God as having all kinds of attributes.

Once you open the door to the existence of God, you cannot by your own fiat deprive God of having other attributes than power and knowledge.

 

[neonblue]

Thomas Aquinas
“We must love those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject. Both have labored in the search for truth and both have helped us in the finding of it.”

What still matters is the opinion of God.
His eternal truth is in the Scriptures.
And if we consider Him or have any respect or love at all toward Him , we will seek His truth.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

That’s great! We have an acknowledgement that a creator of the universe must exist.

No, we do not. We can stipulate that a creator MAY exist, and see where this hypothesis can lead. This hypothesis can be entertained, but only for the purposes of a discussion. And the only logical corollary would be a “deistic creator” - nothing more. Not even the continued existence of this hypothetical creator follows logically.

We can reasonably define God as having all kinds of attributes.

Once you open the door to the existence of God, you cannot by your own fiat deprive God of having other attributes than power and knowledge.

You confused “God” with a hypothetical “creator”. And the question is: “what kinds of attributes can be logically deducted from this hypothetical creator”.

 

[PRmerger]

No, we do not. We can stipulate that a creator MAY exist, and see where this hypothesis can lead.

Ok.

This hypothesis can be entertained, but only for the purposes of a discussion.

Really? Not because it might be true?

Do you have any other answer to explain how something can come from nothing?

And the only logical corollary would be a “deistic creator” - nothing more.

Yep.

You confused “God” with a hypothetical “creator”. And the question is: “what kinds of attributes can be logically deducted from this hypothetical creator”.

I can certainly use “Creator” for God. Not a problem.

 

[PRmerger]

And the question is: “what kinds of attributes can be logically deducted from this hypothetical creator”.

1. this Creator is eternal, since the Creator exists outside of time, and creates all time, space, matter and energy
2. this Creator is immaterial, since the Creator is not material, but rather created it
3. this Creator is necessary, since without the Creator, there can be no universe. The universe exists, therefore the Creator is necessary. That is, not contingent
4. this Creator is transcendent, that is, distinct from what this Creator has created. That’s just logic. (If this Creator were part of creation, then this Creator cannot be its creator.)

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Really? Not because it might be true?

It might be true. But it is your job to provide evidence for it. What kind of evidence can you bring up to support the concept of a deistic creator? Of course if there would be evidence, it would cease to be a hypothesis. Nevertheless in this case we are not discussing the possible existence of a hypothetical deistic creator. We are talking about the corollaries of this hypothesis. So far I can only see two logical ones: “sufficient knowledge and sufficient ability (power) to carry out the creation”.

Do you have any other answer to explain how something can come from nothing?

Since I never asserted that something came from nothing, I am not the one to ask this question. The word “nothing” is just a concept, not an ontological entity. Therefore “nothing” cannot exist.