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

[o_mlly]

You cannot choose to believe. You either choose to accept or reject evidence which then determines, automatically, whether you believe or not. …

Come again?

It couldn’t be clearer.

But maybe you have experienced a situation where you didn’t accept the evidence and still believed. Or did accept it and did not believe.

Can’t say I have. Either case would be a bad case of cognitive dissonance.

But to the point of the thread, reason cannot prove or disprove God’s existence. So neither the atheist nor the believer bear any burden of proof which does not exist.

However, the evidence, phenomenal and metaphysical, leads one to know that a supreme being exists. This conclusion leaves quite open the question about the moral goodness of God—the benevolence, justice, and mercy of the Deity. Enter faith. I know a supreme being exists; I believe that that Being is God.

Do you know or believe that the population of Sydney is greater than Melbourne? Do you know that in the same way you know you have two hands? If one believes a thing to be true then one wills faith in the thing. If one knows a thing to be true then one has experienced the thing and cannot choose otherwise.

 

[Bradski]

Can’t say I have. Either case would be a bad case of cognitive dissonance.

But to the point of the thread, reason cannot prove or disprove God’s existence. So neither the atheist nor the believer bear any burden of proof which does not exist.

However, the evidence, phenomenal and metaphysical, leads one to know that a supreme being exists. This conclusion leaves quite open the question about the moral goodness of God—the benevolence, justice, and mercy of the Deity. Enter faith. I know a supreme being exists; I believe that that Being is God.

Do you know or believe that the population of Sydney is greater than Melbourne? Do you know that in the same way you know you have two hands? If one believes a thing to be true then one wills faith in the thing. If one knows a thing to be true then one has experienced the thing and cannot choose otherwise.

You have accepted the evidence for God’s existence and therefore you believe in Him. If you want or need to bolster that with faith (because it cannot be proved), then that makes sense to you.

I don’t need faith to bolster my belief in population densities.

 

[rossum]

I’m trying to see the logic (not that there has to be any) in this long suffering. My problem with the logic of it is this:
If my past suffering has no effect on me, why would I consider it in relation to the enlightenment I’m attaining now?

The past cannot be altered, but we can learn from it.

Considering future suffering seems burdensome and counter to the point of enlightenment.

We can learn not to do the actions which cause suffering:

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

– Dhammapada 1:1-2

Wouldn’t karma be the motivator in achieving enlightenment?

Moral behaviour is necessary, but not sufficient, for enlightenment. Meditation is also required.

Do the monks say, "As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears…" because they have to take Budda’s word for it or can they experience it (see it) for themselves?

Initially they (presumably) took the Buddha’s word for it. Later they will have learned how to remember their past lives. The instructions are in the Vissudhimagga, Chapter 13. A good level of achievement in samatha meditation is a prerequisite.

rossum

 

[rossum]

How could you reincarnate if you don’t have any soul?

How could you be carried inside your mother’s womb if you are over five feet tall and weigh 150 pounds? You are changing; each version of you is contingent on the previous version of you, but is not precisely the same as the previous version. The same when you are reincarnated; the new version is contingent on the previous version, though in that case the changes are rather more obvious – your physical component does not carry over for example.

To tweak Heraclitus, “You can never step in the same river twice because it is not the same river and you are not the same you.”

rossum

 

[Randy_Carson]

Which version? The Wahhabi version of the Abrahamic God is not going to save Catholics. The JW version of the Abrahamic God is not going to save Catholics either.

You not only have to pick the right God among many; you have to pick the right version of that God among many.

Again, this is not the issue addressed by Pascal’s Wager which contends that 1) either God exists or He doesn’t and 2) it is more reasonable to live as if God does exist.

Indeed: choice 1 Vishnu exists, choice 2 Vishnu does not exist.

If you define Vishnu with the identical (or at least VERY similar) characteristics as we attribute to YHWH, then sure…I can accept that although polytheistic, belief in Vishnu is one attempt to understand God as He really is. "The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.” (Catechism, 843)

Why? Picking the wrong God is as bad as picking no God. The wager is the same if you are picking between the Wahhabi God, who sends all non-Wahhabis to hell or the Catholic God who does save some non-Catholics. The wager tells you to pick the Wahhabi God. See you at your local Sunni Mosque on Friday.

rossum

Actually, you won’t. But nice try.

Having first determined to my own satisfaction, that God exists, I have done my research and placed my wager on the evidence that supports Catholicism as the most accurate understanding of the one God as He has chosen to reveal Himself.

That same effort enables me to say with confidence that while some religions claim to be the enlightened path, they are simply wrong.

 

[RCinMT]

As far as this atheist is concerned, he studiously avoids the claim that God does not exist for the very simple reason that he is not 100% convinced that that is the case. Not believing that something exists and stating unequivocally that it doesn’t are two entirely different things.

I never fail to be puzzled why so many people don’t understand this.

Catholics also only ever use the word believe. While I think evidence points disproportionately to God, when we say the creed at mass we say " I believe in one God", “I believe in one Holy Catholic…”, “I believe in the communion of Saints”…

However, Catholic apologists and people like Dr. William Lane Craig can point to a lot of evidence for belief and, indeed, science and math are quite helpful to Christians contrary to claims of some of the more disingenuous atheists who hold that Christians currently believe and always have believed that Genesis is a literal text, can’t understand or deny free will, etc.

One of the more unintentionally humorous articles I read recently was authored by an atheist in regard to mathematical probabilities of a randomly created universe. The article dealt with the 1 in 10^42 calculation which is the often quoted odds of randomness leading to the formation of a universe habitable for life. The big news: he’d recalculated the odds as 1 in 10^19. Well strike one for the “science has disproven God camp”!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes.

But then if you asked me if it is at least possible that Vishnu exists or I will be reincarnated or I am a brain in a vat, I would say the say the same.

Obviously, to all intents and purposes, I live my life as if these things are not true.

And that is where Pascal would challenge you.

If it possible, he asks, that God exists, then the wise man lives as though God does exist because placing one’s most important bet on the idea that He does not leads to a neutral outcome at best and a huge loss at worst.

There is no downside risk to living as though God exists.

 

[STT]

How could you be carried inside your mother’s womb if you are over five feet tall and weigh 150 pounds?

I don’t understand how this question is relevant to my objection. You vanish when you die so how you could reincarnate if you already vanished?

You are changing; each version of you is contingent on the previous version of you, but is not precisely the same as the previous version. The same when you are reincarnated; the new version is contingent on the previous version, though in that case the changes are rather more obvious – your physical component does not carry over for example.

This argument really doesn’t follow. The fact that I am changing in my life doesn’t prove that incarnation is true.

To tweak Heraclitus, “You can never step in the same river twice because it is not the same river and you are not the same you.”

rossum

That is not true statement. You can reach the same personality you had through proper practice and guidance.

 

[HelenRose]

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?

That really depends on who is trying to convince whom. If I want to convince an atheist of the existence of God then the burden is on me. If an atheist wants to change my mind then the burden of prove is on him or her. So far no atheist has come near to changing my mind. If an atheist is interested in my reasoning, I will be glad to discuss this with him or her. I can appreciate their point of view and respect it. I trust that they can appreciate my point of view and respect it as well. Without this mutual respect there can be no discussion. There can only be an argument that circles and circles itself.

 

[Bradski]

And that is where Pascal would challenge you.

If it possible, he asks, that God exists, then the wise man lives as though God does exist because placing one’s most important bet on the idea that He does not leads to a neutral outcome at best and a huge loss at worst.

There is no downside risk to living as though God exists.

Let’s face it, I am no different to the majority of believers (of any faith or any denomination). I try to live my life as best I can, I try to respect other people and their beliefs. I try to cause no harm. I try to think of what’s best for not just my family but for all people. I try not to get angry or act petulantly or unjustly. Mostly I am reasonably successful in this. Sometimes I fail quite spectacularly.

And in all this, I take advice on how to live a good life from as many sources as possible. Christianity included. My parents were devout Christians and they set a good example, so I’m not going to reject a lot of what I was taught when I wore a younger man’s clothes.

So I guess I do live the majority of my life as if God existed. But some of the rules that you say are His do not lead to what I have come to believe is the correct way to live. They are rejected.

 

[STT]

And that is where Pascal would challenge you.

If it possible, he asks, that God exists, then the wise man lives as though God does exist because placing one’s most important bet on the idea that He does not leads to a neutral outcome at best and a huge loss at worst.

There is no downside risk to living as though God exists.

That is obviously an opportunistic approach.

 

[rossum]

Again, this is not the issue addressed by Pascal’s Wager which contends that 1) either God exists or He doesn’t and 2) it is more reasonable to live as if God does exist.

Then it is making an unsupported assumption, right at the start. It assumes that Pascal’s version of God is the only one that exists. I am not sure, but weren’t the Jansenists declared, at least in part, heretical? Therefore Pascal’s version of God might not exist, according to the Catholic Church.

Evidence for the existence of Pascal’s God might, or might not, be relevant to determining the existence of Amaterasu, Tlaloc, Odin or Durga. The wager, as stated, reduces all gods to one, and that is a step too far without supporting evidence.

If you define Vishnu with the identical (or at least VERY similar) characteristics as we attribute to YHWH,

I suspect that the Hindu Brahman is closer to YHWH than Vishnu.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I don’t understand how this question is relevant to my objection. You vanish when you die so how you could reincarnate if you already vanished?

You have changed since you were born. Buddhism emphasises change over stasis. The world is seen as a continuous flux of change with an illusory appearance of stasis. You think that you are the same person you were yesterday, but you are not; you have changed. Today you can remember what you had for breakfast this morning; yesterday you could not remember that fact. Hence you memory has changed and so is not a part of any unchanging you. Similar analysis applies to all parts of a human being. Every part changes and no part is permanent.

Since there is no permanent self/soul, all we have is a continuum of changing elements linked by causation. I can remember what I had for breakfast because there is a chain of cause and effect reaching back from me now to me eating breakfast. I cannot remember what you had for breakfast because there is no such chain of cause and effect linking me now to you at breakfast.

A similar cause-effect chain links the small you as a baby to the larger you now. Another cause-effect chain links the you who died at the end of your last life to the you at the start of your current life.

Change is ubiquitous. Any analysis that does not allow change is incorrect. How can someone change from unsaved/unenlightened to saved/enlightened if they cannot change? Change is necessary for salvation/enlightenment to be possible.

That is not true statement. You can reach the same personality you had through proper practice and guidance.

No you cannot. At the very least, the new version will have the memories of the practice and guidance. Are your memories a part of you?

rossum

 

[STT]

You have changed since you were born. Buddhism emphasises change over stasis. The world is seen as a continuous flux of change with an illusory appearance of stasis. You think that you are the same person you were yesterday, but you are not; you have changed. Today you can remember what you had for breakfast this morning; yesterday you could not remember that fact. Hence you memory has changed and so is not a part of any unchanging you. Similar analysis applies to all parts of a human being. Every part changes and no part is permanent.

I agree that we change.

Since there is no permanent self/soul, all we have is a continuum of changing elements linked by causation.

So why we should reincarnate? Everything is simply a chain of cause and effect. There is nothing right or wrong.

I can remember what I had for breakfast because there is a chain of cause and effect reaching back from me now to me eating breakfast. I cannot remember what you had for breakfast because there is no such chain of cause and effect linking me now to you at breakfast.

I don’t understand how this is related to my objection to your system of thought. You simply vanish when you die. There is no sign of you in cosmos anymore so you couldn’t possibly reincarnate.

A similar cause-effect chain links the small you as a baby to the larger you now. Another cause-effect chain links the you who died at the end of your last life to the you at the start of your current life.

The chain of cause and effect as a person vanishes when you die. What is left from you is simply dust which mix with other things. So there is no you anymore. There is no chain of cause and effect which can give you a new life. That is a false claim. I cannot imagine how such a thing is possible.

Change is ubiquitous. Any analysis that does not allow change is incorrect. How can someone change from unsaved/unenlightened to saved/enlightened if they cannot change? Change is necessary for salvation/enlightenment to be possible.

I don’t understand how truth can be obtained by Buddhist practice. We have to search the truth (scientific method for example), know the truth and truth will set our minds free. I have no idea how enlightenment could save us. These are just a set of claims.

No you cannot. At the very least, the new version will have the memories of the practice and guidance. Are your memories a part of you?

rossum

Memory in general can affect who you are but you can get ride of them with a correct practice.

 

[tonyrey]

Let’s face it, I am no different to the majority of believers (of any faith or any denomination). I try to live my life as best I can, I try to respect other people and their beliefs. I try to cause no harm. I try to think of what’s best for not just my family but for all people. I try not to get angry or act petulantly or unjustly. Mostly I am reasonably successful in this. Sometimes I fail quite spectacularly.

And in all this, I take advice on how to live a good life from as many sources as possible. Christianity included. My parents were devout Christians and they set a good example, so I’m not going to reject a lot of what I was taught when I wore a younger man’s clothes.

So I guess I do live the majority of my life as if God existed. But some of the rules that you say are His do not lead to what I have come to believe is the correct way to live. They are rejected.

In that case you accept the Church’s teaching that our ultimate authority is our conscience.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Let’s face it, I am no different to the majority of believers (of any faith or any denomination). I try to live my life as best I can, I try to respect other people and their beliefs. I try to cause no harm. I try to think of what’s best for not just my family but for all people. I try not to get angry or act petulantly or unjustly. Mostly I am reasonably successful in this. Sometimes I fail quite spectacularly.

And in all this, I take advice on how to live a good life from as many sources as possible. Christianity included. My parents were devout Christians and they set a good example, so I’m not going to reject a lot of what I was taught when I wore a younger man’s clothes.

So I guess I do live the majority of my life as if God existed. But some of the rules that you say are His do not lead to what I have come to believe is the correct way to live. They are rejected.

And this is noble as far as it goes. But IF God exists, can we know more about Him, Bradski? Has He made it possible for us to do so?

There are competing claims, of course, but do we have some responsibility to sort out fact from fiction?

 

[Randy_Carson]

That is obviously an opportunistic approach.

Yep.

It is the starting point of faith.

You’re walking along the beach one day, when you spot a pretty girl. You don’t know anything about her, yet, but physical appearance is enough to catch your eye and motivate you to learn more about her.

That is an opportunistic approach, also.

Happens all the time.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Then it is making an unsupported assumption, right at the start. It assumes that Pascal’s version of God is the only one that exists. I am not sure, but weren’t the Jansenists declared, at least in part, heretical? Therefore Pascal’s version of God might not exist, according to the Catholic Church.

Evidence for the existence of Pascal’s God might, or might not, be relevant to determining the existence of Amaterasu, Tlaloc, Odin or Durga. The wager, as stated, reduces all gods to one, and that is a step too far without supporting evidence.

I suspect that the Hindu Brahman is closer to YHWH than Vishnu.

rossum

You keep trying to force Pascal into a Christian mold when all the Wager asks is how one should live in light of the expected outcomes.

 

[Cheiron]

And that is where Pascal would challenge you.

If it possible, he asks, that God exists, then the wise man lives as though God does exist because placing one’s most important bet on the idea that He does not leads to a neutral outcome at best and a huge loss at worst.

There is no downside risk to living as though God exists.

That is obviously an opportunistic approach.

I agree. Pascal asks the atheist to add hypocrisy to the other sins atheists already carry. It’s an immoral suggestion and it also reveals a very low opinion of God. Does Pascal really think an almighty God wouldn’t notice?

 

[STT]

In that case you accept the Church’s teaching that our ultimate authority is our conscience.

Conscience is generated by your brain and it is the result of all your experiences and person you are (your gene).