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

[tonyrey]

Jesus preached against imposing burdens (“They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders” - Matt 11) teaching instead "For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” - Matt 23

 

[levinas12]

In general God cannot explain the origin of any set of which He is a member.

Groucho Marx … I wouldn’t belong to a club that would have me as a member.

Or is it Bertrand Russell?

Seriously, you make a good point here. God is not a part of the world … not even the Supreme Being (contra Aristotle) … God cannot be just one being among many beings … this is really the basis for Anselm’s famous ontological proof … but that’s another thread …

for more detail, see

theschoolofmary.blogspot.com/2007/03/msgr-robert-sokolowski-on-st-anselms.html

 

[levinas12]

Also see:

crisismagazine.com/2015/god-and-the-world-in-christian-theology

These are just a few cites chosen quickly … of course, for the golden discussion itself, see Robert Sokolowski’s book on The God of Faith and Reason …

 

[inocente]

In that case your statement is an ad hominem. Philosophical statements should be objective.
Selective quotations are misleading.
Another ad hominem (implying that you show respect and I don’t).

You’ve been told many times by various posters that ad hominem only applies to a fallacious rebuttal to an argument, so no.

I’m not going to quote large extracts for you because it violates copyright and is against forum guidelines. I’ve linked the source of quotes and as said previously, imho we show respect for authors by reading what they wrote.

*It doesn’t follow that Pascal believed we have **no knowledge whatsoever ***of God’s nature or existence.

In that case we do have knowledge of God…

If you read what he wrote, Pascal argues that we know through faith.

This is a philosophy forum. What individuals** want** is irrelevant…

 

[Aloysium]

Then, since you are human, everything you say about God is essentially wrong because “He transcends our understanding”. Similarly for all the words in the Bible and all the words written by the Catholic Church. Those are merely human words, referring to human sets and so are also wrong because “He transcends our understanding”. You have just destroyed Christianity (and possibly Judaism as well). Congratulations. No. God is not a member of the human set “things that can be described analogically”.Your initial argument is a universal solvent, and it will destroy any argument made with words.

This would appear to follow from the view expressed in your signature that “The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.”
The argument you are proposing constitutes a turning of one’s thoughts into pretzels, confounding matters rather than bringing one closer to the Truth.
Zen Buddhism, through its koans, utilizes such techniques to “short-circuit” the mind and thereby force it from its pointless musings, into a realization of Reality - aka enlightenment.
The relevance here is that the Truth cannot be reached directly by juggling lesser truths.
Utilizing such concepts as “human sets” in a pseudological argument that entirely misses the transcendent, does not provide any sort of proof against the Divine’s having any particular nature.
As you identify, “human words” cannot themselves reach the transcendent. We can only analogously describe the Divine using words that have to do with the mundane. That said, they do have the capacity to describe what is realized and revealed.
The Truth actually is the “universal solvent, and it will destroy any argument made with words.”
In the Truth, there is really nothing left to say and everything to glorify.

"Once the monks of the eastern and western Zen halls were quarrelling about a cat. Nansen held up the cat and said, “You monks! If one of you can say a word, I will spare the cat. If you can’t say anything, I will put it to the sword.” No one could answer, so Nansen finally slew it. In the evening, when Joshu returned, Nansen told him what had happened. Joshu, thereupon, took off his sandals, put them on his head and walked off. Nansen said, “If you had been there, I could have spared the cat.”

It is futile to argue about things. In the end, there is no end to it. There being no final word, argument destroys itself in its pointlessness. Reality beyond words, provides one with the living Truth.

 

[tonyrey]

In that case your statement is an ad hominem. Philosophical statements should be objective.
Selective quotations are misleading.
Another ad hominem (implying that you show respect and I don’t).

In this instance it is a two-edged sword…

It doesn’t follow that Pascal believed we have no knowledge whatsoever of God’s nature or existence.

In that case we do have knowledge of God…

If you read what he wrote, Pascal argues that we know through faith.

There is more than one type of knowledge:

Le cœur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît pas.

• Pascal

“The heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing.”

This is a philosophy forum. What individuals want is irrelevant…

No rational response…

 

[inocente]

No rational response…

“What individuals want is irrelevant”.

You weren’t serious?

In Orwell’s 1984, the Ministry of Truth building is adorned with the Party slogans: “War is peace”, “Ignorance is strength”, “Freedom is slavery”…

 

[tonyrey]

No rational response…

You weren’t serious?

In Orwell’s 1984, the Ministry of Truth building is adorned with the Party slogans: “War is peace”, “Ignorance is strength”, “Freedom is slavery”…

How on earth is that related to your statement:

No one has anything to prove unless they themselves want

with regard to the topic:

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

[/QUOTE]

 

[rossum]

“Careless of you” = Ad hominem.

No. An ad hominem would be something like: “tonyrey’s argument is wrong because he has a pimple on the end of his nose.” An appeal to an irrelevant aspect of the other person.

I was directly addressing the fault in your argument, that it prevents any description of God using human words, definitions and categories. A “set” is a very large class of things, and your argument asserts that no member of that class can be used to describe God.

To put forward such an argument without properly thinking through the consequences is definitely careless.

You know that I am Buddhist. You would do well to read up on the prasangika method of argumentation: the opponent’s own arguments are used against him.

rossum

 

[rossum]

As you identify, “human words” cannot themselves reach the transcendent.

The Flower Sutra

Toward the end of his life, the Buddha took his disciples to a quiet pond for instruction. As they had done so many times before, the Buddha’s followers sat in a small circle around him, and waited for the teaching.

But this time the Buddha had no words. He reached into the muck and pulled up a lotus flower. And he held it silently before them, its roots dripping mud and water.

The disciples were greatly confused. Buddha quietly displayed the lotus to each of them. In turn, the disciples did their best to expound upon the meaning of the flower: what it symbolised, and how it fitted into the body of Buddha’s teaching.

When at last the Buddha came to his follower Mahakasyapa, the disciple suddenly understood. He smiled and began to laugh. Buddha handed the lotus to Mahakasyapa and began to speak.

“What can be said I have said to you,” smiled the Buddha, “and what cannot be said, I have given to Mahakasyapa.”

rossum

 

[STT]

The Flower Sutra

Toward the end of his life, the Buddha took his disciples to a quiet pond for instruction. As they had done so many times before, the Buddha’s followers sat in a small circle around him, and waited for the teaching.

But this time the Buddha had no words. He reached into the muck and pulled up a lotus flower. And he held it silently before them, its roots dripping mud and water.

The disciples were greatly confused. Buddha quietly displayed the lotus to each of them. In turn, the disciples did their best to expound upon the meaning of the flower: what it symbolised, and how it fitted into the body of Buddha’s teaching.

When at last the Buddha came to his follower Mahakasyapa, the disciple suddenly understood. He smiled and began to laugh. Buddha handed the lotus to Mahakasyapa and began to speak.

“What can be said I have said to you,” smiled the Buddha, “and what cannot be said, I have given to Mahakasyapa.”

rossum

This story doesn’t make sense. How something that cannot be said can be transferred by lotus?

 

[tonyrey]

Careless of you" = Ad hominem.

I had already pointed out that descriptions of God are analogical, i…e. not literally true.. Your assertion “Careless of you” is an ad hominem because not only is it false but it is also directed at **my behaviour **rather than my argument.

You have also failed to answer the point that ideologies like Buddhism refer to a spiritual realm that no one in this world has experienced:

Buddhists believe that life is both endless and subject to impermanence, suffering and uncertainty. These states are called the tilakhana, or the three signs of existence. Existence is endless because individuals are reincarnated over and over again, experiencing suffering throughout many lives.
bbc.co.uk/religion/religi…e/glance.shtml

And not responded to the question:

How would you define your knowledge of the Buddhist ideology? Scientific? Empirical?

 

[Bradski]

Your assertion “Careless of you” is an ad hominem because not only is it false but it is also directed at **my behaviour **rather than my argument.

An ad hominem is only used against arguments. Therefore…

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Therefore, it just being condescending, wrong, confused, obnoxious, beside the point, etc. Take your pick.

 

[levinas12]

So, if I make a set, which must be a human set, of “things that exist”, then God is outside that set and hence God does not exist.

On one hand, the Christian God is “outside” the world, is not part of the inventory of things within the world, is thus unlike the ancient Greek deities who were entities within the world. God is not an entity at all (if an entity means one thing among other things).

On the other hand, Jesus, who is God, is also a member of the set of human beings - so God is “inside” the world.

How to reconcile these two statements is not an impossible task. It is precisely because God is “outside” the world that makes it possible for Him to blend with an intra-worldly nature without obliterating it. Both God and human nature can exist together without changing God and without changing the human nature.

Such “preservation” could not happen if we tried to blend two intra-worldly natures, e.g., lion nature and human nature. These natures cannot be “blended” without some sort of obliteration taking place (the new being would neither be just a lion, or just a human being, but some third thing, a monstrous hybrid).

Thomists would put all this a little differently but would reach the same conclusion. God does not have an essence distinct from His esse - God is simply ipsum esse - so His blending with human nature does not pit one finite essence against another finite essence.

 

[levinas12]

Postscript:

But why did “Jesus” happen? So God could definitively “appear” in our world.

Sure there were hints and suggestions before Jesus. But God still remained “outside” the universe, “outside” the world of entities. We could search high and low, in this galaxy and in that galaxy, and still not “find” God, He wasn’t anywhere to be found because He is “outside” of the set of all entities (beings with distinct essences) - this is why the Jews were so worried about idolatry.

Finally, God said “enough is enough” and assumed a finite essence (human nature) at a specific time in a specific place. We could finally “point Him out” - “hey, there’s God over there”, e.g., by the well with a Samaritan woman.

God did all this to refute Bertrand Russell who had complained that God was too elusive.

And, again, God could assume a finite essence because He is not “defined” by a finite essence. Once this happened (in Jesus), then we could say that God is both “outside” and “inside” and not contradict ourselves. The Incarnation, in other words, is philosophically possible.

 

[Tomdstone]

Finally, God said “enough is enough” and assumed a finite essence (human nature) at a specific time in a specific place. .

I thought that according to Roman Catholic teaching, God does not and could not change? But you are saying that God assumed a human nature at a specific time. So before that time God did not have that human nature, but only afterward He had that human nature? So God changed which is contrary to the belief that God does not change?

 

[rossum]

I had already pointed out that descriptions of God are analogical, i…e. not literally true..

But they still do not describe your version of God. I define the set: “things that can be approached by analogy”, and your God is excluded from that set by your own argument.

Because it is so easy to define a human set, it is easy to define a set which excludes your God: “the set of things that are omnipotent” does not include your God. Again, “the set of things that have a son” does not include your God.

All I have to do is to define a set and your God is excluded from it because any set I define is a human set.

You have also failed to answer the point that ideologies like Buddhism refer to a spiritual realm that no one in this world has experienced

Buddhism is off topic on this thread.

rossum

 

[rossum]

On one hand, the Christian God is “outside” the world, is not part of the inventory of things within the world, is thus unlike the ancient Greek deities who were entities within the world. God is not an entity at all (if an entity means one thing among other things).

On the other hand, Jesus, who is God, is also a member of the set of human beings - so God is “inside” the world.

How to reconcile these two statements is not an impossible task.

It is an impossible task:

• God is immortal and cannot die.
• Jesus died on the cross.
• Jesus is God.

Those three statements are logically incompatible, and yet orthodox (small ‘o’) Christianity asserts that all three are true. Any two can be true, but not the third.

rossum

 

[inocente]

inocente;14246113:

tonyrey;14245617:

This is a philosophy forum. What individuals** want**

is irrelevant…
You weren’t serious?

In Orwell’s 1984, the Ministry of Truth building is adorned with the Party slogans: “War is peace”, “Ignorance is strength”, “Freedom is slavery”…

How on earth is that related to your statement:
with regard to the topic:

With regard to the topic, no one may compel another to justify his beliefs. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_competency

Or as Miley Cyrus put it “Remember only God can judge you … It’s our song we can sing if we want to, it’s my mouth I can say what I want to”.