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

[tonyrey]

The simplest response to the OP:

The burden of proof is on non-believers to prove God doesn’t exist (according to theist philosophers).

 

[tonyrey]

They are not insurmountable issues.

There is certainly an insurmountable issue with divine mutability! If God changes He either changes Himself - or is changed by something beyond his control (which is absurd). So why would He change Himself? It implies that He is imperfect and not “All in All”…

There seems to be a Buddhist influence here - that everything is in a state of constant flux - including the **belief **that everything is in a state of constant flux!

 

[Aloysium]

I don’t need to eat mutton. But if I did start eating mutton, it would be a change in my diet. The fact that I don;t need it, is irrelevant to the question of a change in my diet. What is relevant is that up to now, I did not eat mutton, but from now on, I will eat mutton, so there has been a change, even though this change was not needed.

So, you truly believe you know what you need. This thread exists as a result of people’s not knowing, and requiring proof of what we need most and who alone will satisfy.

Beyond the surface, there really is no change in what you describe above. Determinism as a philosophical system exists because the cause of what transpires physically and psychologically is determined by an underlying structure, that we can understand as the laws of nature, Consider that a rocket sent to the moon has a trajectory which can be determined at any point along its path; it can be calculated on the basis of the gravitational and other forces that act on the projectile. Although we cannot measure or determine changes in dopamine or other neurotransmitters, nor account for other cerebral or gastrointestinal occurrences that would influence appetite, the truth remains that what occurs in the choice of mutton is influenced by underlying properties of matter. Psychologically too, there are social and personal forces that determine behaviour such as the availability of mutton, an obstinate personality that randomly chooses one food over another because it can, and a myriad of other such determinants. What you describe then is an appearance of change on a ground of unchanging physical and psychological determinates. This illusion emerges as a result of the past-present-future nature of our spirit, which is what we can actually change through our moral choices, and is thereby transformed in its journey along the living Way.

We have the capacity to make of ourselves who we choose to be along a spectrum of love, from all that is transient, ultimately illusory and has been determined for us. However, paradoxically, your choice of mutton could also constitute a real change. And, that change is in response to what we as persons truly need. It is a step closer along the Way that is Jesus Christ, in its approach to the innocent Lamb of God, whose body and blood was offered in sacrifice for our salvation and of which we partake in the Eucharist. Our spirit, through its free will has the capacity to act, to choose and create the person we wish to be beyond the superficialities of what is given.

God as the Cause of all this wonder is the unchanging Source and final Destiny of our existence. Miracles can occur as He reaches out to us within the totality of His eternal vision, guiding us toward Him through our conscience.

 

[levinas12]

I don’t need to eat mutton. But if I did start eating mutton, it would be a change in my diet. The fact that I don;t need it, is irrelevant to the question of a change in my diet. What is relevant is that up to now, I did not eat mutton, but from now on, I will eat mutton, so there has been a change, even though this change was not needed.

The discussion is about the philosophical notion of change, and, in particular, Aristotle’s.

You may not need mutton but you need food. Your eating mutton takes place in a larger context surrounded by an ontological “lack” or “absence” (the material index of which is your mouth, stomach, GI tract, etc).

According to Aristotle, “lack/absence” in its various modalities drives change and is the basis of “time”.

I’ve been using Aristotle to frame the discussion because that is the context for Aquinas saying that God does not change and is outside time. God, according to Aquinas, does not have any ontological “lack/absence” - so He cannot change (again according to Aristotle’s notion of change). When God created the universe or assumed human nature, these were not Aristotelian changes because they did not stem from “lack” or “need”.

You may have an entirely different philosophical notion of change - but citing “difference” is merely tautological. The philosophical question is what drives the “difference”.

You may disagree with Aristotle. So what is your philosophical explanation of change?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Have a look at the article I linked, which is a round-up of the philosophy of divine immutability. I agree that the God of the bible isn’t constrained by the issues which face the God of the philosophers.

I read the article. The author doesn’t make any claim about the problem of divine immutability being insurmountable. In fact, the solution of Eleanore Stump and Norman Kretzmann seems quite effective.

Not so sure. If philosophers are still working it out after two millennia (see the article) then we may ask whether our taxes might be better employed elsewhere.

So, let me get this straight, you are claiming that questions about the nature and essence of God should have been resolved millennia ago by human beings or else we should have just stopped considering them? Doesn’t this presuppose that the nature of God ought to be so simple to grasp that the average preschooler should be able to master or it isn’t worth our time and effort to do so?

We’d best tell that to God – you know, the God whom we are commanded to know, love, and serve. He needs to simplify his profound and mysterious nature or he will become irrelevant to humanity.

I suppose we ought to apply the same paradigm regarding human thirst for knowledge to science, as well. Since many scientific questions – for example: why the force of gravity exists – have been similarly unresolved to date, we should simply drop those questions.

Good thing you weren’t around a few millennia ago. I shudder to think what the state of human knowledge would be if everyone shared your level of curiosity about stuff.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Good thing you weren’t around a few millennia ago. I shudder to think what the state of human knowledge would be if everyone shared your level of curiosity about stuff.

Even the medievalists had vastly more “curiosity about stuff.”.

 

[levinas12]

There is a paradoxical quality to this discussion of divine immutability.

Some have argued that, when God “decided” to create or to incarnate, there was a change from a “before” to an “after”. But how could there be a “before” if time came into being only after the decision.

This is analogous to the situation of the Big Bang which brought about time. What was “before” if there was no “before”?

I know, I know - there may have been an infinite number of Big Bangs. But suppose, just for the sake of the argument, that the Big Bang happened only once. (I should add: even if there were an infinite number of Big Bangs, the time frames would be incommensurable)

Again, what sense does “before” have in this case - and, if there is no “before”, because there is no “time”, then how can there be a change - change implies a “past” - but in this case, there is no “past”.

Another way of putting it: how could there be a “first” now, if every “now” is bounded by a “past” and a “future”?

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is a paradoxical quality to this discussion of divine immutability.

Some have argued that, when God “decided” to create or to incarnate, there was a change from a “before” to an “after”. But how could there be a “before” if time came into being only after the decision.

This is analogous to the situation of the Big Bang which brought about time. What was “before” if there was no “before”?

I know, I know - there may have been an infinite number of Big Bangs. But suppose, just for the sake of the argument, that the Big Bang happened only once. (I should add: even if there were an infinite number of Big Bangs, the time frames would be incommensurable)

Again, what sense does “before” have in this case - and, if there is no “before”, because there is no “time”, then how can there be a change - change implies a “past” - but in this case, there is no “past”.

Another way of putting it: how could there be a “first” now, if every “now” is bounded by a “past” and a “future”?

Likely because we are two-dimensional beings (regarding time) trying to figure out what three-dimensional time is like. Akin to someone who has only experienced a two-dimensional painting or world trying to understand the intricacies of a three dimensional world.

Lewis addresses it here regarding the Trinity:
truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/apologetics/mere-christianity/Book4/cs-lewis-mere-christianity-book4.php

And elsewhere with regard to eternality but I can’t find the correct reference.

 

[inocente]

I read the article. The author doesn’t make any claim about the problem of divine immutability being insurmountable. In fact, the solution of Eleanore Stump and Norman Kretzmann seems quite effective.

But their work is very recent. If you had lived 200 years ago then you might have thought the philosophers of that day had solved it, not knowing that later philosophers would uncover more issues. Many generations of philosophers have not solved it, so chances are more issues will arise.

In revelation, God is revealed to be eternal, to have integrity, and to be trustworthy, but doesn’t appear unequivocally to reveal himself as immutable. If philosophers placed that constraint on him in error then they will always be in error.

*So, let me get this straight, you are claiming that questions about the nature and essence of God should have been resolved millennia ago by human beings or else we should have just stopped considering them? Doesn’t this presuppose that the nature of God ought to be so simple to grasp that the average preschooler should be able to master or it isn’t worth our time and effort to do so?

We’d best tell that to God – you know, the God whom we are commanded to know, love, and serve. He needs to simplify his profound and mysterious nature or he will become irrelevant to humanity.

I suppose we ought to apply the same paradigm regarding human thirst for knowledge to science, as well. Since many scientific questions – for example: why the force of gravity exists – have been similarly unresolved to date, we should simply drop those questions. *

But God is a person, not a blind force of nature like gravity. I’m saying there is a divide between the God of the philosophers, which is a construct of logic, and the God of the bible, who is a living person, made flesh in Christ. Some people may believe in God as a construct of logic, but a construct of logic didn’t die for us on the cross, and won’t judge us, and can’t help us. And it would be silly to worship a construct of logic. Paul asks where is the philosopher of the age, and answers “we preach Christ crucified” - 1 Cor 1.

 

[inocente]

I advise Dr. David Kyle Johnson to refrain from making comments of any kind less he be discovered to be undeserving of his scholarly status.

Good thing you weren’t around a few millennia ago. I shudder to think what the state of human knowledge would be if everyone shared your level of curiosity about stuff.

Even the medievalists had vastly more “curiosity about stuff.”.

In the real world, wasn’t Galileo put on trial after his curiosity led him to question the state of human knowledge? Didn’t Francis Bacon introduce the modern division between science and metaphysics because knowledge was not advancing due to artificial constraints imposed by those convinced Aristotle and scripture had long ago said everything which needed to be said?

 

[Peter_Plato]

In the real world, wasn’t Galileo put on trial after his curiosity led him to question the state of human knowledge? Didn’t Francis Bacon introduce the modern division between science and metaphysics because knowledge was not advancing due to artificial constraints imposed by those convinced Aristotle and scripture had long ago said everything which needed to be said?

Actually, both of those are largely myths. Read God’s Philosophers by James Hannam for a more accurate accounting of the supposed constraints.

Besides that, aren’t you the one calling for what could be called ‘imposing artificial constraints’ by discounting the field of philosophy as getting us nowhere with respect to some areas of inquiry?

Furthermore, aren’t you taking the same fundamental and doctrinal position regarding philosophy as those you criticize regarding Aristotle and Scripture, just from the other side, here:

Many generations of philosophers have not solved it, so chances are more issues will arise.

To wit: For many generations Aristotle has solved it, so chances are he will solve it again.

 

[inocente]

Actually, both of those are largely myths. Read God’s Philosophers by James Hannam for a more accurate accounting of the supposed constraints.

Pope JPII on Galileo: “Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the Sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of the Sacred Scripture.” - bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/Cosmology/GalileoPope.html

Francis Bacon on the status quo of learning in 1620: “Those who have taken upon them to lay down the law of nature as a thing already searched out and understood, whether they have spoken in simple assurance or professional affectation, have therein done philosophy and the sciences great injury. For as they have been successful in inducing belief, so they have been effective in quenching and stopping inquiry; …] Those on the other hand who have taken a contrary course, and asserted that absolutely nothing can be known …] have neither started from true principles nor rested in the just conclusion, zeal and affectation having carried them much too far.” - The New Organon, author’s preface

*Besides that, aren’t you the one calling for dismissing or discounting the field of philosophy as getting us nowhere with respect to some areas of inquiry?

Furthermore, aren’t you taking the same fundamental and doctrinal position regarding philosophy as those you criticize regarding Aristotle and Scripture, just from the other side, here:*

Simple probability is that if something hasn’t been solved in many generations, you’ll be lucky to live in the generation which finally solves it for all time.

To wit: For many generations Aristotle has solved it, so chances are he will solve it again.

In Galileo’s day, for many generations Aristotle had solved cosmology, with his stationary earth in the center of a cosmos which revolved around it, with planets and stars on celestial spheres girdled by heaven where God lived. All the books in all the libraries said Aristotle had solved it, they had said it for generations, they couldn’t possibly be wrong.

Well, until Galileo observed moons orbiting Jupiter, which wasn’t supposed to happen and pulled the pin of the whole shebang. So the philosophers gave their God a new home in an abstracted heaven, but people don’t pray to abstractions, people still pray to the God of the bible.

*I am an orphan girl

But when He calls me I will be able
To meet my family at God’s table
I’ll meet my mother, my father
My sister, my brother
No more an orphan girl

Blessed Savior make me willing
Walk beside me until I’m with them
Be my mother, my father
My sister, my brother
I am an orphan girl
youtube.com/watch?v=9qZOOb02u-4*

Philosophers only have human wisdom, and Paul tells us that is fallible foolishness. You can find any number of prayers, hymns, songs and paintings to the living God. Bet you can’t find quite as many to the logical construct of philosophers.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Since the claim or fact that God exists doesn’t ultimately originate from believers but from God himself there is no burden of proof. Only a choice to seek God or not. Those who love God will find him. And those who don’t will not find him. For they will not seek him. Believers can share their testimony of God in their lives for others, to encourage the brethren and help convince the unbeliever. Those who have chosen to ignore the evidence, the testimony of others, and do not seek God, have made their choice. There is no burden to provide proof to them. Only God can help them now. This is why we need to pray for them.

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus the rich man suffering agony in his place of punishment wanted to send proof to his brothers. Yet, no proof was given except Moses and the prophets. It was said that if they will not listen to Moses and the prophets they will not listen even if someone should rise from the dead.

Their hearts need to be open to God before they will listen. No proof will convince them. Thus, there is no burden of proof. Burden of proof really means that they are not open to God or anything you have to say. Each person is called by God. Each person receives grace in their lives to respond to him. The question is are we listening to that call or have we made ourselves god and gone our own way?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Their hearts need to be open to God before they will listen. No proof will convince them. Thus, there is no burden of proof. Burden of proof really means that they are not open to God or anything you have to say.

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” Thomas Aquinas

 

[Peter_Plato]

Pope JPII on Galileo: “Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the Sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of the Sacred Scripture.”

The problem with applying Sola Scriptura or the quote mining of written works as rational methods to substantiate your position is that it leaves you open to all kinds of rebuttals from a variety of directions.

Let’s not forget that JPII wrote the encyclical Fides Et Ratio, where he famously stated in the opening:

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).
ewtn.com/library/encyc/jp2fides.htm

Note, if you will that JPII

1. Was, himself, a philosopher; earning a doctorate in philosophy on June 19, 1948.
2. Defended philosophy as a discipline throughout the encyclical, Fides Et Ratio. For example, by stating categorically in that encyclical:
   “At the deepest level, the autonomy which philosophy enjoys is rooted in the fact that reason is by its nature oriented to truth and is equipped moreover with the means necessary to arrive at truth. A philosophy conscious of this as its ‘constitutive status’ cannot but respect the demands and the data of revealed truth.”
3. Uses a plethora of Scriptural citations for his defense of philosophy
4. Did not call his encyclical “Faith and Science” because he understood that science depends upon reason to be at all effective or have anything rational to say about human existence.

Simple probability is that if something hasn’t been solved in many generations, you’ll be lucky to live in the generation which finally solves it for all time.

I suppose what you say is true, if you choose to disregard the fact that knowledge is built upon knowledge and that technology and developments in many areas are built upon the work of the generations of individuals who came before you. Look, for example, at mathematics and computing science or genetics.

In Galileo’s day, for many generations Aristotle had solved cosmology, with his stationary earth in the center of a cosmos which revolved around it, with planets and stars on celestial spheres girdled by heaven where God lived. All the books in all the libraries said Aristotle had solved it, they had said it for generations, they couldn’t possibly be wrong.

Well, until Galileo observed moons orbiting Jupiter, which wasn’t supposed to happen and pulled the pin of the whole shebang. So the philosophers gave their God a new home in an abstracted heaven, but people don’t pray to abstractions, people still pray to the God of the bible.

How does this not directly contradict your claim with regard to the “… simple probability is that if something hasn’t been solved in many generations, you’ll be lucky to live in the generation which finally solves it for all time.” So Galileo did, according to you, solve “something” that hadn’t “been solved in many generations” for “all times.”

Besides, what you are espousing is a simplistic view of the history of science and – with all due respect to JPII – Galileo did not practically “invent the scientific method.” Much of what he did was “borrowed,” largely uncredited, from predecessors who lived and worked around Europe for hundreds of years before Galileo.

Again, read Hannam’s book on this. Or at least this article as a primer:
jameshannam.com/medievalscience.htm

Science – just like philosophy – is hard work and progresses slowly by fits and starts which is the reason why philosophy and science are BOTH worthy pursuits towards the truth.

Philosophers only have human wisdom, and Paul tells us that is fallible foolishness. You can find any number of prayers, hymns, songs and paintings to the living God. Bet you can’t find quite as many to the logical construct of philosophers.

Since science also depends upon “human wisdom” with regard to the direction it takes and what it does with its findings, you may as well have Paul call science “fallible foolishness.”

We don’t, by the way, find a large number of “prayers, hymns, songs and paintings” to science* either – which seems to directly undermine the first point of your post; you know the one where you recruited JPII’s mouth to speak for you in defense of science but ignored completely his remaining body – i.e., his complete corpus of works – with regard to philosophy.

---

*Well, okay there is Thomas Dolby’s She Blinded Me with Science but that seems less a song or ode to science than a warning about science.

 

[inocente]

The problem with applying Sola Scriptura or the quote mining of written works as rational methods to substantiate your position is that it leaves you open to all kinds of rebuttals from a variety of directions.

Quote-mining is defined as distorting the author’s meaning by quoting out of context. I cited JPII’s entire speech and if you read it you’ll see his meaning is as quoted: “The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth”.

A later Pope, Joseph Ratzinger, confirms that by adding: “Evidently it must have been taught differently at one time or else Galileo would never have been put on trial.”

I never mentioned sola scriptura. I’m saying much the same as Ratzinger does later in that same article about wrongly imposing a dead theory of God:

“As far as theological views of this sort are concerned, finally, quite a number of people have the abiding impression that the church’s faith is like a jellyfish: no one can get a grip on it and it has no firm center. It is on the many half-hearted interpretations of the biblical Word that can be found everywhere that a sickly Christianity takes its stand – a Christianity that is no longer true to itself and that consequently cannot radiate encouragement and enthusiasm. It gives, instead, the impression of being an organization that keeps on talking although it has nothing else to say, because twisted words are not convincing and are only concerned to hide their emptiness.”

*Let’s not forget that JPII wrote the encyclical Fides Et Ratio, where he famously stated in the opening:

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).
ewtn.com/library/encyc/jp2fides.htm*

Note, if you will that JPII

1. Was, himself, a philosopher; earning a doctorate in philosophy on June 19, 1948.
2. Defended philosophy as a discipline throughout the encyclical, Fides Et Ratio. For example, by stating categorically in that encyclical:
   “At the deepest level, the autonomy which philosophy enjoys is rooted in the fact that reason is by its nature oriented to truth and is equipped moreover with the means necessary to arrive at truth. A philosophy conscious of this as its ‘constitutive status’ cannot but respect the demands and the data of revealed truth.”
3. Uses a plethora of Scriptural citations for his defense of philosophy
4. Did not call his encyclical “Faith and Science” because he understood that science depends upon reason to be at all effective or have anything rational to say about human existence.

All agreed, no problems with that. But if you look at CCC 2467, which says we have “a moral obligation to seek the truth”, you’ll see it’s quoting from DH 2 § 2. Mindful of our shared aversion to quote-mining, if we go to Dignitatis Humanae 2, we see it agrees with the UDHR, etc., on individual absolute freedom of religion:

“However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature.”

 

[inocente]

I suppose what you say is true, if you choose to disregard the fact that knowledge is built upon knowledge and that technology and developments in many areas are built upon the work of the generations of individuals who came before you. Look, for example, at mathematics and computing science or genetics.

But divine immutability isn’t knowledge, it’s a doctrine, and all the alternate doctrines also stand on the shoulders of giants.

How does this not directly contradict your claim with regard to the “… simple probability is that if something hasn’t been solved in many generations, you’ll be lucky to live in the generation which finally solves it for all time.” So Galileo did, according to you, solve “something” that hadn’t “been solved in many generations” for “all times.”

Previous generations weren’t trying to solve it though. They had no telescopes and didn’t see a problem to solve, they thought their cosmology was a done deal. I’d feel lucky to live in Galileo’s generation, seeing the back of that long held falsehood. Although others seem to have felt unlucky at having to wave goodbye to a cherished belief in a cosmos that revolved around them. It was ever such.

*Besides, what you are espousing is a simplistic view of the history of science and – with all due respect to JPII – Galileo did not practically “invent the scientific method.” Much of what he did was “borrowed,” largely uncredited, from predecessors who lived and worked around Europe for hundreds of years before Galileo.

Again, read Hannam’s book on this. Or at least this article as a primer:
jameshannam.com/medievalscience.htm*

Science – just like philosophy – is hard work and progresses slowly by fits and starts which is the reason why philosophy and science are BOTH worthy pursuits towards the truth.

I’d imagine JPII isn’t trying to diminish previous generations but is simply expressing the common view that, in Einstein’s words “Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality. Because Galileo saw this, and particularly because he drummed it into the scientific world, he is the father of modern physics — indeed, of modern science altogether.”

*Since science also depends upon “human wisdom” with regard to the direction it takes and what it does with its findings, you may as well have Paul call science “fallible foolishness.”

We don’t, by the way, find a large number of “prayers, hymns, songs and paintings” to science** either – which seems to directly undermine the first point of your post; you know the one where you recruited JPII’s mouth to speak for you in defense of science but ignored completely his remaining body – i.e., his complete corpus of works – with regard to philosophy.

---

*Well, okay there is Thomas Dolby’s She Blinded Me with Science but that seems less a song or ode to science than a warning about science.

Don’t know how we got into a science vs religion thing, and not sure why anyone would want to pray to science, that seems as empty as praying to the logical construct of philosophers. In 1 Cor 1, isn’t Paul more or less saying, along with Einstein, that “Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality”?

---

Don’t think I’ve heard that song, but he says the meaning is “frivolous” here.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But divine immutability isn’t knowledge, it’s a doctrine, and all the alternate doctrines also stand on the shoulders of giants.

Actually, it is a reasoned position that derives from the doctrine of divine simplicity.

The doctrine of divine simplicity has a number of crucial implications, which are, accordingly, also essential to classical theism. It entails that God is immutable or changeless, and therefore that He is impassible – that is, that He cannot be affected by anything in the created order. It entails that he is eternal in the sense of being altogether outside of time and space. It entails that He does not “have” existence, or an essence, or His various attributes but rather is identical to His existence, His nature and His attributes: He is His existence which is His essence which is His power which is His knowledge which is His goodness. (I have discussed some of these points in greater detail in the posts on simplicity linked to above.)

Why is divine simplicity regarded by classical theists as so important? One reason is that in their view, nothing less than what is absolutely simple could possibly be divine, because nothing less than what is absolutely simple could have the metaphysical ultimacy that God is supposed to have. For anything which is in any way composed of parts would be metaphysically less fundamental than those parts themselves, and would depend on some external principle to account for the parts being combined in the way they are. In that case, either the external principle itself (or perhaps some yet further principle) would have to be simple, and thus ultimate, and thus the truly divine reality; or there is no simple or non-composite first principle, and thus no metaphysically ultimate reality, and thus nothing strictly divine. In short, to deny divine simplicity is, for the classical theist, implicitly to deny the existence of God.
edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/search?q=Divine+immutability

It is also a basic tenet of Christianity in a generic, non-denominational, sense.

christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsandlists/qt/biblefactsgod.htm

 

[tonyrey]

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” Thomas Aquinas

Everyone has faith in something or some One because we all have to choose what we regard as the most fundamental element of reality, whether it be some form of physical or spiritual energy or a combination of both. Therefore the burden of proof is on everyone without exception - including atheist philosophers - to explain why their particular ideology is more reasonable than the others. As babies we experience nothing but our sensations and feelings with no knowledge or understanding of ourselves or others or the world, i.e. apparently a tabula rasa…

 

[Julian0404]

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

Have you ever believed something when you had rejected the evidence? Have you ever disbelieved something when you did accept the evidence? Don’t you think that either would be extraordinarily bizzare?

". . . This estrangement from GOD is not caused by reasoning but by a wish to be detached from HIM. The atheistic orientation of a life is almost always a decision by the will. Man no longer wishes to reflect on his relationship to GOD because he himself intends to become GOD., Atheism is thus a decision to ignore reason, which would bring us back to our CREATOR, . "
Robert Cardinal Sarah in his book GOD or Nothing

Atheist are to be turned over to the HOLY SPIRIT in prayer that HE will in HIS mercy grant them HIS gifts of wisdom, knowledge and understanding for they chosen have NOT to follow reason.