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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Sinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
For example, if human fossils appeared suddenly in earthlayers in Mesopotamia, without any evidence of other hominids, then that would be evidence that Genesis is true.
Well, it would be evidence that Genesis is literally true, and that creation occurred as the first 11 chapters of Genesis limn.

But since the CC doesn’t profess that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are historical narratives, but are rather allegorical, you’re still left with answering the question of what clues would convince you that God exists.
Or evidence that an eclipse after a full moon can actually happen would provide evidence that the eclipse in Luke 23:44-45 also really happened.
This makes no sense. If evidence were provided that an eclipse after a full moon can actually happen, then wouldn’t atheists just dismiss Luke 23:44-45 as a simply natural event?
 
You see what you just did there? 🙂

Thank you for proving my point, rather nicely indeed.

“Clues” are sufficient for determining whether a woman is interested.

But you suddenly switched from “clues” to “definitive proof”.

I want you to be consistent.

If “clues” are sufficient for discerning a woman’s interest, then “clues” should be sufficient for belief in God’s existence.

See?
What I meant with “definitive” was that I didn’t know what kind of evidence or clue (or amount of evidence) would put me over the edge from non-belief to belief. English isn’t my native language, but did I really phrase it that poorly?

In any case, I would need clues that point to God’s existence. And I have not yet encountered those clues.
Well, it would be evidence that Genesis is literally true, and that creation occurred as the first 11 chapters of Genesis limn.

But since the CC doesn’t profess that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are historical narratives, but are rather allegorical, you’re still left with answering the question of what clues would convince you that God exists.
What?! So the Fall is allegorical?! That is completely new to me.

It’s simply not convincing to say that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are allegorical, while still claiming that the Fall was real - as, in my understanding, the Catholic Church does. That event is too embedded in the rest of the story. I have to give credit to creationists for pressing that point home.
This makes no sense. If evidence were provided that an eclipse after a full moon can actually happen, then wouldn’t atheists just dismiss Luke 23:44-45 as a simply natural event?
That depends on the evidence given. But to me, - and you asked what would convince me - the possibility of an eclipse after a full moon would remove one of my objections to the credibility of the Bible.
 
What I meant with “definitive” was that I didn’t know what kind of evidence or clue (or amount of evidence) would put me over the edge from non-belief to belief. English isn’t my native language, but did I really phrase it that poorly?

In any case, I would need clues that point to God’s existence. And I have not yet encountered those clues.
Right.

And what are those clues?

What clues would confirm for you the existence of God?
What?! So the Fall is allegorical?! That is completely new to me.
Wait–now we’re talking about the Fall?

How would fossils confirm the Fall?

#Imveryconfusednow
 
Right.

And what are those clues?

What clues would confirm for you the existence of God?
I’m not sure. But I have given you two examples that would point me in the direction of specifically Christianity.
Wait–now we’re talking about the Fall?

How would fossils confirm the Fall?

#Imveryconfusednow
Because Genesis says humans were created by God in the garden of Eden, near the Euphrates and the Tigris, which is Mesopotamia. So if human fossils appeared suddenly in Mesopotamian earthlayers, without predecessors, then that would give credibility to the Genesis account of human origins, of which the Fall is an important part. And if the Fall of Mankind is real, then Original Sin and redemption become important too. That would set me on the road to Christianity.
 
I’m not sure.
This is soooo strange to me. And quite common. Atheists profess “We won’t believe without evidence!” but when asked, no one can provide what data would constitute “evidence”.
But I have given you two examples that would point me in the direction of specifically Christianity.
Yes, but we’re discussing that now…and the eclipse thing would actually be an argument AGAINST God’s existence, right? Atheists could simply dismiss Luke by saying, “See? It happened in 1988, so it’s a natural event. Not a supernatural event”.

Right?
Because Genesis says humans were created by God in the garden of Eden, near the Euphrates and the Tigris, which is Mesopotamia. So if human fossils appeared suddenly in Mesopotamian earthlayers, without predecessors, then that would give credibility to the Genesis account of human origins, of which the Fall is an important part. And if the Fall of Mankind is real, then Original Sin and redemption become important too. That would set me on the road to Christianity.
No, Cheiron. Genesis’ first 11 chapters describing creation are allegory/figurative. There is no need to read these chapters with a fundamentalist lens.

And thus, the lack of human fossils in earth layers is irrelevant.

Catholicism does not profess that the earth is 6000 years old and that a man and woman literally roamed naked through a Garden and were tempted by a talking snake.

Remember, you are not on a Bible Alone Fundamentalist Christian forum.

But the Fall actually happened.

And what evidence would provide "clues’ for this?
 
I’m not sure. But I have given you two examples that would point me in the direction of specifically Christianity. Because Genesis says humans were created by God in the garden of Eden, near the Euphrates and the Tigris, which is Mesopotamia. So if human fossils appeared suddenly in Mesopotamian earthlayers, without predecessors, then that would give credibility to the Genesis account of human origins, of which the Fall is an important part. And if the Fall of Mankind is real, then Original Sin and redemption become important too. That would set me on the road to Christianity.
You will not get that wish, but if you seriously want to know God, you will know Him. Perhaps more accurate, I would say that if you truly do not wish to know Him, if what you say above are the limits you set in order to stay away from that knowledge, you will get that reward.

It was mentioned above that Genesis is allegorical. It speaks in symbols that are not quantitative, but qualitative. Now I can’t say that Eden was in Mesopotamia or not, but it was a beautiful place in this world, existing at a particular time, when it was that we came into existence. It was a union between heaven and earth, and as such, everything was plentiful, perfect. We were moulded from the same ground from which everything springs on the sixth day, which does not translate well into time as we know it through our creation of clocks. It being the final day of creation has as much to do with material changes as it does with intentions (as the goal and purpose of the creation) and with states of being (the most complex and greatest ultimately in Jesus Christ).

The forming of mankind into something similar to what we know today, which is unlikely imho what science understands as Homo sapiens. could have happened in any number of ways. If science is correct, and that’s a big if, life was created some 3,500,000,000 years ago. Like the baby in the womb, humanity and its “placenta” - nature, grew from that primary flash that saw the birth of a new biological order of being from previously created constituents.

As the Joni Michell song goes, we are formed from stardust. And corny as it may sound, we are golden; a light that shines, incorruptible forms the Ground of our being. We entered into a bargain with the devil to make ourselves gods without God, and here we are. Cut ourselves off, but not totally, from infinite and eternal Being and Goodness, through our clutching at the finiteness that defines our being and destines us to die. We cannot go back in time to undo what has been done, the spinning fiery sword of entropy prevents that. We go forward in Christ.

Think of all the abilities we have, the sciences, music, the visual arts, culinary arts, poetry, engineering, architecture, medicine, philosophy, all these fruits are given us do enjoy and to express the wonder of all this. The garden is our being-in-the-world, the fundamental reality of our existence, the image of the Trinity. At the centre of the garden are two trees, one wood that is found repeatedly in scripture and represents Jesus on the cross, good-and-evil, eternal life. The path we chose, by eating of God’ fruit, to be gods, is and was to take up the cross that gods bear in offering redemption and salvation to a universe that contains beings with free will, and thereby the capacity to love. Love, the act of giving ourselves for the good of the other is the means by which we can enter into the deepest truth of existence. As we picked that fruit, we drove a nail into our hands. In displacing God with ourselves at the core of our will, we turned from Him and brought on this fall from eternity. The only way to re-establish the living connection is to do His will. His will is love.

There’s so much more to the story, but this is too long as it is. Hope it helps at least to open up the possibility that there are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
 
Because Genesis says humans were created by God in the garden of Eden, near the Euphrates and the Tigris, which is Mesopotamia. So if human fossils appeared suddenly in Mesopotamian earthlayers, without predecessors, then that would give credibility to the Genesis account of human origins, of which the Fall is an important part. And if the Fall of Mankind is real, then Original Sin and redemption become important too. That would set me on the road to Christianity.
Don’t forget the “get out of jail card” played by the believers. The verses in the Bible are all allegorical when they declare them as such, and they are all historical when they want them to be.

If one points out some verses, which are sheer scientific or historical nonsense, the answer is invariably: “But the Bible is NOT a science book, or a historical compilation”. When you try to follow up and ask: “which verses are historical and which ones are fictional, allegorical”, the answer is: “it is not important, the Bible is a spiritual guideline”. So when you carry on and ask: “so what about the fall?” they will answer: “of course the fall really happened”. When you ask: “what happened, where and when?” the answer: “we don’t know, we don’t care, but what we DO know that it really happened!”.

As for providing an answer to this question: “what evidence would you find sufficient?” you are also SOL. No matter what you answer, they will retort: “So you want God to jump through hoops to prove his existence for you? Can the clay ask the potter? How dare you to make demands?”. Never mind that you merely stated what you would find compelling evidence… you answer will ALWAS be distorted into a “demand”.

You simply can’t win.
 
In any case, I would need clues that point to God’s existence. And I have not yet encountered those clues.
How about the existence of an intelligible, orderly, material universe?

Or a temporally finite reality which necessitates an eternal (nontemporal), infinite source of origin?

Or maybe the existence of transcendent, eternal, immaterial truth (ie, 1 + 1 = 2)?

Do any of those “clues” hint at God?
 
So when you carry on and ask: “so what about the fall?” they will answer: “of course the fall really happened”. When you ask: “what happened, where and when?” the answer: “we don’t know, we don’t care, but what we DO know that it really happened!”
That’s absolute rubbish, and you know it. I suspect that no one, not one single person, has given you the answer, “We don’t know, and we don’t care.” Be honest.

The Fall truly happened.

The first two moral, earthly creatures (the first two with a conscience) acted unconscionably.

The first two people to “know better” still did wrong.

The first two people with a sense of right and wrong, freely chose to do wrong.

I would guess that even you accept the anthropological and psychological implications of the doctrine of the Fall, if not the theological ones.
 
That’s absolute rubbish, and you know it. I suspect that no one, not one single person, has given you the answer, “We don’t know, and we don’t care.” Be honest.
You just gave the same answer, with slightly different words.
The Fall truly happened.

The first two moral, earthly creatures (the first two with a conscience) acted unconscionably.

The first two people to “know better” still did wrong.

The first two people with a sense of right and wrong, freely chose to do wrong.
Who did what, where and when? Details, please.
I would guess that even you accept the anthropological and psychological implications of the doctrine of the Fall, if not the theological ones.
Since you cannot present an argument for the “fall”, there are no “anthropological and psychological implications” of it.

This brings us back to the original problem: “which verses in a the Bible depict historically correct events, and which ones are allegorical?”. Oh, by the way, and if some are allegorical… what do they mean?
 
You just gave the same answer, with slightly different words.

Who did what, where and when? Details, please.

Since you cannot present an argument for the “fall”, there are no “anthropological and psychological implications” of it.

This brings us back to the original problem: “which verses in a the Bible depict historically correct events, and which ones are allegorical?”. Oh, by the way, and if some are allegorical… what do they mean?
You do have a habit of opening up new and very large questions that require a thread OF THEIR OWN TO BE DISCUSSED INTELLIGENTLY. 🤷
 
You just gave the same answer, with slightly different words.

Who did what, where and when? Details, please.
Which part would you deny?
That humans have a conscience?
That, of all the living creatures that have a moral sense, there had to be a first?
That humans act against their conscience?
Since you cannot present an argument for the “fall”, there are no “anthropological and psychological implications” of it.
Humans are the only creatures on Earth with a sense of morality. Yet we freely choose to do what we believe we ought not do. Do you deny this?
This brings us back to the original problem: “which verses in a the Bible depict historically correct events, and which ones are allegorical?”. Oh, by the way, and if some are allegorical… what do they mean?
How do you tell if any other written work is intended as allegorical or historical?
 
This is soooo strange to me. And quite common. Atheists profess “We won’t believe without evidence!” but when asked, no one can provide what data would constitute “evidence”.
Sorry, but I get the sense that you don’t read my replies. I gave you two examples that would, at the very least, provide some evidence for Christianity and you still stay I can’t provide examples that would constitute evidence.
Yes, but we’re discussing that now…and the eclipse thing would actually be an argument AGAINST God’s existence, right? Atheists could simply dismiss Luke by saying, “See? It happened in 1988, so it’s a natural event. Not a supernatural event”.
Who cares what other atheists might or might not say? You asked me what would convince me.
No, Cheiron. Genesis’ first 11 chapters describing creation are allegory/figurative. There is no need to read these chapters with a fundamentalist lens.
And thus, the lack of human fossils in earth layers is irrelevant.
Catholicism does not profess that the earth is 6000 years old and that a man and woman literally roamed naked through a Garden and were tempted by a talking snake.
Remember, you are not on a Bible Alone Fundamentalist Christian forum.
I’m surprised by this response. Because I very clearly said that the story of the Fall of mankind is too embedded in the rest of the story. It’s simply not convincing to say that everything of Genesis is allegorical, while still maintaining that this one event really did happen.
But the Fall actually happened.
And what evidence would provide "clues’ for this?
Evidence that the rest of the story is also true. This is the last time I say something about it, because I feel like I’m repeating myself.
You will not get that wish, but if you seriously want to know God, you will know Him. Perhaps more accurate, I would say that if you truly do not wish to know Him, if what you say above are the limits you set in order to stay away from that knowledge, you will get that reward.

…]

There’s so much more to the story, but this is too long as it is. Hope it helps at least to open up the possibility that there are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
I shortened your comment, so I wouldn’t hit my word limit, but rest assured: I did read it. I don’t think I’ve set limits, I’ve indicated a few scenario’s or opportunities that, if proven true, would send me in the direction of Christianity. All the other things you wrote sound a bit like Christianese. I mean that in the best way possible. It’s just a bit hard to understand for a non-believer.
Don’t forget the “get out of jail card” played by the believers. The verses in the Bible are all allegorical when they declare them as such, and they are all historical when they want them to be.

…]

As for providing an answer to this question: “what evidence would you find sufficient?” you are also SOL. No matter what you answer, they will retort: “So you want God to jump through hoops to prove his existence for you? Can the clay ask the potter? How dare you to make demands?”. Never mind that you merely stated what you would find compelling evidence… you answer will ALWAS be distorted into a “demand”.

You simply can’t win.
To be fair, PRmerger did not tell me that it was wrong of me to demand evidence. But I do agree with the first bit. The distinction between historical and allegorical with regard to Genesis does seem to be guided by opportunism and necessity.
How about the existence of an intelligible, orderly, material universe?

Or a temporally finite reality which necessitates an eternal (nontemporal), infinite source of origin?

Or maybe the existence of transcendent, eternal, immaterial truth (ie, 1 + 1 = 2)?

Do any of those “clues” hint at God?
No, they do not I’m sorry to say.

First, I don’t think the universe is that orderly. A lot of stuff from quantum mechanics is illogical. Like virtual particles.

Secondly, I’m not sure what you mean with “an infinite source”. An infinite source of particles? Of planets? of stars?

Thirdly, I’m also not sure what you mean with transcendent, eternal, immaterial truths. What is transcendent about 1+1=2?

All three also strike me as non-sequiturs. Yes, the universe is finite and needs a beginning. But that doesn’t mean the beginning is God. The universe could have been made by gods. Or it could be a natural proces.
 
I’m not sure what the definitive proof would be, but if the stories from the Bible, including the miracles, appear to be true, then that would be a strong mark in God’s favor. For example, if human fossils appeared suddenly in earthlayers in Mesopotamia, without any evidence of other hominids, then that would be evidence that Genesis is true. Or evidence that an eclipse after a full moon can actually happen would provide evidence that the eclipse in Luke 23:44-45 also really happened.

Sorry I can’t give a definitive answer to your question.
I can. I’m just reading Hyperion by Dan Simmons. I won’t go into details but one part of the story has a Catholic priest travelling to a distant planet and dicovering unequivicol evidence of Christianity which had been there for a lot longer than the ability tomtravel to such places had been in existence.

But then again, maybe God is only interested in this fly blown speck of cosmic dust in a non descript corner of the galaxy. Something I can’t quite get my head around.

But how about the afterlife? There is one, apparently. And being given evidence of it would be a cast iron certainty to get me up to the local church and banging on the door. So if my Grandad made an appearance and told me that he and my gran were living happily ever after (literally) then I’m signing up.

But of course, it could be pointed by any given Christian that I could claim that it was me being delusional. Which is something I could equally point out to him or her. So all things being equal…any time you’re ready Grandad.

And it would be my eternal soul he’d be saving. So I’m a little put out that he and the rest of the dear departed family have not made the effort as yet.
 
Sorry, but I get the sense that you don’t read my replies.
Then you shouldn’t have given the response, “I don’t know”, when, apparently, you *did *know.

That’s odd as well.
I gave you two examples that would, at the very least, provide some evidence for Christianity and you still stay I can’t provide examples that would constitute evidence.
And we discussed those.
  1. fossils depicting humans in Mesopotamia 6000 years ago would be evidence of fundamentalist Christianity, but not Catholic Christianity.
  2. an eclipse as described in Luke happening later would actually be evidence AGAINST God’s existence, right?
Otherwise, we could simply point to floods happening in 2015 as evidence of floods that happened in the OT.

Are you willing to accept the floods as proof of the Bible’s veracity?

No?

Then…🤷
 
Don’t forget the “get out of jail card” played by the believers. The verses in the Bible are all allegorical when they declare them as such, and they are all historical when they want them to be.
Well, yeah.

We don’t take a fundamentalist approach to the Bible.

Imagine if your child came home sneering about how valueless education is because “Some of the things they make me read are allegorical, but some of the things are 'historical when they want them to be’’. Sheesh! I demand that things either be ALWAYS allegorical or ALWAYS historical!”

You’d need to sit down and have a talk with your child and say, “Dearest, you are making an either/or demand where none needs to be. Atheists do this a lot. And so do fundamentalists. But the judicious approach is to accept allegory when it’s, em, allegory, and history when it’s…history. There isn’t always a need to make this weird demand. It’s ridiculous.”
 
Exactly. It’s not like, for example, there were a number of journalists following Jesus around and recording everything He said verbatum and keeping their records for transcription a few decades later.
 
Exactly. It’s not like, for example, there were a number of journalists following Jesus around and recording everything He said verbatum and keeping their records for transcription a few decades later.
We’ve already discussed this, Brad.

It’s incorrect to say that the Bible recorded Jesus’ words verbatim.

No knowledgeable Catholic asserts such a thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top