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

[PRmerger]

What is your evidence that it’s true?

You’ll have to be more specific about what you mean by “it”.

If you mean the Fall, well, I think the evidence for that can be found right here.

And remember, let’s be consistent here: if you’re ok with a woman flipping her hair as being a “clue” that she’s kind of into you, then…don’t demand an exceedingly high level of “clues” for mankind’s Fall.

Because the idea that the writer of Genesis, whoever that may be, had acces to that information seems implausable to me.

Another circular argument. sigh.

“I don’t believe in God therefore I don’t believe that a writer could be inspired by God”

 

[PRmerger]

I give up.

Not very scientific.

#justsayin’…

 

[Glassjester]

Well, if it happens only once every two-thousand years, then that is still quite extraordinary. It would make Jesus supposed resurrection more credible. But if I remember correctly, Jesus isn’t the only one who has risen from the dead. Jairus’ daughter was raised from the dead. Lazarus was raised from the dead. When Jesus died, many holy people rose from the dead (Matthew 27:50-51). And finally, Paul resurrected a man called Eutychus in Acts 20:7-12 after almost literally boring him to death.

No. Resuscitation is not resurrection.

Lazarus didn’t wake up with a glorified, immortal body, as Christ did.

Only Christ is resurrected. Those others were simply revived.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It was over 2000 years ago that the church compiled the Bible. During these 2000 years there was no attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff?

Again, you display your ignorance of Christian history.

Well, as they say, ignorance is bliss. Drink up. You’ve just poured a glass full.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Again, you display your ignorance of Christian history.

Well, as they say, ignorance is bliss. Drink up. You’ve just poured a glass full.

Is there a “Catholic Annotated Bible”? There is a “Skeptic’s Annotated Bible”.

 

[PRmerger]

We (relativists) say that a certain act is either good or evil, according to the circumstances.

That’s very Catholic. And consonant with there being moral absolutes.

Unless you can offer an example of when it would be morally good to kill your daughter for having the audacity of being raped?

 

[PRmerger]

Is there a “Catholic Annotated Bible”?

Yes. It’s called the Catholic Church. The magisterium. Sacred Tradition.

There is a “Skeptic’s Annotated Bible”.

Cute.

Scratch an atheist…

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m still left with a phenomenon that contradicts science.

The universe coming into existence from nothing 14.8 billion years ago “contradicts” basically all of the presuppositions upon which science is based – i.e., that observable reality is all that is required to explain everything.

The origin of matter, energy and space-time is utterly inexplicable from the point of view of science – and yet that explanatory morass is the “conclusion” from the best of current science. So, being “left with a phenomenon that contradicts science” isn’t much of a quagmire, since science itself puts itself there.

All matter, energy and space-time came inexplicably into existence from a singularity, yet science can only appeal to what matter, energy and space-time will permit it to demonstrate with regard to matter, energy and space-time – the entire realm that is the legitimate concern of science.

Science presumes a whole lot in order to function. Those presumptions dictate what science can say. It would appear that science is far out on a very tenuous limb with regard to what it can and cannot say about anything – by its own admission and method.

Perhaps a “phenomenon that contradicts science” is one put in place by design to make you wonder about the efficacy and sufficiency of science?
*
“Our discreditable secret is that we don’t know anything at all, and our horrid inner secret is that we don’t care that we don’t.”

​

― Dylan Thomas*

 

[PRmerger]

The universe coming into existence from nothing 14.8 billion years ago “contradicts” basically all of the presuppositions upon which science is based – i.e., that observable reality is all that is required to explain everything.

The origin of matter, energy and space-time is utterly inexplicable from the point of view of science – and yet that explanatory morass is the “conclusion” from the best of current science. So, being “left with a phenomenon that contradicts science” isn’t much of a quagmire, since science itself puts itself there.

All matter, energy and space-time came inexplicably into existence from a singularity, yet science can only appeal to what matter, energy and space-time will permit it to demonstrate with regard to matter, energy and space-time – the entire realm that is the legitimate concern of science.

Science presumes a whole lot in order to function. Those presumptions dictate what science can say. It would appear that science is far out on a very tenuous limb with regard to what it can and cannot say about anything – by its own admission and method.

Perhaps a “phenomenon that contradicts science” is one put in place by design to make you wonder about the efficacy and sufficiency of science?
*
“Our discreditable secret is that we don’t know anything at all, and our horrid inner secret is that we don’t care that we don’t.”

​

― Dylan Thomas*

Yep.

And, curiously, the fact that a woman twirled her hair is enough of a “clue” to lead someone into believing she’s interested in you.

Such a double standard.

In fact, all my friends use the scientific method of empiricism: “How does she respond when I tell a joke?” “What does it mean when she touches her hair?” “What does it mean when she says X, Y Z?” “Did she call back next day or next week?” That’s all about drawing conclusions from clues and evidence, derived from observation.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yep.

And, curiously, the fact that a woman twirled her hair is enough of a “clue” to lead someone into believing she’s interested in you.

Such a double standard.

Originally Posted by Cheiron
In fact, all my friends use the scientific method of empiricism: “How does she respond when I tell a joke?” “What does it mean when she touches her hair?” “What does it mean when she says X, Y Z?” “Did she call back next day or next week?” That’s all about drawing conclusions from clues and evidence, derived from observation.

This isn’t so unusual, but Cheiron won’t likely admit that “drawing conclusions from clues and evidence” is very susceptible to the observer-expectancy effect or observation bias.

I used to think – based upon “the scientific method of empiricism” – that because my cat winked every time I said something funny to her, that meant she had a sense of humour and thought I was particularly funny. Then we had her treated for ear mites.

Apparently, I am not that funny.

I should have listened to my wife rather than watching for kitty “clues and evidence, derived from observation.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Welcome to the rational world of “relativism”. Park your car, come in, and let’s have a nice fireside chat.

We (relativists) say that a certain act is either good or evil, according to the circumstances. They cannot be BOTH good AND evil at the same time in the same respect.

Can you (relativists) define consistently what it is that you mean by “good” and “evil” that is not lifted, in whole or in crucial part, from a theistic view of the nature of existence?

What does it mean for some act to be “good” in a “relativistic” sense, where “good” doesn’t disappear entirely behind some fuzzy and opaque veil of subjective (and subjunctive) nothingness?

 

[inocente]

You and inocente are constantly attacking Catholics as irrational, until you decide that some of us are and some of us aren’t.

I’ve not posted on the thread for several days but happened to notice this.

I asked you by PM back in May to stop your personal attacks. Since then you’ve been doing it behind my back.

I’ve also told you many times of not caring for your sectarian squabbling. I live in a Catholic country, by choice, and have plenty of empirical evidence that people are not irrational in real-life.

 

[carn]

There isn’t one.

If you want to claim that something exists, then there is a requirement on you, should you wish to excercise it, to offer some proof.

An atheist, or at least this one, doesn’t make any claim. He just asserts that the evidence for your particular claim in regard to God’s existence, is not sufficient to assert a personal belief.

There is no requirement on me to prove that God doesn’t exist, because, quite simply, I am not making that claim in the first instance.

Fully correct.

The one believing in God’s existence and thereby the dignity of each individual human and thereby in the existence of human rights beyond any majorities or governments power can in no way escape that rightfully the burden is on him to provide arguments/clues/evidence for his position, just like the atheist might one day have rightfully the burden of proof upon him to show that although there are no moral absolutes the mob has, in spite that the majority changed constitution and laws in a formally correct way to give mobs the authority to hang any atheist (or insert anything else fitting) the mob set its eyes upon from the next tree, no right to hang him/her with the rope they are currently fastening to the tree the atheist is standing before.

But i am always a bit lost, why atheist so strongly stress the issue that the burden of proof for them having an inalienable right to live lies upon those claiming there is such a right.

Personally, i would prefer that the burden of proof lies upon those who claim that some humans do not posess a right to live; i know, wishing does not make it so, but nonetheless i am a bit sceptical about boldy and loudly declaring to a world with no lack of murderous thugs, that the burden of proof for me having a right to live lies in the end with the one arguing in favor of my survival. It just seems tactically unwise.

 

[Cheiron]

This isn’t so unusual, but Cheiron won’t likely admit that “drawing conclusions from clues and evidence” is very susceptible to the observer-expectancy effect or observation bias.

Sure I would.

 

[Cheiron]

Not very scientific.

#justsayin’…

I’m getting tired of explaining things over and over and over again without making progress. Untill now, I wondered whether I wasn’t able to make myself clear or you’re too illiterate to understand my point.

I already had some doubts when you, at Vera’s request, failed to provide a method to recognize which parts of the Bible are historical and which ones are allegorical. But when you replied to a clause in a sentence to point out, yet again, that I’m not on some fundamentalist forum, I realized you’re simply not interested in engaging in a fruitful discussion.

You do understand that “missing links” like Homo Erectus are entirely compatible with Catholicism, yeah?

Again, it certainly sounds like you’ve forgotten you’re on a Catholic forum and think, instead, that you’re on a Bible Alone forum?

I feel as if you might as well come here and say, “I’ll believe when I find the artifacts of Joseph Smith’s golden plates!”

Em…ok. But that’s Mormonism, not Catholicism you’re arguing against.

You just want an opportunity to say you’re a Catholic and not a fundamentalist and atheists and fundamentalists read the Bible the same way.

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?

Well, yeah.

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

Excellent. So your objection is otiose.

It would be helpful for all your objections if you would divorce yourself from the Either/Or Fundamentalism.

That’s why you will never be able to refute Catholicism: we embrace the Both/And.

Yep. You should go** to a Fundamentalist Bible Alone forum** to present that position.

We Catholics look at the events recorded in the Scripture through the lens of the Faith which gave us these Scriptures: the Catholic Church.

(That’s another weapon you can use when you go to a Fundamentalist Bible Alone forum, Bradski. You can stump them with:* Really? Well, isn’t it the Catholic Church which gave you this Bible? How else would you know that the Epistle of Barnabas is not theopneustos (God-breathed) but that the Epistle to the Hebrews is? *

You’re welcome. )

Also, you should have the same approach with events in history and understand that it didn’t happen “exactly as reported”.

Actually, you should probably use this approach with anything current you hear reported as well.

Does that not seem to be prudent?

**Really?

That’s why we Catholics don’t read the Bible with a fundamentalist lens.

As I’m wont to say: Scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist.

It’s amusing and bemusing to me to see how atheists read the Bible in the same way as Bible Alone Fundamentalist Christians do.

It’s strange bedmates to be sure!**

Yes. It’s called the Catholic Church. The magisterium. Sacred Tradition.

Cute.

Scratch an atheist….

Yes.

Well, yeah. The Catholic Church is one of Science’s greatest patrons.

We just don’t take the fundamentalist (and rather irrational) Science Alone approach.

And what also bothers me is that Catholics discuss Adam and Eve in the “is our free choice real” thread as if they were real, yet you haven’t left a message saying that Adam and Eve never existed and it’s all allegorical.

 

[SyroMalankara]

And what also bothers me is that Catholics discuss Adam and Eve in the “is our free choice real” thread as if they were real, yet you haven’t left a message saying that Adam and Eve never existed and it’s all allegorical.

One issue is the either/or you are presenting. Allegorical does not mean unreal. Real does not mean literal. The fact is we do not know in what manner Adam and Eve are “real” - was it one man and one woman; a community; a tribe - but it doesn’t necessarily matter because the matter at hand is what is the meaning of the passage according to the Church (not just the church today, but from the Apostolic times, and even pre-Christian Jewish teaching)

 

[Aloysium]

For those to lazy or too into arguing to read what the church teaches:

From The CCC

“BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE”

The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. the biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person. But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,
that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honour since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day

The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection. . .

. . . The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one’s being, where the person decides for or against God.239

III. “MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM”

Equality and difference willed by God

Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. “Being man” or “being woman” is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity “in the image of God”. In their “being-man” and “being-woman”, they reflect the Creator’s wisdom and goodness. . .

. . .“Each for the other” - “A unity in two”

God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. the Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. “It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him.” None of the animals can be man’s partner. The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh."Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity. . .

IV. MAN IN PARADISE

The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.

The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.

By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man’s life were confirmed.** As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die. **The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman, and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called “original justice”.

The “mastery” over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. the first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.

The sign of man’s familiarity with God is that God places him in the garden. There he lives “to till it and keep it”. Work is not yet a burden, but rather the collaboration of man and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation.

This entire harmony of original justice, foreseen for man in God’s plan, will be lost by the sin of our first parents.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There isn’t one.

If you want to claim that something exists, then there is a requirement on you, should you wish to excercise it, to offer some proof.

An atheist, or at least this one, doesn’t make any claim. He just asserts that the evidence for your particular claim in regard to God’s existence, is not sufficient to assert a personal belief.

There is no requirement on me to prove that God doesn’t exist, because, quite simply, I am not making that claim in the first instance.

Not quite that simple Brad.

There is a requirement upon you to fully understand the reasons behind claims, for example, that God exists, and to refute those reasons.

It is not sufficient to say, “I don’t find those reasons compelling.” That is not a proper response. It simply avoids responsibility and the absolute burden upon atheists to adequately disprove legitimate claims once they have been made.

Neither are straw men renderings of theistic arguments sufficient to fulfill that burden.

Ergo, there may not be a “requirement” on you to prove that God doesn’t exist, but there is a requirement on you to disprove – in a complete and sufficient way – arguments that are made by the other side. That is, if you want to maintain any degree of credibility with regard to your atheism.

Not engaging with reasonable arguments or merely asserting personal incredulity are not sufficient to fulfill the burden of holding onto atheism in the face of arguments for theism. Engagement is required or your position of atheistic “non-belief” becomes delegitimized very quickly.

 

[tonyrey]

Not quite that simple Brad.

There is a requirement upon you to fully understand the reasons behind claims, for example, that God exists, and to refute those reasons.

It is not sufficient to say, “I don’t find those reasons compelling.” That is not a proper response. It simply avoids responsibility and the absolute burden upon atheists to adequately disprove legitimate claims once they have been made.

Neither are straw men renderings of theistic arguments sufficient to fulfill that burden.

Ergo, there may not be a “requirement” on you to prove that God doesn’t exist, but there is a requirement on you to disprove – in a complete and sufficient way – arguments that are made by the other side. That is, if you want to maintain any degree of credibility with regard to your atheism.

Not engaging with reasonable arguments or merely asserting personal incredulity are not sufficient to fulfill the burden of holding onto atheism in the face of arguments for theism. Engagement is required or your position of atheistic “non-belief” becomes delegitimized very quickly.

Irrefutable! In spite of its negativity atheism has positive implications for the atheist’s interpretation of reality and attitude to everyday life. As the atheist Sartre pointed out, it is impossible to remain uncommitted…

 

[Peter_Plato]

I already had some doubts when you, at Vera’s request, failed to provide a method to recognize which parts of the Bible are historical and which ones are allegorical. But when you replied to a clause in a sentence to point out, yet again, that I’m not on some fundamentalist forum, I realized you’re simply not interested in engaging in a fruitful discussion.

To be completely fair, let’s point out that Vera’s request for “a method to recognize which parts of the Bible are historical and which are allegorical” is a loaded one.

The Bible is a collection of books spanning over 4000 years of human history, culture, spirituality and thought. There are many “methods,” including archeological, anthropological, historical, text critical, language studies, theological and philosophical approaches – to name just a few – which are all aimed at sorting out and trying to recognize the differences. Millions of articles by hundreds of thousands of scholars have been written on the subject. University courses in Scripture and Biblical Studies exist in the thousands to explore the subject regarding just individual books in the Bible, let alone the Bible in its entirety.

To distill all of those into one “method” which is applicable to the entire Bible is a ridiculous request. The failure on your and Vera’s part to recognize that is what should truly be frustrating precisely because it reflects both of your failures to properly grasp what is at issue and what the task actually involves.

This is somewhat akin to demanding that General Relativity Theory or Quantum Physics be explainable in simple terms to first graders by a single “method” which is comprehensible to six year olds – otherwise we have grounds for dismissing such theories as false. Good luck with that!