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.
carn said:
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 boldly 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.
Click to expand...
It is not only tactically unwise but also logically unsound! As Lear said, “Nothing shall come of nothing”…
 
SyroMalankara said:
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)
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that you are up to speed with the definition of allegorical. Either Adam and Eve were literally two people or…the story is allegorical. That is, a story meant to convey abstract meaning using symbolic figures.
 
Cheiron said:
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.
Click to expand...
Alright. Call off the search for a grand unified theory, the universe isn’t orderly!

Actually, isn’t the orderliness (and intelligibility) of nature, a presupposition of all scientific pursuits?
Cheiron said:
Secondly, I’m not sure what you mean with “an infinite source”. An infinite source of particles? Of planets? of stars?
Click to expand...
Anything that could turn absolutely **nothing **into something has to be infinitely powerful.
Cheiron said:
Thirdly, I’m also not sure what you mean with transcendent, eternal, immaterial truths. What is transcendent about 1+1=2?
Click to expand...
Truth is transcendent. It relies on nothing else in order to exist. 1 + 1 = 2 would be true even if everyone on Earth died. Even if the galaxy disappeared. Even if there was no universe.

Truth itself is immaterial and transcends time and space.

The fact that something immaterial, eternal, and transcendent exists (ie, objective truth), means that such a thing can exist.

It’s no coincidence that the Christian God is Truth.
Cheiron said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, a natural process could not exist prior to all time, space, and nature. It had to be a process outside of nature, or supernatural.

If you’re going to sincerely claim that the universe was caused by gods, then you’ve already admitted the existence of (at least one) God.
 
Bradski said:
I’m not sure that you are up to speed with the definition of allegorical. Either Adam and Eve were literally two people or…the story is allegorical. That is, a story meant to convey abstract meaning using symbolic figures.
Click to expand...
Or there were literally two people who didn’t literally talk to a snake.
 
In the Liturgy of Matrimony it is stated that Jesus’ death on the Cross can be interpreted as an allegory on how a husband is to die for his wife. Does this mean Jesus death on the Cross did not literally occur?
 
Glassjester said:
Or there were literally two people who didn’t literally talk to a snake.
Click to expand...
Seems quite obvious, no?

It’s like the atheist saying, “Either Aslan is literally a thing, or lions can’t literally exist” or “Either William Tell literally split an apple off his son’s head with a crossbow, or apples (or crossbows?) literally don’t exist.”

Or, one could take the reasonable position of, “Oh! I get it! Something can be allegorical, while also referencing real things!”
 
Cheiron said:
First, I don’t think the universe is that orderly. A lot of stuff from quantum mechanics is illogical. Like virtual particles.
Click to expand...
Glassjester said:
Alright. Call off the search for a grand unified theory, the universe isn’t orderly!

Actually, isn’t the orderliness (and intelligibility) of nature, a presupposition of all scientific pursuits?
Click to expand...
Yep. You are correct, Glass.

I continue to be astonished at the things that putative Science advocates must embrace in order to reject belief in God.

I’ve seen some Science advocates consider the idea that Jesus’ resurrection was a product of aliens.

Yep. You read that right.

And now here’s another Science advocate espousing the idea that the Universe isn’t really that orderly…while also saying that we need to study the clues that the (orderly) Universe offers in order to understand it better.

It makes no sense.
 
tonyrey said:
It is not only tactically unwise but also logically unsound! As Lear said, “Nothing shall come of nothing”…
Click to expand...
I can not think of any actually logically sound position regarding burden of proof about issues pertaining to things “outside” and/or “before” and/or “after” our universe.

Burden of proof is usually chosen in the context of the issue to be proven and what in the KNOWN circumstances would be the best approach to catch that elusive thing called “truth”.

In sciences experience has shown that its a rather useful approach that either some proof has to be provided for a claim or that a repeatable method for falsification has to exist, the more the claim alters the current scope the more sound proof/methods of falsification should be.

But before criminal courts, one applies different burden of proof and different methods, because the known circumstances are vastly different (namely the nagging problem, that finding evidence of innocence after execution is a bit frustrating); and in civil courts again a different standard is applied.

So to determine where the burden of proof should sensibly fall, one should logically first consider what is known about the respective issue and then derive some guidelines.

The respective issue here is, “what” “exists”/“existed”/“will exist” “outside”, “before” and/or “after” “this” “universe”.

For consistency i put every word with an unclear definition and meaning in this context in “” (though i am a bit scpetical about “and/or”; mybe there is a third on the “outside” besides “and” and “or”).

And its immidieately obvious, that we might even fail to find words to formulate the issue at hand; if we already fail at that, there is even no need to consider, that we actually know exactly zero about the respective issue (because we have no way to reliably identify anything “outside” “this” “universe”), to conclude that we cannot in any sensible way decide the burden of proof question.

And while the argument might be raised, that at least parts of religion considering events inside our universe are not hindered by this problem, that is a logical error.

Because all our scientific knowledge about this universe rests on the assumption, that it is a closed system without interaction with the “outside”; but as soon as invisible pink flying unicorns beam into and “out” of “this” “universe”, its no longer a closed system and all our knowledge is naught at least to issues related to that unicorns and their interactions with this universe. Hence, we can neither apply our for the assumption of a closed universe very useful usual burden of proof (as we could for example, if someone claimed that in this unisverse in accord with the laws of this universe invisible pink flaying unicorns exist; for that issue burden of proof falls with the one claiming such thing, cause from science we know that the laws of this universe make the existance of inivisible pink flying unicorns at least rather unusual and unexpectable) nor can we decide which to apply instead.

And that already follows directly from natural laws, namely energy conservation is only fulfilled in a closed system; with my beaming-capable unicorns there is no conservation of energy in nature, at least whereever these unicorns supposedly pop up; and that is a very fundamental problem, because energy conservation is mathematically connected to time symmetry meaning if those invisible pink unicorns supposedly pop into our universe we might be forced to wave goodbye to causalty, at least in the current understanding and at least where one of those buggers supposedly is around.

Hence, it is not meaningful to discuss burden of proof in respect to a search for truth in the context of “outside” “things” like such “outside” unicorns or God.

(Although of course it might be fun, meaningful and reasonable in this context for other reasons, for example to understand why believers/atheists consider their respective position reasonable, as mental exercise, etc.)
 
Glassjester said:
Or there were literally two people who didn’t literally talk to a snake.
Click to expand...
Ah, so there was a snake but it didn’t literally talk to anyone. Or there wasn’t. And the tree was allegorical. Well, unless it wasn’t in which case it was literal. And Eve was formed from Adam. Not literally of course. But she was the temptress, which might be allegorical I guess.

Do you think they literally ate any fruit? And were literally ashamed at being naked? I’d go for allegory there. And ditto God punishing women for Eve’s trangression. Because, hey, no-one was literally writing all this down. Despite most Americans thinking that all this happened exactly as written.

I was told the story in Sunday School when I was a child. And I didn’t believe it then. I had no concept of using literature as allegory until obviously much later. But I do recall being bemused as the years went on and the story didn’t change in any way. It seems that I was expected to believe it as written.

So are we any closer to discovering exactly what is meant to be treated as a fact and what must surely be accepted as a story about the human condition no more literal than Morte d’Arthur?

Well, yes we are.
 
Peter_Plato said:
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!
Click to expand...
Teaching General Relativity to kids is easy - youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg

I see what you mean about bible scholars and research, but think it’s not difficult for ordinary people to locate the meaning. After all, a guy in the bible says his Kingdom belongs to such as little children.
 
Bradski said:
Which is biologically, genetically and scientifically impossible. Quite literally.
Click to expand...
Just like Jesus calling someone dead to come out of the grave.

Since the dawn of life, dead things stay dead; then one day God - or maybe the second person of the trinity - decides “Not today; today that is suspended and that guy now will come back from the dead.”; and next day back to usual business, dead things stay dead.

And since dawn of life, evolution happens; then one day God decides “Ok, enough billions of years of evolution without presence of creatures with an immortal soul; you two over there are the first (oh, and i do this in a way, that will not show in genetic pattern studies and the other scientific stuff they will invent in a couple of thousands of years)”; and next day back to usual business, evolution just does its thing.

Both equally unscientific. So why complain more about one than about the other?
 
carn said:
Just like Jesus calling someone dead to come out of the grave.

Since the dawn of life, dead things stay dead; then one day God - or maybe the second person of the trinity - decides “Not today; today that is suspended and that guy now will come back from the dead.”; and next day back to usual business, dead things stay dead.

And since dawn of life, evolution happens; then one day God decides “Ok, enough billions of years of evolution without presence of creatures with an immortal soul; you two over there are the first (oh, and i do this in a way, that will not show in genetic pattern studies and the other scientific stuff they will invent in a couple of thousands of years)”; and next day back to usual business, evolution just does its thing.

Both equally unscientific. So why complain more about one than about the other?
Click to expand...
Here’s that circular reasoning, again.

“God doesn’t exist, therefore miracles can’t happen”

and

“I don’t believe in miracles, therefore God can’t exist”.
 
PRmerger said:
Here’s that circular reasoning, again.

“God doesn’t exist, therefore miracles can’t happen”

and

“I don’t believe in miracles, therefore God can’t exist”.
Click to expand...
It’s silly to argue with materialists. They have no imagination.
 
Bradski said:
Ah, so there was a snake but it didn’t literally talk to anyone. Or there wasn’t. And the tree was allegorical. Well, unless it wasn’t in which case it was literal. And Eve was formed from Adam. Not literally of course. But she was the temptress, which might be allegorical I guess.

Do you think they literally ate any fruit? And were literally ashamed at being naked? I’d go for allegory there. And ditto God punishing women for Eve’s trangression. Because, hey, no-one was literally writing all this down. Despite most Americans thinking that all this happened exactly as written.

I was told the story in Sunday School when I was a child. And I didn’t believe it then. I had no concept of using literature as allegory until obviously much later. But I do recall being bemused as the years went on and the story didn’t change in any way. It seems that I was expected to believe it as written.

So are we any closer to discovering exactly what is meant to be treated as a fact and what must surely be accepted as a story about the human condition no more literal than Morte d’Arthur?

Well, yes we are.
Click to expand...
I think our position is that the early part of Genesis is literal events described in mythological language.

But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts.

I think that St. Paul probably has the Genesis story in mind when he writes this statement in his letter to the Romans.

The shame that Adam and Eve felt was due to them losing Christ and His Grace through sin, and so they were left naked, with rebellious passions, passions that God helped them keep in line before, which they noticed were rebellious immediately due to their sexual passions acting apart from their reason from the sight of each other’s bodies.

Christi pax.
 
Bradski said:
Which is biologically, genetically and scientifically impossible. Quite literally. But no allegories allowed, thanks, which creates something of a conundrum.
Click to expand...
Have you ever read Mr. Michael Flynn’s article “Adam and Eve and Ted and Alice?” It’s a helpful article in understanding the Catholic view on contemporary evolutionary biology, and (at least I think so) is rather funny 🙂

Heres a link: tofspot.blogspot.com/2011/09/adam-and-eve-and-ted-and-alice.html

Christi pax.
 
Bradski said:
Which is biologically, genetically and scientifically impossible. Quite literally. But no allegories allowed, thanks, which creates something of a conundrum.
Click to expand...
I am not sure we can say anything is scientifically iimpossible. It’s not that matter must behave according to the laws we invent to explain what it does.

Science offers us the possibility to look into certain structures that underlie appearances. But even in those areas that it seeks to illuminate, there is so much noise in the system that most of what we can discern is done so using statistics. Science tells us absolutely nothing about one-of occurrences. It cannot inform us at all about entire dimensions of reality such as morality and meaning.

Divorced from the spiritual context, creation as portrayed by the biophysical sciences, at least in their current form, provides limited insight into the nature of creation.
It offers unicorns, a collection of concepts slapped together as best we can to get an image of the world we inhabit…
And so, we end up with the view of the universe as some sort of infinite meaningless clockwork.
Although, ultimately existing in the mind (actually, it describes our relationship, how we connect with reality), it interestingly excludes the mind from the world-view that we’ve invented.

Gazing through the lens of a science which does not include the ultimate Truth, one will only see distortions.
 
I wouldn’t call Einstein a believer in the traditional sense, but he was a believer in the scientific sense, and he did not see it as a burden but as a reasonable insight that some kind of God does indeed exist.

catholicinsight.com/einsteins-god/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top