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

[tonyrey]

Sense data alone are totally uninformative and lead nowhere in a mindless universe…

Indeed. Tragically the “scientific” propaganda about evolution has led many people, including Christians, to believe we are fundamentally the same as other members of the ape family and is one of the main reasons why religion is declining and millions of abortions performed in Western society. The number of people with the belief that life is sacred has plummeted since WW2…

 

[tonyrey]

Brad

However, if the evidence did actually show that there was a reasonable chance that we all descended from a specific couple, then you would find quite a few comments in my posts such as ‘fair point’ and ‘I’ll grant you that’ and any number of admissions that the account in Genesis does appear to match what actually happened. But it doesn’t. And all I get is: ‘That’s not the conclusion I want etc’. According to your argument a random mutation in one individual can never lead to a new species. It takes two to tango but only one to produce a samba! And the couple would then reproduce it effortlessly…

This response is based, of course, on the materialist’s assumption that we are simply advanced mammals with no spiritual attributes.

 

[Bradski]

According to your argument a random mutation in one individual can never lead to a new species…

Obviously not. One might think that it was the one fact about the subject that was THE most obvious.

 

[tonyrey]

According to your argument a random mutation in one individual can never lead to a new species…

Then why is it unreasonable to believe the human species originated with one couple?

 

[Bradski]

Then why is it unreasonable to believe the human species originated with one couple?

You have already asked that question and it has already been answered. More than once.

Maybe because it was well over a hundred posts ago you have just forgotten. See post 730.

 

[tonyrey]

I have found another unanswered post relevant to the burden of proof and am curious to know how an atheist would respond:
*

A deer values its own life. Try to approach one, sometime, it will run away in fear, nervous that you are threat to its well being.

Instinct not evaluation.

If there was no God or gods, would life be valuable objectively? You’ve proposed a truth (er, value) that even God cannot control. God is subordinate to the ‘value of existence’.

God is not subordinate to the value of existence because God is existence! That was the great insight of the Hebrews: “He Who Is”.

In that case, yes, existence would have ultimate value, having primacy even over God, but we would still need a “valuer” to make “value” coherent.

The Ultimate Value does not require prevaluation. God does not need to confer value on His own existence.

God would create life, in subordination to the higher truth he serves, but that value would still be subjective, even if ultimate, because it obtains in the valuing.

Since God is the Supreme Being He would not be God if He were subordinated! He cannot serve a higher truth because He is Truth!

Clarity on this will come from telling me if godless, impersonal universe which exists, but has no minds, will or persons anywhere has “intrinsic” value.

A godless, impersonal universe cannot have any value because it cannot exist!

A materialist can now just assert, like you, that “life is intrinsically valuable”, and you’d be obligated to accept that, for he is simply appealing to the ultimacy of value that you are.

Life cannot have meaning or value without God because neither life nor anything else can exist without God! So your question does not arise…** Life is valuable because of the opportunities it offers but opportunities presuppose a Source of opportunities.**

I recognize my daughter, and by production, since I value my daughter, when I look at her, I see a person I value. But I don’t “see the value” – that’s just a façon de parler. I see something that I happen to value, and so I combine them by saying I “see my beloved daughter”. There’s no “belovedness” in my visual stimuli. “Belovedness” is something I overlay on top of that stimuli, cognitively.

You value your daughter not because her value exists in your mind but because she is valuable. Try telling her she is valuable only because you think she is valuable! See what her reaction will be… And if her mother tells you you’re only valuable because she thinks you’re valuable you wouldn’t be very impressed! Wouldn’t you say “Is that the only reason?” ?

I’m happy to be here, and am enjoying the experience on the whole.

In other words you believe life is valuable because it is a source of enjoyment.

It’s good to exist on his say so, though, which supports my point. You even allowed as much there, by saying “Everything is good because He created it”.

I did not say everything is good because He created it. I said He created life knowing it is good to exist, i.e. He knows it is good to exist and share existence with others.

“Goodness of existence” would be the ultimate God, over Yahweh or anything else then, and something that we ought to worship just as Yahweh worships it.
I think you will find that a confused rendering of Catholic theology, that God’s nature defines goodness, and doesn’t merely submit to superior and prior virtues apart from him.

God’s nature does not define goodness. God is goodness! It was not for nothing that Jesus said “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life”.

Now the materialist can appeal to an “ultimate value” along with you. You’re not able to discount such a notion on materialism, for you subscribe to such a notion prior to and superior to any God yourself.

Again you are making an artificial distinction between God, existence and goodness. Truth, goodness, justice, freedom, beauty and love converge in the Ultimate Source of everything…

Is your argument is valuable only because you think it is valuable? Is it valueless - regardless of its merit - if you **think **it is valueless?

Then why does the deer run, when you approach? Do you suppose it doesn’t value its life? Have you ever interacted with wild animals? Why run away if you don’t value your life?

Having lived in Africa for many years I’m well aware that animals run away from predators not because they consciously value their lives but because they associate predators with danger. Fight and flight are physical defence mechanisms, not rationally motivated actions. They don’t have the abstract thought “It is necessary for me to run away because that predator will kill me if I stay here”! Some animals brought up in captivity don’t run away from predators but that doesn’t mean they don’t value their lives. It simply means they are creatures of habit. They don’t even know what “value” means…

 

[tonyrey]

You have already asked that question and it has already been answered. More than once.

Maybe because it was well over a hundred posts ago you have just forgotten. See post 730.

Here it is:

You don’t need to study anything at all to realise that you had one distant ancestor that was female and another that was male.

You need some basic maths to realise that one distant female ancestor is the most recent common ancestor to everyone that is alive today and is equally so for the male.

And you need to study a reasonable amount of genetics to realise that the male common ancestor and the female common ancestor almost certainly lived at different times and in different places and were emphatically not our unique ancestors.

That is, we aren’t uniquely dcended from either one. Just like younare not descended uniquely from one of your great great grandparents - there were 16 of them all chipping in a slice of genetic material.

It remains a fact that until the solitary ancestor mated with another ancestor the human species didn’t exist. It rules out for once and for all the common hypothesis there were many of us at the outset. The weakness in your objection is its failure to specify what distinguishes us from apes - and it is an omission which applies to the materialist’s reductionist view of persons who have the right to life, liberty, equality and fraternity. Are they merely human conventions we can ignore with impunity if we can get away with it? I’m sure you agree that the best test of any interpretation of reality is whether it corresponds to the way we live…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Having lived in Africa for many years I’m well aware that animals run away from predators not because they consciously value their lives but because they associate predators with danger. Fight and flight are physical defence mechanisms, not rationally motivated actions. They don’t have the abstract thought “It is necessary for me to run away because that predator will kill me if I stay here”! Some animals brought up in captivity don’t run away from predators but that doesn’t mean they don’t value their lives.** It simply means they are creatures of habit. They don’t even know what “value” means**…

:clapping:

Animals do run away from predators because they fear them.

Atheists also run away from God, because they fear God.

Difficult to understand, because God is not a predator. So who are atheists really running from?

Themselves? And why? Because they do not know their own value?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Obviously not. One might think that it was the one fact about the subject that was THE most obvious.

If what the modern science of genetics has shown us is true, then it would seem your point has been completely overturned.

There are huge morphological and behavioural differences in animals that result from very small genetic or epigenetic differences. A caterpillar and butterfly have genetically identical cells; so do the larvae form and adult form of many insects; so do frogs and tadpoles; so do embryos and adult humans. The vast differences are the result of epigenetic markers.

It is entirely possible that a sufficient number of epigenetic “switches” could make the world of difference between what is apparently an indistinguishable-from-human primate (as far as appearance and fitness for survival) and a rational, clear-thinking, self-aware, fully human and moral person.

 

[inocente]

“Everything is demonstrated” by a mere supposition?

I am suggesting that what would demonstrate that a “leftist emoting adolescent has [actually] received the message of the cross, and (as in Charles Elliot’s commentary)” is “in communion with Him, in His revelation of the Father,” would be the fruit which comes about as a result of the reception of that message and that subsequent communion with God.

Now if the leftist emoting adolescent goes through three or four marriages, leaves Christianity to embrace Buddhism or some other generic form of “spirituality,” and becomes a transgendered dragon replete with green tattooed scales, you may claim – if I question the validity of that ‘fruit’ – that I am “hoisting” my values on him/her and that God’s foolishness is greater than human wisdom, but I will begin to wonder whether any wisdom whatsoever or God, for that matter, have anything at all to do with the “journey” upon which this “leftist emoting adolescent” has embarked.

You can continue to insist I am “hoisting” my values if you like, but I would question whether there are any meaningful values being appealed to by your appeal to “God’s foolishness.”

If no objective values can be appealed to, either in the assessment of the initial emotional experience nor in determining the value of the final fruit, what precisely is there left by which humans can determine anything with regard to God’s wisdom, or his foolishness?

I wouldn’t suppose there is any distinction to be made between God’s highest wisdom and the most debased human foolishness.

What “values” are you proposing be “hoisted” upon humans, then?

None, whatsoever?

We may as well take up with ISIS and behead Christians then, because that, too, could be “God’s foolishness” and we ought not impose or hoist any values upon others, according to you.

If you find that this implication misses your intent, then you need to suggest some clarity with regard to properly determining a workable set of values rather than merely denouncing anyone who might propose some.

What are God’s ‘values’ in this regard? How do we recognize the distinction between pure unadulterated human folly and “God’s foolishness?”

Would be good to know.

But I said “suppose”, a word which when used in an argument is usually taken to mean assume as a precondition.

So again: "Suppose your leftist emoting adolescent receives the message of the cross, and (as in Charles Elliot’s commentary) is “in communion with Him, in His revelation of the Father”.

Meaning for the purposes of argument take it that the guy is in communion with Christ.

As far as objective measures are concerned, 1 Corinthians continues (chapter 2):

“For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, …”.

So no one without the Spirit can judge the guy, and will just take him to be foolish. And as the guy is with the Spirit, he “is not subject to merely human judgments” anyway.

Paul then says “But we have the mind of Christ”. And in Phil 2 he says what that means:

“Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.”

So those are God’s values according to Paul.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But I said “suppose”, a word which when used in an argument is usually taken to mean assume as a precondition.

Correct. AND it is never taken to mean “I have thereby proved my point.”

Paul then says “But we have the mind of Christ”. And in Phil 2 he says what that means:

“Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.”

So those are God’s values according to Paul.

Okay, so Paul – with the mind of Christ – condemned sodomy and sexual immorality. I wouldn’t, then, suppose that Paul – again with the mind of Christ – would condone same sex marriage, especially given that Christ – presumably with his own mind – stated categorically that a man leaves his father and mother, cleaves to his wife and becomes one flesh with her; and that it was this way “from the beginning.”

Now suppose (assume) two thousand years later, some claiming to “have the mind of Christ” begin to state that marriage can be between two men or two women. I would think that either 1) Christ has lost his mind (not likely in the least) or 2) those claiming to “have the mind of Christ” are either mistaken, deceived or pretenders.

I wouldn’t assume (suppose) that just anyone who claims to have the “mind of Christ” does, indeed, have it. I would do more than a cursory check of their driver’s license – and refrain from “supposing” anything else, especially when they ask me to “suppose” what they want me to conclude from the start.

This is especially true in a time when many are insisting they can change their gender just by willing (or supposing) it to be so. I wouldn’t think the “mind of Christ” is something so easily obtained or assumed (or supposed.)

 

[inocente]

Since once again you have ignored every single one of my statements, questions and quotations there is no point in attempting to have a rational discussion with you. I leave you with the points he too failed to refute:

I tried my best to answer but it was difficult to separate questions you had copied from that old thread from what was freshly written. And as I said, I’m uneasy putting words into the mouth of another poster, especially in his absence. Morally, “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor", which is all too easy if you put words into another person’s mouth.

 

[inocente]

Correct. AND it is never taken to mean “I have thereby proved my point.”

Correct. AND it’s Constitution Day here, which is also irrelevant.

*Okay, so Paul – with the mind of Christ – condemned sodomy and sexual immorality. I wouldn’t, then, suppose that Paul – again with the mind of Christ – would condone same sex marriage, especially given that Christ – presumably with his own mind – stated categorically that a man leaves his father and mother, cleaves to his wife and becomes one flesh with her; and that it was this way “from the beginning.”

Now suppose (assume) two thousand years later, some claiming to “have the mind of Christ” begin to state that marriage can be between two men or two women. I would think that either 1) Christ has lost his mind (not likely in the least) or 2) those claiming to “have the mind of Christ” are either mistaken, deceived or pretenders.

I wouldn’t assume (suppose) that just anyone who claims to have the “mind of Christ” does, indeed, have it. I would do more than a cursory check of their driver’s license – and refrain from “supposing” anything else, especially when they ask me to “suppose” what they want me to conclude from the start.

This is especially true in a time when many are insisting they can change their gender just by willing (or supposing) it to be so. I wouldn’t think the “mind of Christ” is something so easily obtained or assumed (or supposed.)*

If we’re not careful, this discussion will shortly be extended to trade relations between Chile and China.

Paul isn’t Christ, he isn’t God. Not sure you can expect every word from his mouth to be God’s wisdom. Paul says “Women should remain silent in the churches”. Is that the mind of Christ speaking through Paul?

In the passage I quoted, Paul says specifically what he thinks it is to be in the mind of Christ. Did he include “Women should remain silent in the churches”?

Nope.

“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”—
the things God has prepared for those who love him—

these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit." - Isaiah 64 quoted in 1 Cor 2

 

[tonyrey]

I tried my best to answer but it was difficult to separate questions you had copied from that old thread from what was freshly written. And as I said, I’m uneasy putting words into the mouth of another poster, especially in his absence. Morally, “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor", which is all too easy if you put words into another person’s mouth.

You are not asked to put words into the mouth of another poster but to express your opinion as to whether truth is “an isomorphism of atomic particles”. It is certainly not a question of “giving false testimony against your neighbour”. He is fully entitled to his opinion but it has a direct bearing on whether the burden of proof is on believers to prove God exists because materialism is by no means a self-evident explanation of reality.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is basically saying “Since theists demand the Big Bang needs an explanation, God would need an explanation as well. Saying he doesn’t need one is a double standard. Since he can’t be explained, there is no evidence that He exists, thus there is not logical reason to believe”

What is the rebuttal?

Since there is no evidence that God does not exist, there is no reason to disbelieve.

The usual reply is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

But which is the more extraordinary claim?

God exists.

God does not exist.

The more usual claim in the history of the world is that God(s) exist.

The more unusual claim is that there is no God.

The more unusual claim is the more extraordinary claim.

 

[Aloysium]

Then why is it unreasonable to believe the human species originated with one couple?

It isn’t. It’s the only rational explanation for the existence of humanity.
However, it does appear to be unreasonable to those who imagine themselves as naked apes, and don’t really want to stray from that box.

In addition to our capacity to love (not the feeling), the existence of mathematics, morality, philosophy, the arts, science itself, in our search for truth is what separates us from other creatures with which we share the earth.

Although unrecognized by some, we are on a journey to the Truth who is the source and purpose of our existence…
Our efforts to determine who we are and where we came from are limited by our finite knowledge in time and space.
Assisting us is our intellect, which enables us to go beyond the appearance and discover its underlying structure.
We have also an innate awareness of our own being and, through the grace of God, some degree of connection to the Divine.
We here demonstrate the additional quality of being able to communicate and share our knowledge.

An understanding of where we come from physically speaking, can be gleaned from the record we find in the ground: monuments, ruins, artifacts and implements, bones and so forth.
The historical record, the most important being scripture in regards to our relationship with God, gives the stones and objects meaning.
In our search, beyond history and whatever remnants remain, we are left with time’s disorganization of what was.
At that point, we can draw on morphological data from the fossil record to tell us of our physical development.
It has something to say of emergence of skulls with sufficient volumes to contain a brain large enough to allow for the complexity of the rational mind.
We may be able to imagine how God may have fashioned us, stretching back to the beginnings of the dust itself.
The beginnings of Homo spiritualis (as opposed to the term H. sapiens) lie hidden behind a veil, revealed in scripture, which tells us only what is important to know.

There is a record that we carry in our genes.
Genealogical studies are only as good as the data, which is not some raw yes or no fact, but the outcome of analyses that strive to decipher the vagaries of the human genome.
Their value in providing information about our past is only as valid as the assumptions we use to bring the data together.
Today, one is the notion that that we are merely primates, evolving as a species.

Modern science has taken a wrong turn; and as a result, we find that what is perfectly rational, grounded in the truth, is portrayed as being unreasonable.

 

[Bradski]

It remains a fact that until the solitary ancestor mated with another ancestor the human species didn’t exist.

Yet again I might point out the folly of arguing against something which you continually show every sign of not understanding.

And again, apart from not being too keen on bending forum rules, it is not my place to educate you on the matter. Please investigate anything I say by all means. But I will not waste my time correcting you.

 

[tonyrey]

Yet again I might point out the folly of arguing against something which you continually show every sign of not understanding.

And again, apart from not being too keen on bending forum rules, it is not my place to educate you on the matter. Please investigate anything I say by all means. But I will not waste my time correcting you.

I could write exactly the same message to you… Your post certainly doesn’t refute what I have stated.

 

[tonyrey]

It isn’t. It’s the only rational explanation for the existence of humanity.
However, it does appear to be unreasonable to those who imagine themselves as naked apes, and don’t really want to stray from that box.

In addition to our capacity to love (not the feeling), the existence of mathematics, morality, philosophy, the arts, science itself, in our search for truth is what separates us from other creatures with which we share the earth.

Although unrecognized by some, we are on a journey to the Truth who is the source and purpose of our existence…
Our efforts to determine who we are and where we came from are limited by our finite knowledge in time and space.
Assisting us is our intellect, which enables us to go beyond the appearance and discover its underlying structure.
We have also an innate awareness of our own being and, through the grace of God, some degree of connection to the Divine.
We here demonstrate the additional quality of being able to communicate and share our knowledge.

An understanding of where we come from physically speaking, can be gleaned from the record we find in the ground: monuments, ruins, artifacts and implements, bones and so forth.
The historical record, the most important being scripture in regards to our relationship with God, gives the stones and objects meaning.
In our search, beyond history and whatever remnants remain, we are left with time’s disorganization of what was.
At that point, we can draw on morphological data from the fossil record to tell us of our physical development.
It has something to say of emergence of skulls with sufficient volumes to contain a brain large enough to allow for the complexity of the rational mind.
We may be able to imagine how God may have fashioned us, stretching back to the beginnings of the dust itself.
The beginnings of Homo spiritualis (as opposed to the term H. sapiens) lie hidden behind a veil, revealed in scripture, which tells us only what is important to know.

There is a record that we carry in our genes.
Genealogical studies are only as good as the data, which is not some raw yes or no fact, but the outcome of analyses that strive to decipher the vagaries of the human genome.
Their value in providing information about our past is only as valid as the assumptions we use to bring the data together.
Today, one is the notion that that we are merely primates, evolving as a species.

Modern science has taken a wrong turn; and as a result, we find that what is perfectly rational, grounded in the truth, is portrayed as being unreasonable.

:tiphat: It’s refreshing to read a** reasonable** explanation of our origin - in stark contrast to the absurd hypothesis that we are strange freaks of nature which have emerged as the result of random permutations of molecules and fortuitous mutations of genes** for no reason **whatsoever and yet we have magically acquired the power to understand that nothing makes sense and everything is fundamentally valueless, purposeless and meaningless. The burden of proof is undoubtedly on the proponents of absurdity to explain how they have succeeded in reaching any conclusions at all, let alone understanding themselves and the nature of reality…

 

[Tomdstone]

Since there is no evidence that God does not exist,.

Some people have cited the problem of evil as evidence that there is not an all-loving all powerful God. Some have argued from the idea of inconsistent revelations, comparing Hinduism with Judaism, etc. Others argue from the idea of poor design since the activity of some humans seems to indicate that humans could have been better designed. Others argue from the fate of those who reject Jesus. There are people who know almost everything there is to know about Jesus, and yet reject him openly and categorically. They adhere to their own religion (incompatible with Catholicism) and lead decent lives. What is their fate?