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

[STT]

Let’s just keep it there, shall we?

Sure. What is next?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sure. What is next?

I think, therefore I am…

…I think. :ehh:

 

[STT]

I think, therefore I am…

…I think. :ehh:

We of course experience thinking as well. So experience is the only reality that we can depend on.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes.

Actually that was my next task to read his work in depth. Why?

Try this first…

edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2014/02/a-world-of-pure-imagination.html

 

[Peter_Plato]

We of course experience thinking as well. So experience is the only reality that we can depend on.

And you know for certain that “experience is the only reality that we can depend on?”

You have experienced ALL other possible realities and KNOW for certain they CANNOT be depended upon?

How would you know for certain that there are no other realities – i.e., those you have never experienced – that might be even more dependable than the ones you have experienced?

If you don’t know for certain, then you cannot make the claim, relying solely on experience, that “experience is the only reality we can depend on.” Experience doesn’t tell you anything at all about the reliability of things you have never experienced, does it?

Ergo, experience cannot be the ONLY REALITY you would need to rely upon to make such an absolute claim about experience being the ONLY reality we can depend upon.

Perhaps we are completely dependent upon things we don’t experience.

The claim that “Experience is the only reality that we can depend on,” undermines itself because you would have to know and verify in some other way that there are no realities that you do depend upon outside of your realm of experience. But how would you know that?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

And you know for certain that “experience is the only reality that we can depend on?”

You have experienced ALL other possible realities and KNOW for certain they CANNOT be depended upon?

How would you know for certain that there are no other realities – i.e., those you have never experienced – that might be even more dependable than the ones you have experienced?

If you don’t know for certain, then you cannot make the claim, relying solely on experience, that “experience is the only reality we can depend on.” Experience doesn’t tell you anything at all about the reliability of things you have never experienced, does it?

Ergo, experience cannot be the ONLY REALITY you would need to rely upon to make such an absolute claim about experience being the ONLY reality we can depend upon.

Perhaps we are completely dependent upon things we don’t experience.

The claim that “Experience is the only reality that we can depend on,” undermines itself because you would have to know and verify in some other way that there are no realities that you do depend upon outside of your realm of experience. But how would you know that?

Obiviously STT is a materialist and the only thing he can depend on is his own lack of imagination and the reality he finds through his five senses.

 

[Aloysium]

Seems to me that to speak of experience, one is using one’s reason to create that category and include within it, all that one can know, feel and perceive.

As I gaze across at the white rectangle on which these words pop up, I can think of the whiteness as something belonging to the monitor or as a component of my sensorium. In either case there is an “object”, that my “subjective” self is “experiencing”. Each experience allows for “my” (as opposed to your) knowing what is “out there” (not the knower), even when what is known is an aspect of the structure which makes up the “me” part of myself-in-the-world.

In everything about us there exists this triad of relationality, and it includes not only passive experience but active doing. We need an intellect to form the idea that experience is all we know. That same intellect tells us that the experience is happening to someone and that it is about something.

To keep this on track with the OP, I would add that my intellect also informs me that all existence has a relational nature.
Perfect Existence, relationality in its purest form is the Source of all being, transcendent and involved with all that is, its end and purpose.
When we understand what it means to exist, we can begin to see at least the possibility of God as Love.
The rest is in the doing, being loving persons, reborn as children of God, our Divine Father, knowing Him as we become Christ-like.
There is ample proof of the possibility of God’s existence for anyone who does not know Him.
There is a Way that we must follow in order to reach Him. We have to act in accordance to His will.
I do get the impression that most atheists are simply refusing to walk the walk.

 

[inocente]

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.

He never it, or anything remotely like it.

 

[inocente]

I wouldn’t suppose (assume) that Paul was talking about all women in all churches for all time. There is good exegetical evidence that Paul was speaking about particular women in particular churches under particular circumstances that obtained at that time. I will suppose (assume,) that Paul knew what he was talking about when he wrote his letter intended for the audience which received it. And that God had good reason to include the incident in inspired Scripture, but that reason may not be the first one that comes to our minds.

I will also suppose that the mind of Christ will sort that all out if we have the mind to fairly pay attention to it.

Still, the fact that Jesus’ words about marriage between one man and one woman were what God intended – according to Jesus – “from the beginning” and that Paul never made the claim that God intended women to keep silent in church “from the beginning” means the two are not equivalent cases in terms of the intention to be formed in the “mind of Christ.”

What I do find interesting, however, is that you are fine with allowing that Paul speaks “with the mind of Christ” when it is a point you want to make, but when it isn’t then you fly off to the observation that Paul “…isn’t Christ, he isn’t God.”

Nice!

I never said that. Traditionally, Christians don’t believe the bible was dictated word for word by God, we believe that Paul was human, not God. If you disagree, you may find it a bit lonely.

 

[inocente]

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.

“In epistemology, the burden of proof is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position”. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof

So for example, if someone claims that another poster said something, he has an obligation to cite him saying it, and should give up the claim if he cannot.

As far as the phrase itself, I can wring no meaning whatsoever from it, so I can’t give an opinion.

If someone claims that God provably exists, she has an obligation to provide sufficient warrant. If someone claims that God provably does not exist, she has an obligation to provide sufficient warrant.

Neither can duck that duty by hand waving at the other party. Yet I think no ordinary believer or disbeliever ever claims to be able to prove her position anyway, but it made for an interesting discussion.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I never said that. Traditionally, Christians don’t believe the bible was dictated word for word by God, we believe that Paul was human, not God. If you disagree, you may find it a bit lonely.

To quote someone dear to our hearts: “I never said that.”

Where do I even hint at saying God “dictated word for word” what is in Scripture?

I would assume that God inspiring Scripture does have implications with regard to what is or is not included and why. Where is “word for word” even implied in that?

Or would you suppose there is a whole lot of innocuous or meaningless stuff – kind of like junk DNA – littering the pages of the Bible?

If God inspired the authors to write what they did, I would assume everything included is there for some important reason, even if not dictated “word for word.” Do you not agree?

 

[STT]

And you know for certain that “experience is the only reality that we can depend on?”

Yes. Experience is the only thing that I can depend on. My body, by self, everything is subject to doubt so they cannot be used for a proof for existence of God. By this I mean that there is a gap in our knowledge for existence of reality and we cannot prove that it exists hence we cannot use the existence of reality to prove that God exists.

You have experienced ALL other possible realities and KNOW for certain they CANNOT be depended upon?

Other reality could exist but I can only experience them and I cannot prove they exist .

How would you know for certain that there are no other realities – i.e., those you have never experienced – that might be even more dependable than the ones you have experienced?

The existence of other reality does not resolve the problem that we have, the gap for existence of reality. We can experience any reality but we cannot prove it.

If you don’t know for certain, then you cannot make the claim, relying solely on experience, that “experience is the only reality we can depend on.” Experience doesn’t tell you anything at all about the reliability of things you have never experienced, does it?

I do believe that reality exist when it comes to my needs for example. The point that I am making is that we cannot prove that reality exist hence this cannot be used to prove that God exist.

Ergo, experience cannot be the ONLY REALITY you would need to rely upon to make such an absolute claim about experience being the ONLY reality we can depend upon.

I don’t think so.

Perhaps we are completely dependent upon things we don’t experience.

I don’t understand you here.

The claim that “Experience is the only reality that we can depend on,” undermines itself because you would have to know and verify in some other way that there are no realities that you do depend upon outside of your realm of experience. But how would you know that?

It is up to you to prove that reality exists (the gap problem). Afterward we can of course discuss the existence of God.

 

[STT]

Obiviously STT is a materialist and the only thing he can depend on is his own lack of imagination and the reality he finds through his five senses.

Materialism could be true if it is defined properly. I had experiences beyond my five senses but I don’t find any need to throw out the materialism.

 

[IWantGod]

It is up to you to prove that reality exists (the gap problem). Afterward we can of course discuss the existence of God.

1. You know that you exist.
2. **Necessary reality cannot be the product of potentiality
   **
3. Your being, and every change in your being, is a potentiality that has been actualised and thus you are not necessary reality.
4. Potentiality cannot move itself to actuality.
5. Therefore a necessary eternal being must exist in order to give actual existence to potential.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Materialism could be true if it is defined properly. I had experiences beyond my five senses but I don’t find any need to throw out the materialism.

No of course not. But you need to look beyond “science”. Science only describes the world through our senses.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Materialism could be true if it is defined properly. I had experiences beyond my five senses but I don’t find any need to throw out the materialism.

Defining materialism properly isn’t what will make it true. Defining it properly might make it clearer in terms of our ability to conceptualize it, but our ability to conceptualize something isn’t what makes it true. In fact, defining it properly merely turns it into an artifact, but that isn’t what makes something real.

What is is what is. Our job isn’t to “define” it, although that may help us to comprehend it better –*with the understanding that our understanding may never be perfect or complete.

That doesn’t mean we can’t have certainty with regard to some aspects of reality. The real pitfall, though, is to suppose our limited understanding is complete when it isn’t.

Materialism might properly depict some aspects of reality, but merely because it does that does not give us sufficient warrant to assume it gives the complete picture.

 

[STT]

1. You know that you exist.
2. **Necessary reality cannot be the product of potentiality
   **
3. Your being, and every change in your being, is a potentiality that has been actualised and thus you are not necessary reality.
4. Potentiality cannot move itself to actuality.
5. Therefore a necessary eternal being must exist in order to give actual existence to potential.

The only certainty that I have is that the experience exists hence (1) doesn’t follow.

 

[STT]

Defining materialism properly isn’t what will make it true. Defining it properly might make it clearer in terms of our ability to conceptualize it, but our ability to conceptualize something isn’t what makes it true. In fact, defining it properly merely turns it into an artifact, but that isn’t what makes something real.

What is is what is. Our job isn’t to “define” it, although that may help us to comprehend it better –*with the understanding that our understanding may never be perfect or complete.

That doesn’t mean we can’t have certainty with regard to some aspects of reality. The real pitfall, though, is to suppose our limited understanding is complete when it isn’t.

Materialism might properly depict some aspects of reality, but merely because it does that does not give us sufficient warrant to assume it gives the complete picture.

Materialism can be true if we define it as an investigation method to understand the truth in the reality, instead of the universe.

 

[tonyrey]

The only certainty that I have is that the experience exists hence (1) doesn’t follow.

Experience doesn’t exist in a vacuum!

Human experience is the ultimate source and justification for all knowledge. Experience itself has accumulated in **human **memory and culture, gradually producing the methods of intelligence called “reason” and “science.” (My emphasis)

Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin experientia act of trying, from experient-, experiens, present participle of experiri to try, from ex- + -periri (akin to periculum attempt)

Merriam-Webster

 

[Peter_Plato]

Materialism can be true if we define it as an investigation method to understand the truth in the reality, instead of the universe.

I think you are confusing the meaning of “methodologically precise definition” with “true.” Merely because you expand the definition of materialism to encompass all reality doesn’t make the clams of materialism true. It just generalizes materialism to the point of vacuity.

So is all reality purely “material” in the commonly understood sense? Your solution is to change the meaning of “material” to make it mean “whatever constitutes all of reality;” thus watering down the meaning to include basically everything. Does that make the claims of materialism true or just meaningless?