Who has the burden of proof?

[Love4All]

Atheism does make a claim, and it is not a negative claim. Since the universe does exist, atheism makes the claim that the existence of the universe can be explained, can be accounted for, in purely naturalistic terms. That is a positive claim that requires proof.

It seems to me that claim only requires proof if the atheist is asking the theist to change their mind. The position that everything can be accounted for in natural terms is, well, a natural one to hold, in the absence of real evidence to the contrary. There are many things science does not yet know, but that science holds out a reasonable expectation of knowing in the future, after more research, more experiment, etc. The idea that the Origin of the Universe is not among these things, seems to be a positive claim requiring support.

Science, working with philosophy, may one day discover that there is no scientific way to determine the Origin of the Universe, but it seems to me the jury is still out on that question. It reminds me of the Halting Problem in computer science.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

"Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible program-(name removed by moderator)ut pairs cannot exist. "

The question with regard to Cosmology is,

1. Can we find a natural Origin of the Universe? And additionally,
2. Can we determine whether the search for a natural Origin must eventually terminate, or not?

When, essentially, do cosmologists throw up their hands and give up, and say, “goddidit?”

Many claim that this idea of God is nothing more than a “god-o’-the-gaps.” “God” becomes nothing more than a placeholder for what we do not as yet know.

 

[snarflemike]

It seems to me that claim only requires proof if the atheist is asking the theist to change their mind.

One would think an honest atheist would want proof of his beliefs for his own intellectual integrity.

The position that everything can be accounted for in natural terms is, well, a natural one to hold, in the absence of real evidence to the contrary.

Then why did no ancient people hold it? Clearly there is a flaw in your reasoning.

There are many things science does not yet know, but that science holds out a reasonable expectation of knowing in the future, after more research, more experiment, etc. The idea that the Origin of the Universe is not among these things, seems to be a positive claim requiring support.

Now you’re just twisting words. If science can explain everything (as is the claim), then it can explain the origin of the universe. So offer the explanation. Or, if you don’t yet have it, offer proof that science can explain everything. This is the Science of the Gaps argument. Since science explains many things, it must explain all things.

Science, working with philosophy, may one day discover that there is no scientific way to determine the Origin of the Universe, but it seems to me the jury is still out on that question. It reminds me of the Halting Problem in computer science.

Then all atheists must become agnostics.

The question with regard to Cosmology is,

1. Can we find a natural Origin of the Universe? And additionally,
2. Can we determine whether the search for a natural Origin must eventually terminate, or not?

When, essentially, do cosmologists throw up their hands and give up, and say, “goddidit?”

Many claim that this idea of God is nothing more than a “god-o’-the-gaps.” “God” becomes nothing more than a placeholder for what we do not as yet know.

And as I said earlier, there is an equivalent Science of the Gaps in which science is assumed to explain, in principle, those things we do not as yet know.

BTW, I doubt any thinking theist has ever argued that since we can’t explain something, God must have done it. I think God of the Gaps is mostly an atheist straw man. There are a good many proofs of God’s existence from first principles.

 

[snarflemike]

One thing I have noticed over the years is the great lengths to which atheists will go to avoid having to offer proof of their worldview. it’s always “we don’t have to prove our position, you have to prove yours.” Why, if they have truth on their side, are they so reluctant to offer evidence of that proof? Why such evasiveness?

 

[D_Martin]

There are many such miracles in the History of Christianity.

What miracles? Did anyone mention miracles? I would suspect it would be logical to presume that these people haven’t witnessed any miracles, don’t you? And I wonder why they don’t trust what Christians say about miracles?

There are logical and rational philosophical arguments for Christianity.

And there is plenty of arguments on the other side, but that’s the point, they’re arguments, not proof.

No one can fully 100% prove the Existence of GOD, nor can anyone outright 100% deny HIS Existence, which renders Atheism obsolete.

Where have you been? I see people do their intellectual best to deny or prove there isn’t a God, all the time.

There are only hardcore agnostics or those who hate GOD. Atheism at its core, is logically impossible.

You would have to prove that. And one might consider that the Lord God will grant their wish or desire to be without God’s Grace or the Presence of God. So its their reality if they really want it.

---

I don’t know, but considering if one has a proud arrogant attitude of condemnation toward them, then I would suspect that person won’t be participating in the converting of any atheists or agnostics in the near future.

---

 

[mymamamary]

What miracles? Did anyone mention miracles? I would suspect it would be logical to presume that these people haven’t witnessed any miracles, don’t you? And I wonder why they don’t trust what Christians say about miracles?

And there is plenty of arguments on the other side, but that’s the point, they’re arguments, not proof.

Where have you been? I see people do their intellectual best to deny or prove there isn’t a God, all the time.

You would have to prove that. And one might consider that the Lord God will grant their wish or desire to be without God’s Grace or the Presence of God. So its their reality if they really want it.

---

I don’t know, but considering if one has a proud arrogant attitude of condemnation toward them, then I would suspect that person won’t be participating in the converting of any atheists or agnostics in the near future.

---

**St. Thomas Aquinas layed down the law with His Five Proofs. So did St. Augustine with His Arguement for Free Will, or the oft-misunderstood arguement, but in reality almost irrefutable arguement of St. Anselm. No Atheist has been able to look the five proofs square in the face and give a solid smackdown on them. No one. Stephen Hawkings proposed a theory that “ex nihilo nihil fit” doesn’t work, and his colleague, Dr. David Penrose threw the theory aside, not on religious or philosophical convictions, but on the assertion that its “dreamy and wishy” science. The fact that I present to them for example, a miracle for my case that GOD does exist, Then they have to refute it. I provided the evidence. Its not a matter of trust, for then how could I ever trust what scientists say? I’ve never seen a scientist conduct a evolutionary study, then how can I believe they are selling me truth? Then I gotta have Faith. You are right, ultimatley, as Christians have done, we can give all the most overwhelming evidence in the world and Athiests can choose to deny it, however, then it becomes either A) Anger or some other motive of fear that keeps our wills from uniting with CHRIST, or B) Uncertainty and doubt. However the initial factor of Atheism would be eliminated. **

 

[Charlemagne_II]

atheistgirl

If you are claiming there is a Deity, and further, you’re claiming this Deity is the God of Christianity, then the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.

The Christian God can only be known both with the head and the heart, not by the head alone.

Since the atheist does not open his heart to God, he cannot know God on any level.

But on the cerebral level only, the atheist cannot prove there is no God. Therefore atheism is a faith rather than a reasoned hypothesis.

 

[markeverett49]

The burden of proof varies depending on the venue. A civil trial and a public debate, for example, work differently.

In general, the burden falls on the one who introduces a claim. We know this from books: all authors feel responsible for making the case for their position, whether affirmative or negative. If you want another person to believe (or disbelieve) X, you tell him why you think he should.

 

[D_Martin]

How do we know the revelation is from God, and not merely from human imagination, or worse, from an evil spirit?

Those of the same spirit, in this case we are talking about the Holy Spirit are edified by affirmation in the same said Spirit. Those in agreement with and in Christ Jesus rejoice in the same experiences, and praise the Lord their God by expressing that same experience to one another, and others as well. Like a child talking to others about how great his father is by tell others what he is like, which would be from the child’s own experiences with his father. King David was well known for that. And the sense of kindred ship or brotherhood is there.

John says it well here:
1Jn:1:3: That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4: And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

Affirmation can come from preachers teachers priest fellow believers so on and so forth, that it is in the Lord the fellowship one is experiencing, and not one’s own imagination, but the Lord would certainly make it clear that it is of Him, should one have a problem with it, because the Lord Jesus is not a miss leader of men.

Does God then choose some to save and others to condemn?

I don’t sit on the Throne, that is one you will have to ask the Lord on, but its apparent that Jesus will turn no faithful away, and He was explicit about not condemning. The world is condemned already, not because of God, because man trusted a lie, instead of the Truth, the Word of God.

Also what is it that God the Father agreed to? Isn’t it, that anyone who calls on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved?

The idea that God cannot be known except by revelation begs the question of authority. Whose testimony ought we to accept, and on what ground?

To believe based on authority alone is problematic, because of the question above, that that raises. According to Scripture, the Apostles gave proof of their authority via miracles, as did Christ. But, Our Lord also said to Saint Thomas, “Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet believe.”

Still, belief on the basis of authority alone has rightly been condemned by the Church as Fideism.

Interesting point, but there is such a thing as discernment, a gift of the Holy Spirit, which I believe every follower is in dire need of, if they don’t have it. Then deception in the name of authority is none effective. As in any organization, those in authority will only promote those like themselves.

So it would seem, if we reject Fideism, some kind of argument or proof is called for. At the very least, some kind of supporting evidence that the preacher of the Gospel is trustworthy.

Look up gifts in the Spirit of God. And be wary of what is said and done in the name of, anything that can be used to get a emotional and or manipulated response. Lovers of the Lord need no manipulation to be ready for their King. Also those of the Lord agree with the Lord. Many use the authority you mention to agree amongst themselves as if it be righteousness. If its not in agreement with the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles’ writings, it means nothing in the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

A thing that is not provable is not automatically false. Democritus believed in the existence of atoms, things so small they could not be seen. People scoffed at him for his belief. Today we know they exist.

So it is with God. We may not be able to prove He exists because we cannot see Him. But some day we may see Him … up close and personal!

 

[D_Martin]

**St. Thomas Aquinas layed down the law with His Five Proofs. So did St. Augustine with His Arguement for Free Will, or the oft-misunderstood arguement, but in reality almost irrefutable arguement of St. Anselm. No Atheist has been able to look the five proofs square in the face and give a solid smackdown on them. No one. Stephen Hawkings proposed a theory that “ex nihilo nihil fit” doesn’t work, and his colleague, Dr. David Penrose threw the theory aside, not on religious or philosophical convictions, but on the assertion that its “dreamy and wishy” science. The fact that I present to them for example, a miracle for my case that GOD does exist, Then they have to refute it. I provided the evidence. Its not a matter of trust, for then how could I ever trust what scientists say? I’ve never seen a scientist conduct a evolutionary study, then how can I believe they are selling me truth? Then I gotta have Faith. You are right, ultimatley, as Christians have done, we can give all the most overwhelming evidence in the world and Athiests can choose to deny it, however, then it becomes either A) Anger or some other motive of fear that keeps our wills from uniting with CHRIST, or B) Uncertainty and doubt. However the initial factor of Atheism would be eliminated. **

Everything you just said and referred to, has it been known to covert atheists and the like in large numbers. And isn’t most of those writings, hundreds of years old? How come everyone isn’t converted if they be indisputable truths that are proof? Have you taken your proofs to philosophy web sites and the like and lead the many to Christ?

Jesus has risen from the dead, by His own power that the Father gave Him, and what is it that any theist can say to top that as proof? And the many still don’t believe.

But Apostle Paul says.
1Cor:2:4: And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

People come to know God is real by revelation, not by disputable intellect.

---

Besides frustration with atheism or some latest greatest “ism” isn’t the issue, its being ready for the ones who really want to know. And the Lord don’t care what they believed before they meet Him anyway. Have a good Easter.

 

[tonyrey]

1. No one has privileged insight into the nature of reality.

I believe no one has privileged insight into the nature of reality because human beings have limited insight and intelligence…

2. Our starting point is that we know nothing.

If that is the case, then it seems we don’t know 1.

We don’t know that our starting point is that we know nothing but it is reasonable to** believe** it is our starting point.

If we start knowing nothing, on what do we base our initial reasoning?

Read on!

3. The burden of proof presupposes the power of reason.

O.K.

4. Therefore the burden of proof rests with anyone who rejects the power of reason.

If the burden of proof presupposes the power of reason, then how will one who rejects the power of reason apprehend the proof? Let alone present it? *
That is not my problem but a problem for anyone who rejects the power of reason!

 

[atheistgirl]

Since the atheist does not open his heart to God, he cannot know God on any level.

This atheist, with a honest and open heart, prayed for 40 days.

Nothing

But on the cerebral level only, the atheist cannot prove there is no God.

Correct.

Therefore atheism is a faith rather than a reasoned hypothesis.

While I readily admit I simply do not know if a Deity exists, making me agnostic, I also don’t believe, based on the consistent lack of evidence and ability to back up claims over 2000 years, such a Deity exists.

In just the same way, while I do not know there is not a pink elephant drinking tea from a china cup in orbit around a planet we have not yet discovered, I also don’t believe there is such a thing based on the phenomenally small likelihood of such a being existing.

I don’t think that’s an unreasonable position.

I have an open mind and am more than willing to change my position were I to find even a scrap of credible evidence for such a Being.

Sarah x

 

[mymamamary]

Everything you just said and referred to, has it been known to covert atheists and the like in large numbers. And isn’t most of those writings, hundreds of years old? How come everyone isn’t converted if they be indisputable truths that are proof? Have you taken your proofs to philosophy web sites and the like and lead the many to Christ?

Jesus has risen from the dead, by His own power that the Father gave Him, and what is it that any theist can say to top that as proof? And the many still don’t believe.

But Apostle Paul says.
1Cor:2:4: And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

People come to know God is real by revelation, not by disputable intellect.

---

Besides frustration with atheism or some latest greatest “ism” isn’t the issue, its being ready for the ones who really want to know. And the Lord don’t care what they believed before they meet Him anyway. Have a good Easter.

Of course Faith is the biggest and most important part, however our reason cannot be severed from GOD. Our Capability to do so came from HIM after all. Bl. John Paul 2nd had a lot to say about it…

 

[Steveabrous]

This atheist, with a honest and open heart, prayed for 40 days.

Nothing

Again. If your heart is not open to it, or you are expecting God to prove himself to you, praying will gain you nothing. Jesus is clear one must have faith for prayer to work

While I readily admit I simply do not know if a Deity exists, making me agnostic, I also don’t believe, based on the consistent lack of evidence and ability to back up claims over 2000 years, such a Deity exists.

So the fact that a man claiming to be God, Was then killed for claiming it in an obscure region of the Roman empire, from an obscure religion, who’s followers went to their deaths claiming that he rose from the dead, convincing future generations to do the same until eventually the whole empire converted, then lasting over 1000 years after history’s most powerful empire collapsed, and is the largest religion in the world today doesn’t make you say hmm Maybe there is something to this.

In just the same way, while I do not know there is not a pink elephant drinking tea from a china cup in orbit around a planet we have not yet discovered, I also don’t believe there is such a thing based on the phenomenally small likelihood of such a being existing.

This is a strawman argument. No one ever said such a thing exists. there are no eyewitness accounts, and no one is willing to go to their death rather then deny it. As is the case with the Apostles.

I have an open mind and am more than willing to change my position were I to find even a scrap of credible evidence for such a Being.
Sarah x

For one creation is evidence of a creator. I also wonder what your feelings on the documented medical miracles the Church has authenticated. Where a clear medical condition exists, and a complete healing outside of medical attention occurred.

 

[davidv]

Everything you just said and referred to, has it been known to covert atheists and the like in large numbers. And isn’t most of those writings, hundreds of years old? **How come everyone isn’t converted if they be indisputable truths that are proof? **Have you taken your proofs to philosophy web sites and the like and lead the many to Christ?

Jesus has risen from the dead, by His own power that the Father gave Him, and what is it that any theist can say to top that as proof? And the many still don’t believe.

But Apostle Paul says.
1Cor:2:4: And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

People come to know God is real by revelation, not by disputable intellect.

---

Besides frustration with atheism or some latest greatest “ism” isn’t the issue, its being ready for the ones who really want to know. And the Lord don’t care what they believed before they meet Him anyway. Have a good Easter.

Regarding the bolded question. Conversion is a matter of the heart, not the intellect. Understanding does not necessarily lead to conversion. Conversion requires the humility to admit to sin and the will to repent.

 

[snarflemike]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl
In just the same way, while I do not know there is not a pink elephant drinking tea from a china cup in orbit around a planet we have not yet discovered, I also don’t believe there is such a thing based on the phenomenally small likelihood of such a being existing.

Nor is there a 2500 year philosophical tradition of proofs of such a pink elephant. To even bring up such a counter example is a sign that the person bringing it up is quite clueless as to the actual body of thought on the matter. I don’t know how one even proceeds with such an individual, other than to point out in charity that they embarrass themselves with such “arguments”.

 

[snarflemike]

I have an open mind and am more than willing to change my position were I to find even a scrap of credible evidence for such a Being.

Does this mean that, for example, you have evaluated and dismissed all the arguments in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology? Or Aquinas’ Summa Contra Gentiles? It’s one thing to say the sum total of the evidence does not persuade, it’s quite another to claim there is not a scrap of credible evidence.

 

[atheistgirl]

Nor is there a 2500 year philosophical tradition of proofs of such a pink elephant. To even bring up such a counter example is a sign that the person bringing it up is quite clueless as to the actual body of thought on the matter. I don’t know how one even proceeds with such an individual, other than to point out in charity that they embarrass themselves with such “arguments”.

I’m not as clueless as you might think

But thanks for the charitable pointer.

However, I’m not easily embarrassed

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Does this mean that, for example, you have evaluated and dismissed all the arguments in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology? Or Aquinas’ Summa Contra Gentiles? It’s one thing to say the sum total of the evidence does not persuade, it’s quite another to claim there is not a scrap of credible evidence.

No.

Not them all.

With six children, a husband and a home to care for and several businesses to run I have no intention of devoting my entire life to the study of every single Saint, theologian and philosopher that ever existed in order to change my mind on the lack of evidence for the existence of a Deity.

If I find such evidence in the gentle perusing I engage in with authors works and people in conversation great, if not, oh well

Sarah x

 

[Steveabrous]

No.

Not them all.

With six children, a husband and a home to care for and several businesses to run I have no intention of devoting my entire life to the study of every single Saint, theologian and philosopher that ever existed in order to change my mind on the lack of evidence for the existence of a Deity.

If I find such evidence in the gentle perusing I engage in with authors works and people in conversation great, if not, oh well

Sarah x

I’m curious if you think there is no God, then how do explain life? As I said creation is evidence of a creator. If I walk down the beach and see rocks arranged to spell “HELLO” I don’t assume that the tide randomly did it over time. I know someone was there before me. I ask you this because other atheists I have engaged in this conversation with are very rude about it and you seem reasonable. You obviously are open to the possibility of God or you wouldn’t be on this forum.