Who has the burden of proof?

[snarflemike]

I’ve read a ton of books recommended to me from here, a ton of documents from Popes on the Vatican website, I’ve listened to hundreds of hours of audio from EWTN and debates on youtube, and I’ve read a ton of the classics and some Early Church Fathers.

Sitting proudly in my library, which I have read front to back are several Bibles, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and a Concordance.

Coupled with this I’ve engaged in hundreds of hours over these two years past of conversation, debate and discussion with believers of all persuasions, predominantly Christian.

Nothing I have read or heard even begins to convince me of the truth of their claims for a Deity, and the God of Christianity.

But you said there is no evidence. This is different from saying the evidence did not convince you.

I happened to run across this review, by an atheist blogger (commonsenseatheism.com), of the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. He is very honest in admitting the arguments for the existence of God are strong, even while he rejects them.

As an atheist, I recognize this as the single greatest defense of theism ever assembled. Craig and Moreland basically made a list of the most compelling contemporary arguments for the existence of God, tracked down their foremost living defenders, and gave them 50-100 pages to make their case. The result is awe-inspiring, even for the atheist.

I do not expect the book to succeed in demonstrating theism, but it might take a full decade for me to fully analyze its meaty arguments and come to some conclusions.
…
High points include Robin Collins’ defense of the teleological argument and McGrew & McGrew’s astounding Bayesian defense of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.

Also, readers may be surprised to learn that the modal ontological argument has progressed a great deal since Plantinga. To my knowledge, atheists have yet to show what might be wrong with Robert Maydole’s latest ontological argument, printed within.

Because I hold this book in such high esteem, I will be writing hundreds of pages in response to its arguments, starting with Craig’s kalam argument and Linville’s moral argument. You can track my progress at CommonSenseAtheism.com.

‘The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology’ is a tour-de-force of analytic philosophy. If the world is just, it will shape the theistic side of the debate over the existence of God for at least a decade. In my opinion, it has no equal among atheistic literature – yet.

But I still find the subject fascinating, have learned a ton of stuff and have met some wonderful people.

Being fascinated with the question of the existence of God can only be a good thing.

 

[In_Spiration]

The definitions, I think, are a bit blurry and undefined and overlapping.
Would you consider HItchens or Dawkins as “weak” atheists? Probably not.
And yet, they’ve both said during many lectures and interviews that they cannot say that God for sure does not exist … they also say they are indeed open to evidence that would convince them of a deity, but so far, nothing that has convinced them (and they’re looking, darn it…they are looking).
They think same as Atheistgirl!
So would you classify Hitchens/Dawkins as agnostic?

.

Agnostics and “skeptics” tend to like playing hard-to-get. They simply have dignified doxastic standards. The strategic (and emotional) benefits are, of course, purely incidental.

 

[atheistgirl]

But you said there is no evidence. This is different from saying the evidence did not convince you.

The ‘‘evidence’’ is what others refer to as evidence.

To me, it’s not evidence as it doesn’t persude me.

I happened to run across this review, by an atheist blogger (commonsenseatheism.com), of the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. He is very honest in admitting the arguments for the existence of God are strong, even while he rejects them.

Luke doesn’t say the arguments are strong.

What you left out, and what he says is:

So I give this book 5 stars not because it convinced me that a magical super-being spoke the universe into existence and revealed himself to ancient, ignorant people through the virgin birth of a man-god who did party tricks, got killed, then rose from the dead and flew off into the sky. No, I give this book 5 stars because it’s the best defense of such a myth that can possibly be mustered.

I’ve spoken with Muslims and Orthodox who have absolutely compelling arguments as to why their interpretation of Scripture and definition of God is the only correct one.

I’ve complimented Church Militant here for being a ferocious defender of the Catholic Faith.

However, me saying Church Militant is a ferocious and highly intellectual defender of Catholicism is a million miles away from me being even remotely persuaded by his arguments, or thinking what he calls evidence is actual evidence, to me.

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

But you said there is no evidence. This is different from saying the evidence did not convince you.

I happened to run across this review, by an atheist blogger (commonsenseatheism.com), of the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. He is very honest in admitting the arguments for the existence of God are strong, even while he rejects them.

Being fascinated with the question of the existence of God can only be a good thing.

Otherwise we are limited to sensations from our eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin!