Burden of Proof
Imagine the following scenario.
You are sitting at home one night, quietly watching television or knitting or whatever it is you do quietly. There is a sharp knock at the door. “Police!” Somewhat nervous, you make your way to the door and open it. Two uniformed officers stand outside. “Mind if we come in? We need to ask you a few questions.” You agree, because you have nothing to hide. After about 15 minutes of questioning, you are led away from your home in handcuffs, charged with stealing $100.
I called the police.
You know very well that you didn’t steal $100 from me. Maybe I think you did. Maybe I just don’t like you. Either way, you’re now sitting in a jail cell. You had over $100 in cash in your pocket when the police arrived, and that was enough evidence for them to arrest you.
At the trial, my entire argument is “S/he can’t prove that s/he didn’t steal the money.”
You claim that you took that money out of an ATM. You even have a receipt for the transaction, but you can’t prove that those are the same bills. You say that you were home alone the entire day on which I claim that the money was stolen, but you have no alibi. You tell the jury that I may never have been robbed at all, but you can’t say for sure how much money I had that morning or whether I spent any of it. You suggest that I might have lost it, but you can’t find it, so that doesn’t help your case.
You are convicted.
Your trial was not held in the United States as you know it. It was held in a parallel universe in which an accused person is considered guilty until proven innocent. In other words, the burden of proof is placed on the defendant. Despite the fact that I am the one making the claim (that you stole my money), you have to disprove it. Does that sound fair to you? Does that sound logical? When a theist claims that the burden of proof about god is on the atheist, he is using the same flawed logic.
I’ve seen this topic in a couple of places around the blogosphere in the last few days, and I realized that I had never really discussed it in depth here. It’s such a fundamental truth, that I sometimes forget that some people just don’t get it.
In my example, I am claiming something which is not readily apparent, and I should have to prove it. In the debate over the existence of god, the theist is claiming something which is not readily apparent (god) and HE should have to prove it.
It is impossible to disprove the existence of god. (That’s right; you can quote me on that.) To do so, one would need to look EVERYWHERE. Actually, that’s not even good enough. One would have to look everywhere at once. Otherwise god might move around while you’re trying to find him. Even if one could do this, it wouldn’t be sufficient. The theist would still claim that god is just undetectable, and you looked right past him.
For the theist to prove god, he simply has to produce him. Proof isn’t even necessary. To show that it is more likely that god exists than that he does not (which would be enough for me to go back to church), the theist must simply produce some incontrovertible evidence that firmly points to god. None has been forthcoming.
Note the word incontrovertible. This eliminates the Bible as a source of evidence. I can write anything I want down on a piece of paper, and it doesn’t make it so, even if someone still has the paper 5,000 years from now. Saying that the Bible proves the existence of god is like saying that Santa Claus exists because you saw him in a Coke ad. As many theists are quick to point out, some people are bad, and they lie. The authors of the Bible may well have been those types of people. Of course some other people are good, but they like to tell stories. Some of the Biblical authors may fall into this category, as well.
Furthermore, the life of Jesus is not proof of god’s existence. While there is still some doubt as to whether Jesus even existed, there is enough evidence of his life to satisfy me unless new information comes to light. (For some reason, whenever I say this, theists attack me for saying Jesus didn’t really exist. Before submitting a comment along those lines, please reread the second sentence of this paragraph.) However, that being said, there is NO reliable evidence that Christ rose from the dead. Maybe he was not really dead at the time of his burial. Maybe the body was stolen so that his followers could stage the resurrection. Maybe the entire passion story is a fictional account tacked on to the end of the life story of a prophet. I don’t know, and neither do you.
That’s it. The burden of proof is on the theist. If you can read this post and still not see it, maybe this drivel is more your speed. It’s of the same caliber as Descartes’ proof of god.
~I AM~
September 23rd, 2005 at at 2:45 pm
I agree 100% with you. Of course, I’ve been on the other side, so I understand why the theists don’t want the burden of proof. They know there is none. That’s why they talk about faith and belief… it’s all they have.
Eventually, it wasn’t enough for me. When I started to ask questions for which there were no answers, I really began to wonder. Eventually, I saw the actual light.
I’ll be shocked if a single theist reading agrees with you. I don’t see how one could.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 2:51 pm
Sam ~I AM~ Writes:
It is impossible to disprove the existence of god. (That’s right; you can quote me on that.) To do so, one would need to look EVERYWHERE.
Sure it is. In fact, it’s about as easy to disprove the existence of the Christian god as it is to disprove the existence of a square circle.
It cannot exist, by definition.
I don’t have to look everywhere. In fact, I don’t have to look anywhere.
An infinitely benevolent, infinitely powerful being cannot exist in a universe where suffering also exists. Any attempt to escape this (the “Problem of Evil”) is just a journey into apologetics-land.
So, not only is the existence of the Christian god impossible, even the concept is impossible.
Now, for the other god’s out there…I dunno. Perhaps they could possibly exist?
But, as you’ve said, if I’m to believe it, the burden of proof lies with the claimant.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 2:57 pm
rmadison:
You can disprove properties of god, but not god itself. If I say you’re tall, and someone else says “No, look at him. He’s short.”, does that mean you don’t exist?
September 23rd, 2005 at at 2:58 pm
An infinitely benevolent, infinitely powerful being cannot exist in a universe where suffering also exists.
I think this is a common Christian misconception. I don’t think their god is really benevolent, unless it suits him. Certainly, the OT god isn’t. As for the suffering, it’s justified by the whole “test of faith” nonsense Christians always reference. Or “God has a plan”.
The powerful part has nothing to do with suffering, as the more powerful a being is, the more suffering it can create. Just look as humans if you want an example of that.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 3:09 pm
I disagree, I AM. I am currently debating someone about this, and I have given it some thought (not that more thought always leads to better answers or that, in either case, you have not given it equal or more thought). I find that God as a concept is unintelligible and that an unintelligible concept cannot exist. Here is what I wrote:
“No unintelligible concept can exist. To use a common example, no square circles can exist, because the properties of squares and circles are fundamentally incompatible, leaving the concept of a square circle internally contradictory. Since that which is actual must be known conceptually, that which is internally contradictory in concept cannot be internally consistent in actuality. In short, an unintelligible concept cannot exist. God of the Bible is such a concept, so God cannot exist.”
To have an internally contradictory and, thus, unintelligible concept exist, one would have to presuppose that reality is composed of internally contradictory things, like square circles or married bachelors, or that concepts do not accurately describe reality. The first option is obviously false. The second presumes that cognition is inherently faulty. If you think so, then I would ask, on what basis do you find this to be confirmed true?
Regarding omnipresence and disbelief, I would add that God is not defined as only an omnipresent being and that, if he were, one would still have to conceptualize omnipresence and I find this unintelligible like the other properties attributed to God in the Bible such as omnipotence and omniscience. And, given that the Bible is regarded by Christians as fundamentally, if not literally, inerrant, all properties must be consistent both internally and together. They are not.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 3:11 pm
Sam Writes:
You can disprove properties of god, but not god itself. If I say you’re tall, and someone else says “No, look at him. He’s short.”, does that mean you don’t exist?
What is the concept of God divorced from the properties of God?
Take away the properties, and there ain’t nothin there.
Also, we’re dealing with infinite properties here. It would be like somebody saying that I was “infinitely tall”, whilst someone else said I was “infinitely short”. They both can’t be right in the same way, at the same time.
If the theist wants to take away the infinite nature of God’s alleged benevolence or omnipotence, then fine…maybe that concept and/or existence is possible. If God is “mostly” powerful, and “usually” benevolent, then I can understand children being murdered, for example. Maybe God didn’t prevent more people from dying in the hurricane because he was unable to? OK, fine. But that’s not what the theists tell us their God is like.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 3:12 pm
I’ve ceased to even honor the argument anymore. Life’s too fuckin’ short to do battle over fairy tales existence. Yeah, the burden of proof is on the believer ultimately though. And while they’re trying to come up with some bullshit as to why it’s not, I’ll be at the bar getting another beer.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 3:15 pm
Thank you, sir, for your admittal that an atheist cannot disprove the existence of God.
Does this not make Agnosticism the logical conclusion?
As to the skepticism that is directed to the historical record (truths inscripturated) in the Bible, how does this not apply to all things which are contained in historical records?
“For the theist to prove god, he simply has to produce him. Proof isn’t even necessary. To show that it is more likely that god exists than that he does not (which would be enough for me to go back to church), the theist must simply produce some incontrovertible evidence that firmly points to god. None has been forthcoming.”
I actually agree with you, as a theist. However, on the basis of this argument not only is God’s existence unprovable, but so are the existences of Pharaoh, Caesar, and Lincoln brought into question. This is complete skepticism, and knowledge is impossible.
“This eliminates the Bible as a source of evidence.”
In fact, it destoys evidence of every kind.
The rest of your post I don’t need to paste, but it leads to the question:
On what basis is the Bible unreliable?
September 23rd, 2005 at at 3:24 pm
Ron Asks:
On what basis is the Bible unreliable?
On the basis that it contradicts itself.
Which is it Ron? “Turn the other cheek”, or an “eye for an eye”?
Who you gonna believe? Moses, or Jesus?
“I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted, first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree, and the whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the whole cannot be true.”
Tom Paine – Age of Reason
http://ahp.gatech.edu/age_of_reason2_1795.html
September 23rd, 2005 at at 3:39 pm
Ron:
“On what basis is the Bible unreliable”
Let me ask you Ron, did god create the heaven and the earth?
September 23rd, 2005 at at 3:40 pm
I wrote this back in July, and the beginning of this post reminded me of it. Other than that, it doesn’t quite pertain to the topic at hand, but sorta in that tangental way.
http://brentrasmussen.com/log/node/22
September 23rd, 2005 at at 3:48 pm
This theist may elbow the beer drinker aside! (Two beer limit for this lightweight).
this conversation is becoming very fragmented, so I have to decide what to address, and in what order, so….here goes. Deep breath….
Franky: prove that He didn’t. Neither one of us can provide ‘proof’ from science, either way. There is a more basic issue, and that is, why are theistic axioms (the Bible tells me the truth) and better than Atheistic axioms (Man is the measure of all things).
rmadison: Good example. Moses was a civil leader (Acts 13: the civil authority bears the sword to punish evil-doers). Jesus was not a civil leader (not making him un-civil, mind you–another beer please), rather, he was teaching his followers to take religious abuse gracefully, while not leaving them the right to defend their persons and property.
Biblical contradictions are only apparent: the real problem is our ignorance, right? So, the more one studies, the more ignorance is dispelled (I claim to have ignorance, not simply as a man, but as a theist), the more contradictions are resolved.
Back to the bar with JAB.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 3:59 pm
So then you believe that because that’s what the bible says, right? But then the bible can’t even agree in what order he created everything!? How the hell can you tell me “On what basis is the Bible unreliable” if it can’t get something as fundamental (pun intended) as that straight?
If I told you that I believe that a Flying Sphagetti Monster created the world, and you said that’s ridiculous. Well, you certainly can’t prove it now can you.
The only difference between believing that a FSM created the world and that god created the world, is that more people believe that god created the world. Does that make it right? It might make it seem right, but that doesn’t make it right.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 4:06 pm
Ron says – And I Quote:
“Biblical contradictions are only apparent.”
Biblical contradictions are only apparent…to those who don’t presuppose that the bible is infallible.
If one does assume that the bible is inerrant – as Ron clearly does – then one would be unable to see a contradiction.
No amount of reason, no amount of evidence, can convince him otherwise.
Ron, when two bible-thumpers disagree on points of scripture, how are we – as atheists – to determine which one is correct?
For example, some say salvation is obtained through faith alone, while others (Jesus, for example) say that salvation is obtained through works.
How are we to decide which theist has the “true” understanding of scripture, and which one has fallen off the path?
September 23rd, 2005 at at 4:22 pm
Rmad,
Awesome. Thank you for requiring clarity from me.
By ‘apparent’ I meant the third use:
1. Readily seen; visible.
2. Readily understood; clear or obvious.
3. Appearing as such but not necessarily so; seeming
I should have used ’seeming.’ I apologize.
But, inerrancy does not resolve seeming contradictions: one must do the work. In other words, a student must have his ignorance dispelled.
And, I wouldn’t ask an atheist to arbitrate a difference between theists. Nor do all supposed theists even have the same epistemological starting point.
Which appears to be true of the ‘Atheists’ here.
In regard to resolving division among theists: in the final analysis, the final authority is the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture (don’t trample the pearl into the mud, eh, fellows?).
When two cannot agree, they sometimes part ways. This is schism, and it is wrong. But, it is inevitable in this life.
Paul wrote, “No doubt there are divisions among you, to see which of you has God’s approval.”
Now, if someone is wrong, and someone is right, both cannot be approved by God, or his Word. So, you ask a meaningful question which really shows that theists are imperfect, and not all-knowing. I admit it.
In the same way, atheists here are contradicting you. Were it not for me, the ‘enemy’ you have in common, maybe you’d tear at each other?
But, truth and error divides people, whether it be a dividing of theists from atheists, or Atheism from Agnosticism, which is actually what I am finding here. (I hope this isn’t inflammatory: it’s just a conclusion you can refute, if you find it necessary).
Nonetheless, this is a great blog, and I am glad for your willingness to correct my ambiguities.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 4:23 pm
Franky: I agree that the truth of anything is not determined by counting noses.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 4:28 pm
And the “apparent” contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2?
September 23rd, 2005 at at 4:36 pm
Ron Says:
In the same way, atheists here are contradicting you. Were it not for me, the ‘enemy’ you have in common, maybe you’d tear at each other?
About the *only* thing us infidels have in common is our quality of atheism. Now, whether we “lack” belief, or simply “don’t believe”, it makes no difference. Some people have a theistic belief, and us atheists, for whatever reasons, don’t have it.
So yes, we disagree with each other. But what is at stake for us? We don’t believe in an afterlife, or final judgement, so to us, this is not too far removed from counting the angels on the head of a pin. Frankly, I’m way more concerned about the price of gas than I am about heaven or hell.
But what about you?
You do believe in an afterlife. You do believe in a final judgement.
So you’d think this topic – “How can I tell which interpretation of the bible is the *correct* one?” – would be of paramount importance to you.
Instead, I get the feeling that you shrug it off as an unfortunate situation.
Unfortunate indeed! Especially if it turns out you’re right about hell, but wrong about salvation!
September 23rd, 2005 at at 4:41 pm
franky asks Ron:
And the “apparent” contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2?
That won’t be nearly as interesting as the “apparent contradiction” between’s Ron resolution to the question, and another theists resolution to it!
That’s what the theists forget: It’s not just that *I* don’t agree with them…hell…they don’t even agree with each other.
You wait and see. If Ron does try to resolve this question, I guaran-damn-tee-ya I’ve heard a contradictory (or, possibly only “seemingly contradictory” version of it.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 4:44 pm
rmadison:
lol
September 23rd, 2005 at at 4:44 pm
I didn’t shrug off the situation at all. I lament it. The only way to resolve it is to work at it.
“If the secular standpoint is chosen, history has no significance; human hopes and fears are to be swallowed up in oblivion; and all men, good, evil, and indifferent, come to the same end. Anyone who chooses this view must base his life on unyiedling dspair. If, however, he chooses the Christian view, then he can assign significance to history; human hopes and fears in this life contribute to the qualality of a life after death, when two types of men will receive their separate destinies. Anyone who chooses this view can look at the calamities of Western civilization and say, “We know that all things work together for good to them that love God.” There has been no proof, but there is a choice.”
GHC, CVMT, p. 69
September 23rd, 2005 at at 4:46 pm
Ron said: Thank you, sir, for your admittal that an atheist cannot disprove the existence of God.
Does this not make Agnosticism the logical conclusion?
Ron, as long as you are willing to say you are an agnostic about the invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage, then I’ll be an agnostic about your god.
When you make up the rules so that it is impossible to disprove something, then not being able to disprove it doesn’t reflect negatively on you. This is the whole point of the article, the theist has the burden of proof. And their proof can’t be that atheists can’t disprove god so god must exist, because it is impossible to disprove god since the rules are set up so that god can’t be disproved.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 4:48 pm
That last post reminds me of Johnny Dangerously: ‘fogging bastidges’
Please forgive me vulgarity, but, hey, like atheists are gonna care about MY morality! Have a beer.
Franky, what is the contradiction?
September 23rd, 2005 at at 4:49 pm
“but there is a choice”
Aha! It’s a choice to view the world in a way that suits the innate human need to find meaning in random events and add significance to otherwise meaningless events. I knew it!
September 23rd, 2005 at at 4:50 pm
Uberkuh and rmadison:
Try to think like theists for a minute, guys. I know it’s frightening, but stay with me. If there were a god and he were actually omnipotent, nothing else would matter. He would not be ruled by logic or physics. I know it’s stupid, but you can’t disprove it. Furthermore, there is such inconsistency in the positions of various Christians on the attributes of god that it’s nearly impossible to decide which god you’re trying to refute.
As for the infinite properties, by the way, you can easily dispense with them using only the Bible. God is not omnipresent because he’s nowhere to be found when Adam and Eve are eating of the tree. He’s not omniscient because he didn’t know they would eat of the tree, and he didn’t know they had until he showed up some time later for a social call. He’s not omnipotent because the book of Judges tells us god is powerless against iron chariots.
If you ascribe magical or miraculous properties to god, you can’t disprove him because you can’t use any of the tools at your disposal. If you want to try this, I’m willing to argue the theist’s perspective (as much as that hurts me), but I warn you in advance that my arguments will be absurd.
Ron:
I’ll get back to you later when I have more time.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 4:51 pm
If the secular standpoint is chosen, history has no significance; human hopes and fears are to be swallowed up in oblivion; and all men, good, evil, and indifferent, come to the same end. Anyone who chooses this view must base his life on unyiedling dspair.
Ah yes, the old “atheists have no morals” argument. Well, I guess if you can’t prove your argument with logic, name calling is the way to go.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 4:52 pm
Ron
Gen 1: god created heaven, earth…..and then man
Gen 2: god created man, then everything else
That doesn’t seem contradictory to you at all?
September 23rd, 2005 at at 5:05 pm
Who denied atheists a morality? Not me.
Franky: ?
Chapter One is about the order of creation.
Chapter Two goes past it.
Point out the contradiction explicitly: I don’t see it as I read it.
We could go on for days with contradictions.
rmad,
the idea God wasn’t around when Adam and Eve fell is ridiculous.
God decreed the Fall; yes, that’s right, God determined the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden. Ya’ll look up Amos 3:6. “is there not evil in the city and the Lord has done it?”
Blows ya mind!
Now, I know ya’ll are just gonna take ahold of it, go ahead. But the point is you know nothing about what this theist believes, and rather than give a considered hearing, you pigeon-hole him with every other nominal theist that ever showed up in your life. ?????? Need I say more?
September 23rd, 2005 at at 5:21 pm
Ron said, “Were it not for me, the ‘enemy’ you have in common, maybe you’d tear at each other?”
This I highly doubt. Without religion the people of the world would only have petty truths to toggle over. Without religion there would not be fundamentalist Kookoobags blowing people up over who’s god is tougher or real-er than the others. Without religion, the world would undoubtedly be a much more peaceful place. Everything that religion says it creates, in reality, is exactly the opposite. A fine example currently of this is our religious blowhard President. Everything he says, in reality, turns out to be just the opposite.
Ah hell, see what happens when I drink that tequila stuff?
Without religion, this world would not be on the rollercoaster rocketpack race to the shitpile of existence as it is now. As our skidmark stained President obviously thinks, “Environment? Screw the environment. Jesus is coming back to save us all anyway, so why should be take care of the planet?”
Why?
Because the second coming simply ain’t gonna happen. It’s all horseshit from the moment it passes the horses anus. And just because once the crap hits the ground and in the top of the pile of crap someone thinks they see the face of Jesus embedded in it doesn’t mean it is a sign from god’s golden maned pony.
“Were it not for me, the ‘enemy’ you have in common, maybe you’d tear at each other?”
No, we wouldn’t. We would be doing what humans should be doing on the one time around we all have: Practicing living with true happiness.
Not bullying, lying and manipulating our way into some silly concept like life after death.
After one more pint of beer, I burp and think, Eh piss on this. Once the believers are dead, the joke’s on them. I’ll be the one laughing, for I lived life to the fullest knowing it’s a one ball game and didn’t piss my time away on a fetish with death and murderous crosses thinking there’s something beyond it.
Buuuuuuuuuuuurp. . .
September 23rd, 2005 at at 5:43 pm
Ron says:
Chapter One is about the order of creation.
Chapter Two goes past it.
Point out the contradiction explicitly: I don’t see it as I read it.
That’s not how I heard it. I heard chapter 1 was referring to one place, while chapter 2 was referring to another.
Also, can you point out (explicitly) the “explanation” in “Chapter two goes past it”? I don’t see it as I read it.
Ron Says:
We could go on for days with contradictions.
I’m sure we could.
Like I said, “If one does assume that the bible is inerrant – as Ron clearly does – then one would be unable to see a contradiction.
No amount of reason, no amount of evidence, can convince him otherwise.”
Ron Says:
the idea God wasn’t around when Adam and Eve fell is ridiculous.
No more ridiculous than the idea that he was around. Or that there ever was an “Adam & Eve”. Or that there ever was a “fall”.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 5:57 pm
Brilliant. Every time a debate about theism ignites in my blog, my one agnostic reader resorts to the argument that a god’s existence cannot be disproved. Now I have this post to link to whenever that comes up. w00t.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 6:13 pm
Sam says:
If there were a god and he were actually omnipotent, nothing else would matter. He would not be ruled by logic or physics. I know it’s stupid, but you can’t disprove it.
God might be able to do that in some other universe/dimension, but he sure as hell can’t do it in our universe.
A square circle cannot exist in this universe. Sorry. It can’t. Even god can’t make it happen. Now, maybe god set it up that way, but if he did, he purposely structured things so that he could only act in certain ways, in certain universes. That is, he purposely limited the actions that he could take in this universe.
Which means he ain’t omnipotent in this universe.
But just look at how ridiculous and far removed we have to get to even be able to concede the concept of god, much less his existence!
Now we’re talking about how god (whatever that may mean) may act in other universes!
September 23rd, 2005 at at 6:57 pm
I AM, I wonder if your use of the word logic is intended somehow differently that I and rmadison are using it. I also know that this question cannot be settled within the span of a few comments or almost any informal discussion. As I mentioned, I am currently debating this. My opponent is studying for his pastorate and is a very bright person who writes eloquently about his beliefs. If you like, when I have concluded my debate, I will send you a link to it. You can then read it and give your opinion.
On another note, I want to comment on Ron’s question to you about agnosticism. My perspective is that an agnostic can be a theist or atheist. If you want explanations, there are several online. Google “agnostic theist” and “agnostic atheist.” I AM might be called an agnostic atheist, but not an agnostic, with the reason being that each label is conceived differently.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 7:04 pm
How did I not see this post until 33 comments in?
September 23rd, 2005 at at 7:13 pm
I argued with Ron on another site. His argument against science disproves his belief in the bible (in his eyes archeology is equal evidence as the bible). here was my final post on the other site:
If the bible is the word of god why is the story different in the 4 gospels? is the bible the word of god or the word of man? if it is the word of man and the 4 gospels are 4 interpretations of the same event; how can you trust that it was observed correctly? since you do not believe in science because it is only observed by men (and ladies, no sexism here;-) how can you believe in the bible?
Science is the only gateway to knowledge of the world or the universe.
Now you can sit in a dark room and reflect on your beliefs or emotions and gain knowledge of yourself, but not knowledge of the world or universe.
The difference between these two things is one gives birth to philosophy and the other gives birth to science.
You believe the bible is the word of god, written and interpreted by men, but men cannot be believed….your own argument against science destroys your own belief in the bible.
Faith is the gluttony of your starving ego. You want this to be true, you need it to be true, without it your life has no meaning. You need it so bad you deny the physical world and all proof. Your god makes no sense. Your arguments amount to competition of symantics. If you cannot experience something with your senses then it might as well not exist.
But once again, I believe my senses because that is all there is to go on. You bring me proof that god exists (once again a talking burning bush will do) and I will meet you at church Sunday. Conversely, you can be shown nothing but evidence and deny every bit of it……….but accept that which cannot be proven.
ps The problem with Baptists is they don’t hold them under long enough……………….hehehe
September 23rd, 2005 at at 7:14 pm
rmadison:
God might be able to do that in some other universe/dimension, but he sure as hell can’t do it in our universe. A square circle cannot exist in this universe. Sorry. It can’t. Even god can’t make it happen.
OK. Here it goes. Nobody judge me on what I’m about to say. I’m just playing a role.
You just can’t hope to understand all of the amazing things God can do. God is more powerful than language. Words like circle and square can only limit humans. God created circles, squares and the human consciousness with which we perceive them. He operates on a level above such ideas. He weaves the very fabric of reality as He chooses.
Uberkuh:
I AM, I wonder if your use of the word logic is intended somehow differently than I and rmadison are using it.
Logic means whatever God chooses for it to mean. The rules that you experience were set up by Him and can be changed by Him at will.
OK, are the two of you satisfied. Do you see what you made me do? I feel so… dirty.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 7:19 pm
You do a great job as devil’s advocate, I Am. Great post, as well.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 7:27 pm
Ron:
First of all, let me direct you to two posts that deal with the issue of atheism vs. agnosticism.
http://tinyurl.com/8oku4
http://tinyurl.com/da2p4
I still consider myself a strong atheist. I believe that gods do not exist. I can’t prove it because there is nothing to stop theists from throwing the rulebook out the window. If you say that god operates outside of logic and physics, I can’t prove you’re wrong. I believe that such a claim is ridiculous and baseless, but I can’t prove it’s wrong. As I’ve said in my post, however, I don’t have to.
Everyone, in my opinion, is an agnostic. No one can know whether or not there is a god. The only exception is people who have spoken with or met god (like President Bush). Those people should be in padded cells.
I feel that others have done a nice job at indicting the Bible as a reliable source, so I won’t add to that.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 7:27 pm
Dan:
Stop spreading stereotypes. I don’t advocate the devil.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 7:29 pm
I have never read a theologian would argued that logic changes its meaning to accomodate belief in God. I do not think this would be seriously argued, because it is obviously irrational and leads nowhere. For example, a theist might argue that if God can do anything, then he can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift. Yet, he or she would still run into a paradox with unwanted consequences and, so, would still be responsible for explaining it.
What I have read, however, is that God is the foundation for the laws of logic. This is a point I am debating now. It is easy to defeat.
In any case, what a theist argues and what is true are often two different things. So, while I may not be able to convince a theist that God does not exist, this does not mean that I cannot prove that God does not exist using logic. Does a tree that falls in a forest when no one is around make a sound? No, but it is still a fallen tree.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 7:30 pm
“He operates on a level above such ideas. He weaves the very fabric of reality as He chooses.”
I thought you were about to quote “Flatland” next.
Which brings up the thought I keep having on this topic…
If God really is a transdimensional being that is able to operate independently of the limitations of our 4 dimensional perceptions, but he really wants us to “just love him”, why doesn’t he simply show up and say hello?
September 23rd, 2005 at at 7:36 pm
Uberkuh:
I can’t continue in this role without throwing up.
You are right to say that if you stay within the rules of logic, you can disprove the generally accepted Christian god. However, once the Christian says that logic doesn’t apply to god, you can’t prove him wrong. How can you prove that logic applies to a being the existence of which you are attempting to disprove?
September 23rd, 2005 at at 7:39 pm
I Am:
I’ll spread as many stereotypes as I feel like! Isn’t it the thing to do these days?
LBBP said:
‘If God really is a transdimensional being that is able to operate independently of the limitations of our 4 dimensional perceptions, but he really wants us to “just love him”, why doesn’t he simply show up and say hello?’
Because that simply negates the point of faith and that’s all sorts of unacceptable. Everything would fall apart, there would be hell on Earth and everyone would get along – and this simply cannot be allowed to happen.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 8:01 pm
Oh yeah, that’s right, I keep forgetting that the real point is blind faith without reason, and not actual peace, harmony, love, or any of THAT stuff.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 8:36 pm
I AM wrote:
You are right to say that if you stay within the rules of logic, you can disprove the generally accepted Christian god. However, once the Christian says that logic doesn’t apply to god, you can’t prove him wrong.
As an evangelical whose job it is, as you put it, to “help mankind overcome religion,” given that logic does not work because theists will do anything to maintain their illogical beliefs, then would you say that are you preaching to the atheistic choir here? If not, how would you say that you are able to affect theists?
September 23rd, 2005 at at 8:44 pm
You wrote: “I believe that gods do not exist. I can’t prove it…”
So, you believe in something you cannot prove.
And, how does that differ from your criticism of theism?
Twice now you’ve admitted that the existence of God cannot be proven, yet you call yourself an atheist.
Who is embracing the contradictions?
A quick comment on Logic:
Logic is the structure of God’s mind. Read John 1. In the beginning was the Logic, and the Logic was with God, and the Logic was God.
Strange idea?
” “In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God…. In logic was life and the life was the light of men.”
This paraphrase—in fact, this translation—may not only sound strange to devout ears, it may even sound obnoxious and offensive. But the shock only measures the devout person’s distance from the language and thought of the Greek New Testament. Why it is offensive to call Christ Logic, when it does not offend to call him a word, is hard to explain. But such is often the case. Even Augustine, because he insisted that God is truth, has been subjected to the anti-intellectualistic accusation of “reducing” God to a proposition. At any rate, the strong intellectualism of the word Logos is seen in its several possible translations: to wit, computation, (financial) accounts, esteem, proportion and (mathematical) ratio, explanation, theory or argument, principle or law, reason, formula, debate, narrative, speech, deliberation, discussion, oracle, sentence, and wisdom.
Any translation of John 1:1 that obscures this emphasis on mind or reason is a bad translation. And if anyone complains that the idea of ratio or debate obscures the personality of the second person of the Trinity, he should alter his concept of personality. In the beginning, then, was Logic.
That Logic is the light of men is a proposition that could well introduce the section after next on the relation of logic to man. But the thought that Logic is God will bring us to the conclusion of the present section. Not only do the followers of Bernard entertain suspicions about logic, but also even more systematic theologians are wary of any proposal that would make an abstract principle superior to God. The present argument, in consonance with both Philo and Charnock, does not do so. The law of contradiction is not to betaken as an axiom prior to or independent of God. The law is God thinking.
For this reason also the law of contradiction is not subsequent to God. If one should say that logic is dependent on God’s thinking, it is dependent only in the sense that it is the characteristic of God’s thinking. It is not subsequent temporally, for God is eternal and there was never a time when God existed without thinking logically. One must not suppose that God’s will existed as an inert substance before he willed to think.
As there is no temporal priority, so also there is no logical or analytical priority. Not only was Logic the beginning, but Logic was God. If this unusual translation of John’s Prologue still disturbs someone, he might yet allow that God is his thinking. God is not a passive or potential substratum; he is actuality or activity. This is the philosophical terminology to express the Biblical idea that God is a living God. Hence logic is to be considered as the activity of God’s willing.
Although Aristotle’s theology is no better (and perhaps worse) than his epistemology, he used a phrase to describe God, which, with a slight change, may prove helpful. He defined God as “thought-thinking-thought.” Aristotle developed the meaning of this phrase so as to deny divine omniscience. But if we are clear that the thought which thought thinks includes thought about a world to be created—in Aristotle God has no knowledge of things inferior to him—the Aristotelian definition of God as “thought-thinking-thought” may help us to understand that logic, the law of contradiction, is neither prior to nor subsequent to God’s activity.
This conclusion may disturb some analytical thinkers. They may wish to separate logic and God. Doing so, they would complain that the present construction merges two axioms into one. And if two, one of them must be prior; in which case we would have to accept God without logic, or logic without God; and the other one afterward. But this is not the presupposition here proposed. God and logic are one and the same first principle, for John wrote that Logic was God. At the moment this much must suffice to indicate the relation of God to logic. We now pass to what at the beginning seemed to be the more pertinent question of logic and Scripture.”
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=16
If anyone here is serious about criticising Christian doctrine, they must first be willing to accurately represent what it says. This just isn’t happening.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 8:51 pm
The burden of proof assertion has no value in terms of the debate between the atheist worldview and the Christian worldview. The Christian claim is precisely that there is abundant, unavoidable proof for the existence of God. So when the atheist says that he doesn’t believe in God because there’s no proof, he’s assuming in advance that the Christian position is wrong (reasoning in a circle). The atheist is not neutral in his approach to the question of God’s existence.
Furthermore, what one accepts as evidence is determined by one’s worldview (his/her network of presuppositions or beliefs [especially about morality, epistemology, and ontology]). Thus, even before proceeding to what may or may not be considered evidence, the atheist and the theist need to debate what constitutes evidence.
Furthermore, when the atheist says that he can’t prove for certain that God doesn’t existence, that is, when he asserts it’s “possible” that God exists, he has already rejected God in advance, since God is not subject to possibility but is Himself the very author of possibility.
All this is to say that the atheist is not neutral or objective in his approach to the existence of God. In fact Romans 1 teaches that God has made himself known to all men but they suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 8:57 pm
Joe,
Anybody can go over to ‘that other site’ and see you’ve misrepresented the situation.
“His argument against science disproves his belief in the bible (in his eyes archeology is equal evidence as the bible). ”
Nowhere did I say this stupid assertion about archeology.
As I said there, I’ll say here: Science is not a gateway to the truth.
As I pointed out to you, the prevailing scientific view up to Darwin was that of Aristotle: everything continues as it always was.
Science is only useful for subduing nature, not interpreting the nature of things. This is the purpose of revelation.
The Christian worldview is not even accurately characterized by you.
You obviously are ignorant of Popper and Russell; you obviously are ignorant of philosophy; you are ignorant of more than you recognize. And, hey, so am I. But, thankfully not to the degree that I cannot form even a semblemce of a sound argument or recognize what a question is. Don’t chaff at being called ignorant; everybody is, even the god of your own describing.
Although, if you insist there is no God, it returns you to the original post on the other blog, and makes you ominiscient and ominipresent. Therefore, possessing these attributes, YOU are God. And so, wrong on all counts.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 8:58 pm
Ron, saying that God did it or God is it says nothing at all, even assuming that the concept of God makes any sense, which it does not. First, you have to show that God is not a meaningless concept. You have not done so, so everything you wrote is nonsense. You have to step outside the Bible and ask if it makes sense. You were not born into the pages of the Bible. You were born into the world. If the Bible does not make sense, then it does not make sense of the world. To think otherwise is to put the cart before the horse.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 9:09 pm
Christian Theist wrote:
So when the atheist says that he doesn’t believe in God because there’s no proof, he’s assuming in advance that the Christian position is wrong (reasoning in a circle).
You are assuming that this atheist is saying that no proof exists. He may also be saying that there is no proof of which he knows, not that there is no possible proof to be known.
If he is saying that God’s existence cannot be proven, then it is still possible that he is not using circular logic. He may have found such a proof. For you to assume that such a proof is impossible is to engage in circular logic.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 9:14 pm
The answer to the square circle, rock so heavy it can’t be lifted paradox is that these are impossible things. Omnipotent doesn’t have to include doing what can’t be done. Omniscient doesn’t involve knowing things that aren’t really/didn’t happen.
Bad arguments aren’t going to root out belief. Demonstrating the falsity of ideas like the Clark bit that Ron quoted… that’s the key. Kierkegaard saw Christianity as absurd (without or against reason) but embraced it because the only other option he saw was complete despair. Folks don’t have to make that leap if they realize that life without religion is not necessarily “unyielding despair.” And, better still, religious folks will be more likely to lose their beliefs if they didn’t equate such a thing with suicide. They wouldn’t have to go as far as to say “I’d rather die than give you control.”
September 23rd, 2005 at at 9:15 pm
Uberkuh said:
As an evangelical whose job it is, as you put it, to “help mankind overcome religion,” given that logic does not work because theists will do anything to maintain their illogical beliefs, then would you say that are you preaching to the atheistic choir here? If not, how would you say that you are able to affect theists?
Uberkuh said earlier:
I have never read a theologian would argued that logic changes its meaning to accomodate belief in God.
So, if most theists are willing to be bound by logic, then I can affect most theists with a logical argument. There are some theists who are beyond my grasp. For example, during the blog swap with Chad, Joel had some comments on my piece at Eternal Revolution. After going back and forth a couple of times, I excused myself from that exchange on the grounds that he and I were living in totally different worlds. It was the only time I’ve been unable to find any common ground on which to build an argument with a theist. Joel is not the only one of his kind (unless you count Hashishan Prophet, but that’s a whole other story).
September 23rd, 2005 at at 9:26 pm
Ron:
So, you believe in something you cannot prove.
No, I disbelieve in something you can’t prove.
Twice now you’ve admitted that the existence of God cannot be proven, yet you call yourself an atheist.
The existence of god can’t be proven, either. My default position is to not believe in things. If I started believing in everything as a default position, they would put me away.
mountmccabe:
They wouldn’t have to go as far as to say “I’d rather die than give you control.”
Are you a NIN fan?
September 23rd, 2005 at at 9:29 pm
Uberkuh:
I definitely want to read this other argument in which you are involved when it’s complete. Maybe you’ll be able to convince me that it’s possible to disprove god. What I really like about the readership here is that each person has a different strength. When it comes to the subtleties and intricacies of logic I’d say you’re probably the site expert.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 9:48 pm
A note to all: The first, introductory post is up at the Kingdom of Heathen. This is the team blog that Aeger, Kele, Pyro_Shark and I are writing. I will start producing real content as soon as I’ve given a link at atheismonline.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 10:12 pm
I AM wrote:
“I definitely want to read this other argument in which you are involved when it’s complete.”
You got it.
“When it comes to the subtleties and intricacies of logic I’d say you’re probably the site expert.”
Aw, shucks. Thanks, I AM.
I hope you don’t mind that I’ve been commenting here so much lately. A few days ago, I remembered that I hadn’t added your Comments RSS feed to Thunderbird. So, I did, but, because your readership is so rich, I found myself quickly addicted.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 10:24 pm
Uberkuh:
I don’t mind at all. Comment as much as you like. However, if you’re going to disagree with me, please try to make weaker arguments.
It’s not just you, though. The comment have been going NUTS around here for the last few days. It’s almost all good quality stuff, though, so I’m thrilled.
Seth et. al.:
Good luck on the new blog. I’d love for you guys to host GOD or NOT. Since I already know all of you, and three of your sites have been up for more than three months, I’ll waive the longevity requirement and give you the June 2006 spot right now if you want it.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 11:03 pm
Alrighty. We’ll take it.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 11:06 pm
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:
“God has not been proven to not exist, therefore, he must exist.”
This statement is BAD, very very BAD. If you do not understand the absurdity of it, you should be, like I AM says, in a padded cell.
September 23rd, 2005 at at 11:15 pm
Seth:
Done. You’re on the schedule.
September 24th, 2005 at at 12:21 am
Uberkuh wrote: “You are assuming that this atheist is saying that no proof exists. He may also be saying that there is no proof of which he knows, not that there is no possible proof to be known.”
Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. The Christian claim is precisely that the atheist knows this proof but rejects it. (That’s why I referred to Romans 1). Thus, when the atheist says he doesn’t believe in God because he knows of no proof, he has assumed to the Christian position wrong in advance and is reasoning in a circle.
Uberkuh wrote: “If he is saying that God’s existence cannot be proven, then it is still possible that he is not using circular logic. He may have found such a proof. For you to assume that such a proof is impossible is to engage in circular logic.”
I’m not sure you’ve thought this through enough. If the atheist says that God’s existence cannot be proven, he’s assuming that the Christian has no proof or that all his proof is wrong, which is the very thing the atheist would need to prove (and thus he’s begging the question.) If I say that it’s impossible to disprove God’s existence, you might very well disagree, and then we would need to debate this. That’s why I maintain my initial comment that the burden of proof assertion has no value in terms of the debate between the Christian and the atheist. To say that one side or the other has the burden of proof is simply to beg the question.
September 24th, 2005 at at 1:38 am
Uberkuh said: “Does a tree that falls in a forest when no one is around make a sound? No, but it is still a fallen tree.”
If no human is around when a tree falls in the forest, yes it makes a sound, there is just no one to hear and see the event take place.
But a forest animal could see and hear it happen.
Christian Theist said: “Thus, when the atheist says he doesn’t believe in God because he knows of no proof, he has assumed to the Christian position wrong in advance and is reasoning in a circle.”
And the believer who starts with the position that the Bible is all true and God exists and argues on that basis isn’t doing the same thing?
September 24th, 2005 at at 1:42 am
First off, yes, I love NIN… even if the songs come off as being from the point of view of someone who actually does believe in the Christian God but merely hates him… which leads nicely into this:
Christian Theist wrote
“To say that one side or the other has the burden of proof is simply to beg the question.”
That doesn’t sound like what you’re saying at all. You don’t seem to be disagreeing with where the burden of proof is… you’re just claiming that the burden has been carried.
The Christian claim is precisely that the atheist knows this proof but rejects it.
Your claim is that when I say that I know of no proof of any god and thus do not believe in any gods… correct me if I’m wrong but I’m reading that your claim is that I am lying.
I’m certain some people who claim to believe in gods actually do not but I recognize that that is the exception and not the rule. I’m convinced that most people who claim to believe in gods actually do… I just don’t see why they believe and therefore do not believe myself.
I’ll have a discussion/argument with someone who disagrees with me – hey, that’s the only way it works – but if the opening (and only) salvo is “you’re lying” then we’re done.
September 24th, 2005 at at 1:43 am
On my post from 1:42am: The second italicized statement should have also been in quotes. It is also from the 12:21am post by Christian Theist.
September 24th, 2005 at at 3:01 am
Wow, so many posts. Is this becoming the top atheist blog in the blogosphere? I’m beginning to think it may be headed that way
September 24th, 2005 at at 4:23 am
Great Post, I Am. A wonderful illustration of a concept that is very key to our position, yet is very hard to get the other side to understand.
September 24th, 2005 at at 9:30 am
This is such a great discussion… I find it fascinating that some of you think god can be disproved. I happen to agree with I AM that you can’t prove god doesn’t exist, but I’ll also be interested in reading what you come up with, Uberkuh.
September 24th, 2005 at at 9:35 am
FYI, LBBP has selected the topic for the second edition of GOD or NOT (to be hosted at Eternal Revolution in November) as Proof, so I think I already have a submission.
September 24th, 2005 at at 9:53 am
I love the fact that theist use the philosophical argument of Skepticism to support their position. This is an admission of the fact that there is no evidence of gods existence. Their only argument is that evidence (all evidence) cannot be ‘proven’ thus you cannot prove anything so everything is equal.
Philosophically speaking, and logically speaking, this makes sense. To bad it has zero effect on the world in which we live. You can make a logical argument that science cannot be proven, but we live in the real world and rely on the things that we can experience with our senses. That is the reason science has a real influence on our lives and religion has an imagined influence on our lives. If all of humanity simply stopped believing on the fantasy of gods, their would be no real affect on the world around us. If we all discounted all science, you would have the complete collapse of society.
No matter how much you want to disbelieve it, the simple fact is philosophy and science are two different things. That is why we let doctors operate on us and not philosophers. Next time you have a medical ailment, since nothing can be proven, you go to church and pray for healing………I’ll go to a hospital and actually get healed.
I notice no one has answered my questions:
If the bible is the word of god why is the story different in the 4 gospels? is the bible the word of god or the word of man? if it is the word of man how can you trust that it was observed correctly? since you do not believe in science (skepticism) how can you believe in the bible?
You have given no proof of gods existence, you have only brought into question the existence of any knowledge. You can offer no evidence of the existence of god so your only argument is that nothing can be proven………and this is what you base your life on. Sad Sad
September 24th, 2005 at at 11:56 am
I AM,
Thanks for posting about this. As far as my original post was concerned (that you linked to) I was merely trying to show that by virtue of the laws of logic that Atheism is a belief, not simply a lack of belief. As far as the burden of proof goes theists are eagerly available to give their evidences from nature (ID theory, kalam cosmological argument), miracles (Jesus rising from the dead), the Anthropic principle (humanity’s radical distinction from other creatures in the Animal Kingdom), unexplained experience (speaking in tongues), and personal experience (answered prayer, ect.).
An intellectually honest atheist will access the evidence and accept it or reject it on its own merits. A dishonest one will not even consider the evidence, follow up on new arguments, or new research and will simply dismiss anything a theist puts forward as inadmissible by marginalizing it as “irrational,” “religious”, or “imaginary” simply because it is not in line with a presupposed belief. This is where theists become disgruntled and call upon the atheist to justify the proposition “God does not exist.” I argue that the answer “atheism is not a belief, but a lack of belief” is illogical and has no meaning in the real world.
September 24th, 2005 at at 12:07 pm
Question writes: “And the believer who starts with the position that the Bible is all true and God exists and argues on that basis isn’t doing the same thing?”
Neither the atheist nor the Christian are neutral. That’s why the burden of proof claim has no value in the debate between the atheist and the Christian.
mountmccabe writes: “That doesn’t sound like what you’re saying at all. You don’t seem to be disagreeing with where the burden of proof is… you’re just claiming that the burden has been carried.”
What I’m saying is that if the atheist and the Christian were to debate God’s existence, then the claim that one side or the other has the burden of proof is itself the very thing that needs to be debated, given their respective positions.
mountmccabe writes: “Your claim is that when I say that I know of no proof of any god and thus do not believe in any gods… correct me if I’m wrong but I’m reading that your claim is that I am lying.”
Yes, that’s right. Of course, you would disagree that you’re lying. Whether or not you’re lying, therefore, is the very thing that would have to debated.
mountmccabe writes: “I’ll have a discussion/argument with someone who disagrees with me – hey, that’s the only way it works – but if the opening (and only) salvo is “you’re lying” then we’re done.”
But if you say you’re not lying then you’re making me out to be a liar (given what’s been said about proof). So who’s lying? Such would have to be settled in a debate.
September 24th, 2005 at at 12:50 pm
All the nuances aside, yes, the burden of proof is on the theist in this particular situation. They are making the assertion. Having no belief, we assert nothing. That’s the bottom line like an asscrack.
I may jump into the frenzy, but I just want to point out that Yam’s allegory of the $100 is wonderfully thought out executed.
September 24th, 2005 at at 1:32 pm
“I argue that the answer “atheism is not a belief, but a lack of belief” is illogical and has no meaning in the real world.”
Theism – the belief in a god
a-theism – the lack of belief (in a god)
Everyone is born ignorant of the concept of supernatural entities, therefore they are born atheists. Brainwashing in later life can cause them to become theists, or, like me, maybe they are not subjected to religion, and so remain atheists. If you were born in isolation on the moon, and raised by robots without any knowledge of religion and human customs on earth, you would be atheist. The very IDEA of a god would not be known to you; you could not even consider the answer to a question that has never been asked. To get someone to believe this idea, you would need to provide proof. What ends up happening in most cases, is the person is young and gullible, led by emotions and trust in the parental units into believing in god(s). This is not proof, its just brainwashing.
I am not atheist in response to the question “Do you believe there is a god?” This is like asking “Do you believe in invisible pink elephants?” Atheism to me means a LACK of belief in gods and the LACK of the question ever being asked. The question simply is not legitimate because there is not a shred of evidence to discuss the possibility of this entity.
“Hey, do you believe in the WerdleTerdle?” No, I do not believe in the WerdleTerdle. Nor do I think it makes sense to seriously consider something that is not clearly defined and that has no impact whatsoever on my life. I’m not AGAINST the WerdleTerdle, I don’t even consider it an issue.
Get it now, theists?
September 24th, 2005 at at 2:17 pm
DUB wrote: “All the nuances aside, yes, the burden of proof is on the theist in this particular situation. They are making the assertion. Having no belief, we assert nothing.”
I’m not sure you’ve been following the comments closely up until this point. When you say that the burden of proof is on the theist, you assume in advance that the Christian worldview is not true. Once again, the Christian position is precisely that God has and continues to reveal himself to all people, but many suppress this truth and reject God. Perhaps your not making a verbal assertion but you’re assuming in advance that Christianity is not true and therefore you are reasoning in a circle and begging the question. (Besides, even to say, “we assert nothing” is itself an assertion. And when you say, “the burden of proof is on the theist,” this also is an assertion. But I digress.)
Mookie says, “Everyone is born ignorant of the concept of supernatural entities, therefore they are born atheists.”
But when you say this you assume in advance that Christianity is wrong (since in the Christian position all people are born with the knowledge of God), and therefore you are assuming the very thing you need to prove in the debate with the Christian. And when you compare God to pink elephants or WerdleTerdle, you are, once again, assuming something that you need to prove when you debate the Christian.
In summary, neither the atheist nor the Christian is “neutral” in their approach to the question of God existence. That’s why I say that the burden of proof claim has no value in the debate between the atheist and the Christian, but rather, it is itself the very thing that needs to be debated.
September 24th, 2005 at at 5:28 pm
“But when you say this you assume in advance that Christianity is wrong”
Actually, I believe I said: Everyone is born ignorant of the concept of supernatural entities, therefore they are born atheists.
I don’t recall saying xianity is wrong, or that I assume anything.
“In summary, neither the atheist nor the Christian is “neutral” in their approach to the question of God existence.”
What about people that lived before xianity came along? Did they assume xianity was wrong? Or is it that they were never subjected to it? I would say the latter, which proves my point that we are ignorant of it until we are subjected to it.
“the burden of proof claim has no value”
The burden of proof lies with theists (see above). If they wish to convince others of their beliefs, they need to cough up some evidence.
September 24th, 2005 at at 7:51 pm
Mookie writes: “What about people that lived before xianity came along? Did they assume xianity was wrong? Or is it that they were never subjected to it? I would say the latter, which proves my point that we are ignorant of it until we are subjected to it.”
This once again betrays the fact that you are not neutral. Jesus Christ is eternal God — part of the trinity – Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ never “came along” because he is eternal (though I know what you mean because his incarnation did not take place until about 2000 years ago). The knowledge of God was and is impressed upon and revealed to all people from the very first. They know this God, but they suppress the truth about Him (ever since the Fall) apart from God’s grace. (Jesus was already revealed in Gen. 3:15). This is the Christian position. So when you say that people were never subjected to the revelation of Jesus Christ then you’re assuming the Christian position wrong in advance.
Mookie writes: “The burden of proof lies with theists (see above). If they wish to convince others of their beliefs, they need to cough up some evidence.”
But the Christian claim, as I’ve been saying all along, is precisely that the evidence has been “coughed up.” When you say that you don’t believe in God because the evidence hasn’t been “coughed up” then you’re assuming that Christianity is wrong in advance.
In the debate between the atheist and the Christian, the burden of proof lies both with the Christian and the atheist, because the question as to who has the burden of proof IS THE VERY THING IN DISPUTE (just as your comments here demonstrate.)
September 24th, 2005 at at 9:43 pm
CT,
I can see are not a reasonable person. The world must seem cold and dark to you for you to be so thoroughly brainwashed. Please do not consider this to be demeaning or resorting to name-calling. I actually feel bad for you because I can only imagine what it must be like to have the mental and emotional capacities of a 3 year old. Websites like this were designed to help people like you overcome these limits to your understanding and integration with the world around you. We are doing our part by using logic and reason to deconstruct the lies you were told; its up to you to follow through by thinking a little bit. I’m sure your non-existent god will not mind a good thinking session on your part. I encourage you to try it, you may be pleasantly surprised with the results!
September 24th, 2005 at at 11:42 pm
Believers claim god, in this case the Christian god, exists.
I find no reason to believe that your god exists.
Believers and non-believers could argue this until the end of our lives, but let’s put the burden of proof on god himself.
Let’s face it, god could easily settle this debate, yet he does not. You believers receive no help from your almighty.
It is claimed that god can do anything, and that he knows everything.
If that is the case, he should be able to show himself to me and prove beyond all doubts that he does indeed exist.
Believers will say I have free will, given to me by god and that, using that free will, I can accept or reject god.
But god knows (since he knows all) that what his believers say is evidence of his existence, isn’t good enough for me to believe in him. If he is so powerful and can do all things, it should take very little for him to get off his throne for awhile and show himself to me, since he wants me to love and worship him so much.
So, why does he not do this when believers and non-believers alike ask him to, even though it would be so easy for him to?
Either he doesn’t care, or he doesn’t exist.
September 25th, 2005 at at 5:36 am
Christian Theist:
You’re correct. I haven’t been following the comments. I don’t believe I said anything suggesting that I had. I also don’t believe doing so would guarantee sufficiently increased enlightenment. I was simply commenting on the post (primary purpose of a comments section), not the comments (secondary purpose).
I am not “presupposing” that the Christian worldview is wrong, and fail to see how one could draw that conclusion. I was just “starting from scratch.” It would appear your assumption precedes the one alleged of me.
Although I am quite fond of philosophy and reasoning, it can get really annoying. We can always go back another level. Everything can be reduced another level, ad infinitum. Well, let’s just put that on hold for a second, and look at this through quite simple eyes.
I’m here. You’re here. We’re here. Let’s not get all metaphysical and question perception. Naturally, we ask, “Why?” We don’t HAVE to provide an answer, but some do. One group of answers is supernatural, and we can choose to subscribe to it or not. Some people say a creator is responsible. I don’t believe that (what I do/don’t believe/assert is inconsequential at this point). We are approaching this from a BLANK state and a supernaturalist comes along and says, “God did it.”
THAT is an addition to the nothing. A possibility has been put forward, and I say prove it. The key to this is that we’re dealing in the realm of theists’ believe here – for lack of better words, it’s your world. Anytime a discussion pertains to a belief, it is up to the believer to support it. If we happened to be approaching it from any other view, it would be in the lap of those who originated and adhere to THAT view to prove it so. I hate to get on the Evolution/Creationism thing, but if I went to an evolution site, and they were talking about, well, evolution, I could say “prove it.” Whether I believe it or not, whether I have a different view to offer, those coming up with a possibility have to back it up.
This doesn’t only affect the supernaturalist; it’s not always convenient for the naturalist. That’s how science works. When a new idea comes about, it has to be proven.
You may say we’re the ones making a claim – that god doesn’t exist (which isn’t what we’re about, by the way) – but we’re NOT adding anything to the blank picture. From that blank slate, the atheist never asserted anything. We don’t believe. If no one ever claimed there was a god, what would the atheist be asserting? Think about it. I couldn’t just walk up to you and say, “Hey – whatever it is you’re thinking, I don’t buy it.” Well, not unless I’m an idiot, asshole, or nutcase.
Humans started at nothing, theists presented something, and atheists are still back in the nothing.
If I walked up to you and said, “America is built on institutional racism and, because of this, blacks face more obstacles.” You have every right to say “prove it.” See, now we’re in the realm of a belief that I hold, and have presented, whether you agree or not.
September 25th, 2005 at at 9:19 am
DUB:
Well said, as usual.
Think about it. I couldn’t just walk up to you and say, “Hey – whatever it is you’re thinking, I don’t buy it.”
I may try that out. The people who know me well wouldn’t even be that surprised.
September 25th, 2005 at at 12:20 pm
I have only read two of the comments. I am so tired, I just got back from the March in Washington D.C. (Yes, that is called showing off), and I just wanted to congratulate you on another awesome post before I fall into my bed. I’m gonna leave now before I say my address again.
September 25th, 2005 at at 5:13 pm
DUB, thank you for your thoughtful comments.
You write: “Anytime a discussion pertains to a belief, it is up to the believer to support it.”
I can agree with this assertion. I do believe there are many relevant contexts in which the burdern of proof claim has much value. But I’ve been trying all along, perhaps unclearly, to qualify my claims by saying that in the context of the debate between the Christian and the atheist, the burden of proof claim has no value, because it is itself the very thing in dispute. It won’t do any good in that context to just dogmatically assert who had the burden of proof, rather, the claim as to who has the burden of proof is the very thing that needs to be proved, at least in that context.
When you say, let’s approach this from a blank slate, I understand what you’re saying, but this assertion runs contrary to the Christian worldview. Thus, even whether the question of God’s existence can be appraoched from a blank slate is something that is itself in dispute between the Christian and the atheist.
Similarly, when you say, “Humans started at nothing, theists presented something, and atheists are still back in the nothing” — this claim is itself in dispute between the Christian and the atheist; this claim itself needs to be proved.
I hope I can sum up what I’ve been saying all along with this: there is no neutrality whatsover between the Christian and the atheist. Indeed, there is much common ground, but no neutral common ground. Or, if I may say it another way, the Christian and the atheist do not simply disagree over what is to be known, but also as to how we know it or can prove it. The Christian and the atheist worldviews are diametrically opposed at the most fundamental levels; and of particular concern are epistemology, ethics, and ontology.
The debate between the Christian and the atheist will need to probe much deeper than merely over the question of God’s existence, since for the Christian, God’s existence is fundamental to everything whatsoever. And I’d also say that for the atheist, the primacy and autonomy of one’s own brain is fundamental to everything. Though perhaps we might disagree over this. That’s why all this needs to be debated and proven, not just dogmatically asserted.
Cheers.
September 25th, 2005 at at 7:15 pm
CT,
“but this assertion runs contrary to the Christian worldview”
This worldview is in question, prove to us somehow that your worldview is consistent with reality. That’s what the burden of proof is, and its on you folks to cough it up.
Do you understand?
September 25th, 2005 at at 7:32 pm
Mookie writes: “Do you understand?”
I understand but I disagree. That’s why, as I’ve been saying all along, these things need to be debate, not just dogmatically asserted.
September 25th, 2005 at at 7:46 pm
How does one debate which party has the burden of proof? Who has to prove his point?
September 25th, 2005 at at 8:03 pm
I do believe the entire point of I Am’s post was to show how troublesome and inefficient it is to put the burden of proof on the negative.
September 25th, 2005 at at 8:36 pm
Christian Theist wrote:
“I understand but I disagree.”
You just admitted a very silly thing. If you disagree with Mookie that your worldview is in question, then in no uncertain terms you are asserting that you do not need to validate your worldview. Thus, there is no reason for you to debate anything.
If, one the other hand, you are open to your worldview being wrong, then we can debate or discuss and, based on evidence (not faith), decide who is correct.
September 26th, 2005 at at 1:19 am
Please do not be horrified by my saying this, but you’ve written a pretty reasonable post here
, and I do agree that it seems to me to be an exercise in futility to expect an atheist to disprove God’s existence. But, likewise, isn’t it also fairly obvious that a follower of Christ – by definition – could not be expected to prove God’s existence? After all, Christian spirituality is contingent upon FAITH. There is no need for faith if God is conclusively proven to be true. That does not, however, mean that there is not good evidence for belief. You said there is “NO reliable evidence that Christ rose from the dead”. I strongly disagree with this statement, and I think that were this a court of law, there is more than enough evidence to make the case for Christ’s resurrection. …So, anyway, it’s about faith, but not blind faith at all.
I appreciate reading through the philosophical musings here, but it seems that the resulting parsing of semantics misses the point. Do most people really make decisions like this? I highly doubt it. If you took a sampling of 100 random people, I would hazard a guess that at least 99 of them have espoused a view toward religion based more on their own personal experiences and emotions than on highbrow intellectualism. And, yes, that goes for enlightened atheists as well as us brainwashed Christians;-) We’re human beings, not robots, afterall.
September 26th, 2005 at at 3:06 am
Joe:
If the bible is the word of god why is the story different in the 4 gospels? is the bible the word of god or the word of man? if it is the word of man how can you trust that it was observed correctly?
I don’t believe it but I’ll do my best: The story is different because the various writers each had a different focus… they were covering the events for different audiences so they selected to include different events and framed them differently. They aren’t presented with a timeline so some apparent contradictions may really be two similar (but distinct) events. I doubt you could ever actually get anyone who believed in the inerrancy of the bible to admit any contradictions… there are too many tricks to get out of such things.
Christian Theist:
But if you say you’re not lying then you’re making me out to be a liar (given what’s been said about proof). So who’s lying? Such would have to be settled in a debate.
I’m not responding to this bit, I’m just putting it there for context.
I feel kinda silly, though; I see a Clark quote and it didn’t immediately sink in what you were saying. I guess it’s because I grew up in a tradition with more of a Van Til influence.
Anyway I’m very glad that pernicous nonsense is behind me [it's behind me personally but it's still around... being the primary reason I don't discuss religion with my parents/siblings and other assorted old friends.]
September 26th, 2005 at at 3:45 am
Chad wrote:
After all, Christian spirituality is contingent upon FAITH.
Chad, one must have faith in something and that something must be comprehensible. When God is described as X and not-X in the Bible, given that the Bible is supposedly inerrant, this makes God incomprehensible. So, no one who has read the Bible and is committed to reason can have faith in God. It is not possible. To have faith in God, one must be committed to believing in something that is obviously irrational. And, my challenge to you, if you are so committed, is to explain why the Christian deity is any better than another deity. Remember that you cannot rely on reason to prove that your god is more reasonable than another. I await your response.
September 26th, 2005 at at 4:04 am
“…not just dogmatically asserted”
I tried using words, and that has failed, so I will try to use a simple diagram.
R = purely objective reality
G = god filter
B = burden of proof
You —perceive—>R
You —believe—>GR
You —conclude—>G(R)
I —perceive—>R
I —believe—>R
I —conclude—>R
You —conclude—>GB
I —conclude—>Rno B
R = R
G \= R
Does this help? Do you understand now why the burden of proof is on you? My viewpoint lines up with reality, so there is no change, no distortion. Your belief system prevents you from understanding reality without distortion. You wear god glasses, and you want us to wear them. You claim they are built in, we say you should just take them off. If we operate without god glasses, that means they are not built in. That means you can take yours off. “Burden of proof” means, “show us how this lines up with reality”.
September 26th, 2005 at at 4:44 am
Both CT and Chad get right to the crux of the issue (quite eloquently so, I must add). Bottom line, this is head butting, and the subsequent butting of heads on the wall is what works us into frenzy. These may just be irreconcilable differences. Our very view on existence is so vastly different we are nearly polar opposites.
But we recognize we aren’t polar opposites. Our very nature of being human dictates this, but this rift lies at a level so essential to our actions – which define our existence – that it can’t be ignored.
We (atheists) do indeed value reason, rationality, and logic so completely that they form a virtual trinity. I’m not saying that theists don’t value reason, just that, in my opinion, they value not needing a reason even more so.
WE, on the other hand, need that reason.
So We argue protocol. I would like to think us all naturally averse (or at least indifferent) to discord, and where there is a disagreement, there is a chance of solution. WE focus so completely on things of PROOF, or at least testing (i.e. science, math, logic), that we insist on it in everything. Of course We do, and I’m not at all saying that We’re wrong in this, but We must acknowledge that nobody else HAS to. Conversely, I’d hope theists can see why this prospect can be horrifying to an atheist.
In a society depending on human interaction, laws, based on value and enforced through judgment, are a necessity, and proper evaluation is paramount. Regardless of the nature of morality’s origin, can we rely on morals alone to settle claims fairly? A central tenet of Christian belief is the fallibility of man, and without developments of the human mind – of our cognitive process through reason – our moral codes would not have a vessel for delivery. We apply logic to decide IF morals should be applied or not. We utilize advancements in science to investigate (forensics) and prove (DNA evidence) guilt or innocence – beyond merely questioning it. THEN we can apply morality in judgment.
Our prosperity too cannot be increased without stringent protocol. Theists acknowledge this when they go to a doctor, drive to church, turn on a television to watch evangelism, and log onto the internet to wage war with We infidels (j/k). The scientific method made all of that possible.
When a difference of opinion is recognized, and the next step – to investigate and consequently attempt to resolve it – is taken, the participants step into this realm of protocol, logic, and reason. Theists must then understand, you’re on Our home court now. This is why We insist so strongly on concepts such as burden of proof. An established process is in place, and this dictates the rules of the game.
This brings about a conflict in the atheist’s mind: As bewildering and infuriating as it is for Us to deal with people who won’t play by the rules, We are still moved – compelled – to engage. Our system dictates that we MUST, but, at the same time, We feel, if you won’t, or are incapable of, abiding by these rules, then don’t bother getting involved. Just don’t assert your position. Add to this a previous observation of theists abiding by the very same principles, in the larger sphere of things, that they eschew in the arena (such as going to the doctor when ill) and we are beset with a maddening sense of hypocrisy.
What you must not forget is the very real implications this has on our lives. This is unavoidable. We all do live together, and that will not change – nor do I really feel we wish it truly would.
In our world theists preach personal salvation, a personal relationship with their god, a personal Faith. Then keep it personal. Pardon my directness, but don’t push your personal belief on our public sphere.
Here, again, morality is sure to rear its multi-faced head, but please, just bear with me…
Our system of protocol is established. Its practice is widespread and its merit apparent – personal value given, or faith taken in it may vary, but we cannot, and more importantly do not deny it.
When we and the ones we love are ill, we take them to get a diagnosis. If that diagnosis is threatening, we act and look to treatment. If a crime is committed against us, we urge a systematic, deductive, forensic investigation (and subsequent procedure of debate) in hopes justice can be served, and retribution paid.
Some of us also appeal to and enlist other help, and employ additional methods. And this is their personal choice and right, as much as it is mine to not.
I, personally, am definitely not 100% satisfied with the mechanics of the system we have in place (here along the lines of the social system, not scientific system), and I’d be a fool to suggest anybody is. But, overall, we ALL reap the benefits.
Don’t remind me that you believe in a god every time I look at money. Don’t have me fear that a prejudice against me due to my belief system will affect me negatively. Don’t decide my personal decisions. Do not impose your will on me. Let us have a system that centers on the personalfree will your religion emphasizes. Let us have a system that allows ALL personal choice. Vote officials to a position of power that will affect ALL of us based on their track record pertaining to the task at hand, and their personal merit, not their personal belief.
We have enough prejudice and discrimination based on how people look. That is exterior and can’t be avoided. Let’s not extend it internally, and base it on belief or opinion – remember, neither HAS to be expressed. That is a choice.
This is in no way an urge to deny or hide WHO you are, but in a system that is blind to personal beliefs, no one’s personal beliefs can be infringed upon.
{For instance, when testifying in court, by not swearing on a Bible, I may deem myself untrustworthy to Christian jurors, but if this were not an option, such potential prejudice is completely circumvented. A serious theist who subscribes to a system of belief that emphasizes sound moral action – e.g. honesty – should not be compelled by the simple omission of a Bible to go against such standards.}
When I decide I don’t want my child acknowledging a god I have no belief in as a condition to her proclamation and affirmation of her citizenship of this nation, it has no ill effect on those who do – nor does their silent approbation.
This in no way prohibits your personal faith or beliefs. If I run up on you, snatch off your symbol (cross, WWJD bracelet, Jesus fish), and lock up your church, THAT is prohibition. That is a violation of your rights.
Uncertainty about equality and fairness are certain. But theists here, especially Christians, have a bonus. Your God loves you. Your God favors you. Your religion is full of examples and promises of this. You have your own system to guarantee it – the same system I’m requesting you not push on me. Afterall, this world is temporary. YOU have a greater goal. But my world is finite. This is it for me, and prosperity in this life is my goal.
The very Faith you rely on so thoroughly to support the positions We attempt to argue with you, should not only pertain to the reason why you believe, it should dictate how you live.
Your God should protect you. This is what you preach! Have faith in it and live by it. Hold that Faith that you will not be ill-effected in our system. I don’t mean to sound at all insensitive, but heck, even if Our proposed system does affect you adversely, it’s only temporal. If you swear by a religion that promises not only eternal happiness, but earthly struggle beforehand, why are you so scared at the prospect of the fulfillment of that promise? Christianity, in its Gospels, champions the underdog so thoroughly, but most Christians fail to embody this. Rather than submit to their Heavenly Authority, they’d rather BE the authority.
I am not at all proposing a system that will discriminate against those of Faith – ANY faith – or disproportionately benefit the faithless. Nor will I allow such a system, and if one arose, I would martyr myself to the cause of liberty and equality alongside those martyring themselves to a god in which I don’t believe. In all actuality, I’m suggesting a system that a revolutionary group of men put forth in the late eighteenth century.
This is not (expressly) a political forum, and pardon my venture into this realm.
If two men desire to get married, or to merely be attracted to one another and act on that affinity, it does not reflect on you personally. If these two individuals carry through with their desires, you are not personally hurt. If we prevent them from doing so, it is not going to set in motion the eventual extinction of homosexuality. If we outlaw abortion, abortion won’t stop, nor will miscarriages or even death itself. You may view it as murder and be terrified, but as long as it isn’t mandated, it is a murder that can be guaranteed to never be perpetrated against you or those you love. If we outlaw stem cell research, the abundance of human embryos that already exist due to fertilization efforts will not simply cease to be.
I am not homosexual. It is physically impossible for me to get an abortion. I am not personally presently afflicted with a terminal disease (other than life itself).
But I desire that we not legislate or dictate activity between our fellow grown, consenting, competent humans, which does not directly assault us physically or prohibit our prosperity personally – unless for the greater good of humanity.
(Remember – your God looked out for Noah and Lot.)
In the arena of debate, we can argue all we want, regardless of who does and doesn’t decide to follow the rules. But in the arena of public life we need to practice what we preach.
Just have faith.
September 26th, 2005 at at 5:14 am
Oops. I sincerly apologize for that book of a comment. I fear I don’t have the Ritalin necessary to be succinct (or stay on subject). Nor the lack of passion.
As I look and actually behold my extreme long-windedness, I concede to (and promote) your authority to delete it. I, in turn, will post it on my own blog, where it belongs.
here
Where it will be destined to go ignored.
(That is called an appeal to pity)
Perhaps, if you deem it worthwhile, you can provide you mark of approval, as a motivation of sorts.
(I’ve completely lost any sense of pride)
I’m especially interested the theists’ (cough Chad, Christian Theist cough) impression.
September 26th, 2005 at at 7:32 am
I provide this comment with my mark of approval. Now fly! Fly, my army of atheist monkeys! Go leave DUB a comment.
September 26th, 2005 at at 12:36 pm
addict (no more) says:
This is such a great discussion… I find it fascinating that some of you think god can be disproved. I happen to agree with I AM that you can’t prove god doesn’t exist…
It’s not that “God” can be disproved, it’s that the concept never gets legs to begin with. It never, at any point, has any meaning which we can discuss.
Uberkuh put it very nicely when he said, “Ron, saying that God did it or God is it says nothing at all, even assuming that the concept of God makes any sense, which it does not. First, you have to show that God is not a meaningless concept. You have not done so, so everything you wrote is nonsense.”
In other words, I think you are giving the theists WAY too much credit for this ridiculous meaningless (literally) concept they call “God”. Atheist don’t have to prove that “God exists”, or that “God does not exist”…the very first thing that needs to happen is that the theists need to tell us what “God” is. What does it mean? What is a “God”?
As Uberkuh indicated, the theists need to demonstrate that “God” is a concept with meaning. Until they can do that…until they can construct a logically coherent framework that we can discuss this thing they call “God”…then they are just – literally – talking nonsense. If they can’t make sense of it, what else do you call it?
Nothing. It’s nonsense.
So, let the explanations begin. Let the theists explain this thing they call “God”.
Mookie said the question “Do you believe in God?” is like asking, “Do you believe in invisible pink elephants?”, but I disagree. I think the concept of “invisible pink elephants” makes MUCH more sense than the concept of “God”.
We know what the term invisible means. We know what an elephant is. And we know what the color pink is.
Try to get that sort of clarity when it comes to discussing “God”. I can conceive of a pink elephant, that just happens to be invisible. But I can’t conceive of “God”, because I have no idea what a “God” is, or is supposed to be?
Now, ask me if I believe in “Unies”. This is the sort of question that more closely resembles the theists question, “Do you believe in God?” The next question, obviously, is, “What’s an Unie?”
See?
By the way Uberkuh, I get the distinct impression that you’ve read George Smith’s book, “Atheism: The Case Against God”?
September 26th, 2005 at at 2:44 pm
Wow, DUB, I’m going to take a look at your blog post soon, but in reading over your commentary above I’m tempted to write an entirely separate post on it myself. Thought provoking stuff. Without delving into the specific political issues you’ve brought up, I think you’ve really hit on an important point.
You said: “Christianity, in its Gospels, champions the underdog so thoroughly, but most Christians fail to embody this. Rather than submit to their Heavenly Authority, they’d rather BE the authority.”
There is some real truth to this statement, maybe even more than you realize. Grace is the essence of Christianity. Whereas, power struggles for control and authority are the antithesis of grace. So when you have Christian groups lobbying for political power and sway, there is potential for a huge rift to open up between the underpinnings of the professed belief system and the actual manifestation of it in public life. Yet, I’m not sure the other extreme is a good one either. Apathy or removement from the public sphere is not the answer, but it is crucial for Christians to remember that issues of morality work from the bottom up and not from the top down legislatively.
Uberkuh said: “So, no one who has read the Bible and is committed to reason can have faith in God. It is not possible.”
Is it really that simple? The apparent contradictions need to be addressed specifically in order to really delve into them. But, in general, I assume that the discrepancies of God’s nature of which you refer are largely between attributes of the divinity in the New vs. Old Testaments. Christ facilitated a new dynamic between God and mankind. This is why followers of Christ can read the same accounts you do and not see it as a discrepancy in accounts of the nature of God.
September 26th, 2005 at at 4:09 pm
I Am sez:
I provide this comment with my mark of approval. Now fly! Fly, my army of atheist monkeys! Go leave DUB a comment.
I take exception to that! I will have you note that I am a gibbon, and as such, should be referred to as an atheist ape.
September 26th, 2005 at at 9:30 pm
I was not attempting to debate Christianity vs. atheism, but trying to shed some light on the nature of the debate itself between the Christian and the atheist as such.
Many of you are having to resort to trying to prove your position concerning who has the burden of proof, which just goes to show what I’ve been saying all along, which is that the burden of proof claim is itself something that needs to be debated IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEBATE BETWEEN THE CHRISTIAN AND THE ATHEIST.
You’ve all misread me if you think I’m saying that the burden of proof claim NEVER has any value.
le fin.
September 26th, 2005 at at 11:07 pm
Tanooki Joe:
I suggest you practice more. You’re no great ape.
September 26th, 2005 at at 11:51 pm
CT,
I don’t think you understand what the burden of proof is, nor how it is necessary in this debate.
September 27th, 2005 at at 4:59 pm
I Am sez:
You’re no great ape.
Someday, Yam. Someday. *attempts to evolve through sheer force of will*
September 28th, 2005 at at 8:28 pm
Perhaps God and other objects of what I will call “religious perception” are like color. No color-sighted person can, by virtue of his color vision, import the experience of color to a person who is completely color-blind.
October 4th, 2005 at at 10:04 pm
I realize this is at the tail end of the debate, but I’ll give it a go.
“Absence of evidence doesn’t mean the evidence is absent” is about as lopsided an argument as you can get.
I adhere to the Aristotelian dictum that reality is that which I experience w/my 5 senses. All else is guesswork.
“Cogito ergo sum” is a load of crap as well. “If a tree falls in the forest, and there’s no TV crew to record it, does it make a sound?”
Really, the sophistic circles theists go round and round again in are nothing short of schizophrenic.
DUB: “Let us have a system that centers on the personal free will your religion emphasizes.”
At the risk of sounding like a theist, hallelujah, brother!
October 26th, 2005 at at 10:03 pm
I agree with every concept in I Ams post. My personal beliefs are religous, but the truth is that I cannot proce them to ANYONE.
The bible was written by humans. Ordianary, fallible, human beings doing (in my religoud opinion) there best to write down there understanding of God. It was not written in heaven and shipped down to Earth on a tranplanar book exchange.
The entire chapter of Revelation was written by a madman on a desert island in 604.
The Bile was put together by the Council of Niccea in the mid 600’s.
November 7th, 2005 at at 3:02 am
God Or Not Carnival – 2nd Edition
Ding, Ding, Ding!!! Amidst a flurry of anticipation and baited breath, Round 2 of the GOD or NOT Blog Carnival is now underway… (cheering ensues)
In this corner: The Atheists – weighing in with rationality and modernism and skepticism. …
November 7th, 2005 at at 3:59 pm
[...] rden has not been met. I AM at The Evangelical Atheist talks about who really should have the Burden of Proof in such debates. The subsequent discussion to this post is quite w [...]
November 8th, 2005 at at 1:34 am
Scirptures say “The fool says “there is no God. Well I for one, for the record, know the literal translatiion is more accurately “NO GOD!” or “NO GOD FOR ME”. Is not this a more accurate description of atheism? (I don’t mean the “FOOL” part, of course, but the “NO GOD FOR ME!” part.
November 9th, 2005 at at 12:00 am
I am a theist. ANYTHING human hands touch is fallible. This includes the bible. Scientifically, there is no proof of God. For now. Faith by its definition is belief in something for which we have no scientific proof. Religion is man made. A socialization and fellowship of like minded believers. Religion is for socialization of the people. God certainly can’t be proved or understood based on human institutional religions.
That which the world needs to know most, is that we are all brothers and sisters, predicated on the fact that we have all been created by a Universal Parent (at some point in evolution). The golden rule should be the fundamental guide for living on a shared planet. Its simple, just not easy.
If your definition of atheism is belief that god does not exist, based on the tenants of scientific proof, then there really isn’t anything to debate. There is no scientific proof. If you want to add logic and philosophy and spirituality to the tenants of proof, then there is a basis for dialogue.
November 10th, 2005 at at 1:50 pm
To CT:
Why does the burden of proof claim need to be debated in the CONTEXT of the debate between the christian and the atheist? Is the burden of proof claim different for different situations? If so…How/Why?
November 10th, 2005 at at 3:20 pm
Just a note – that atheists cannot disprove God exists does not mean that God does exist, only that it leaves open the possibility that God does exist. I don’t think many theists would argue that God must exist just because an atheist can’t disprove it.
November 10th, 2005 at at 3:43 pm
One more note/question to reluctant atheist – Imagine I am a witness of a crime and my friend also witnesses the crime. I saw the criminal – a man with a blue shirt. My friend also saw the criminal – a man with a purple shirt. Which is reality?
The point being, if truth is only based on experience, whose experience do you trust? Truth is not “what I sense.” Truth is what corresponds to reality.
December 8th, 2006 at at 4:25 am
Markus…
It was quite useful reading, found some interesting details about this topic. Thanks….