No, formally, the burden of proof doesn't work both ways. Those supporting a proposition have to provide the evidence. Those who don't support it counter that evidence. All those who don't support the proposition have to do is show the supporters have not made their case, not that they are wrong. — T Clark
Ironically, you are guilty of what you insinuate of me above. "That's ridiculous" is not an argument. Neither is "That's snotty" or "That's arrogant". Not outside of a context in which that's the topic of discussion. — Sapientia
I guess my take is somewhere in the middle. Completely within the bounds of the natural, I think it is reasonable to consider our world as ....sentient?....a person?.....alive? None of those are right. — T Clark
Yes, none of those are right. I'm glad we agree. — Sapientia
Hmm. Maybe. You'd have to elaborate. — Sapientia
While writing this reply I clicked the "reply" button using my left hand. I just made a claim. So the burden of proof is on me then? Well, I can't prove it. Does this prove I did not use the mouse with my left hand? No. You simply have no knowledge of whether I used my right or left hand or maybe my leg to click the "reply" button. — BlueBanana
the burden of proof would be on you — T Clark
Of that we agree then, but you still wouldn't have the certain knowledge that what I claimed wasn't true. — BlueBanana
While it may be heresy to claim that God would ask someone to kill one of their children (or someone else) in order to please him, IT IS RIGHT THERE IN THE BIBLE OF HIM (or her/it/they if God so happens not to be a 'he') DOING SO. — dclements
I agree with this point. However, to move the argument forward, I think we all hit a wall. In all presentations about theism, determinism and the antithesis; we come to an “uncertainty” principle. We all reach this chasm in which the final proof is absent. I have heard you say before Sapientia “I don’t have to prove the antithesis”. I think you do – and – if you can’t “things” are uncertain. That is what we are left with – I call it the uncertainty principle. I wrote this in another thread:
— Thinker
I don't have to prove the antithesis unless that's my position. And yes, most things are uncertain. — Sapientia
God does not need us – quite the contrary – we need God. Or perhaps I should say we desire God.
— Thinker
Speak for yourself. — Sapientia
We are almost nothing to God – a speck of dust.
— Thinker
No, we're real. Even a speck of dust is real. That's more than can knowingly be said about God. God is almost nothing to me besides being an interesting talking point, a subject of enquiry into human psychology, and that sort of thing. God is not a crutch for me. — Sapientia
If our sun blows up – I doubt we will be missed. What is our consequence in the scheme of things?
— Thinker
Many theists would find the notion that God is destructible to be absurd, but there is reason to believe that God would die along with us. Some have said that he's already dead. In actually living my life, seizing the day is more important to me than the grand scheme of things. My concern is thisworldliness, rather than otherworldliness. — Sapientia
This is false, Jesus DID claim to not only be the Son of God, but to be one with the Father. This is actually one of the charges of the Pharisees against Him before the Crucifixion. — Agustino
Mark 1:1 starts by mentioning this is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Luke 1:35 which details the birth of Jesus, where again, the angels say that he will be the Son of God.
John 10:30 - Jesus says "I and the Father are One"
John 10:36 where Jesus handles the accusation of blasphemy because he claimed to be the Son of God.
Etc.
Really the evidence is very clear, I can't understand how anyone who has read the Gospels can claim that Jesus did NOT claim to be the Son of God. — Agustino
What evidence do you have that St. Paul wanted to defend the act of crucifixion and vindicate the Jews? As in what sources are you basing this on?But Saul was Jewish, and wanted to defend the act of crucifixion. The only way to vindicate the Jews who put Jesus to death, was to insist that Jesus claimed to be Son of God. — Metaphysician Undercover
A very convenient position. — Thinker
Not explaining the criteria for your position is also very convenient. — Thinker
So, how do you make decisions? — Thinker
I do speak for myself and I project to others - does that seem unreasonable to you? I hear you do that all the time - we all do - That is the only card we have to play. — Thinker
You either missed my point or chose to ignore it. To argue whether or not we are real is absurd. Why you go there, I suspect, is to avoid my point. My point is that we are not very significant - I did not say insignificant - quite the contrary. God provided us with an "equation for life" - as I previously denoted. This is how I see the available evidence which is reasonable to my mind. You counter that the universe is not organized and that a nice planet, consciousness & love is just luck. Ok, I hear you and I cannot gainsay your logic (simple as it is) – but – when I hear you say – “God is not a crutch for me.” I hear an emotion. You don’t want crutches. There is something else afoot here. You don’t like to talk about your emotions – but – you reveal them. — Thinker
You completely changed what I said. — Thinker
My short list, then, is "god" as assurance, reason, authority. But isn't this a little strange? "God" appears to be just exactly that, that in every case meets a human need, and meets it, furthermore, without ever being an efficient cause of anything. I think it a useful exercise to recast any question that has ever been answered by "god" so that it can be answered more accessibly. — tim wood
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's part and parcel of living life. We all do it. But when it comes to God, you get a double standard and special pleading. — Sapientia
You haven't clarified the ambiguity at all, you've just repeated it. What does it mean to say that God comes to an individual from within, and that God makes his presence known from within? We can't make much progress until I know what you're talking about. I suspect you're hiding behind obscurity - exploiting it. — Sapientia
I'm not really asking anything, except rhetorically. If they can't justify it, I can't believe it. Anecdotal evidence isn't enough. — Sapientia
We think of many people who make these kind of claims and genuinely believe them as whacks. Why should we think of people who believe that God has communicated with them any differently? A clairvoyant who isn't just a charlatan should be put in the whack box. — Sapientia
I understand that extraordinary claims, and extraordinary evidence, are part and parcel of living life. I also understand that life itself is extraordinary. Therefore life itself is extraordinary evidence. And extraordinary evidence is what is required to back up extraordinary claims. I don't understand why you employ a double standard "when it comes to God". — Metaphysician Undercover
Ok, sorry I didn't explain, because you didn't ask. — Metaphysician Undercover
I think you were being ambiguous and obscure. — Metaphysician Undercover
OK, suppose we remove this distinction then, between what is internal and what is external, because it is ambiguous. How would anyone justify any claims, if they cannot demonstrate external correspondence with what they are claiming that they know within themselves?
With ghosts and such, the claim is that the ghost is out there, so to justify the claim the individual must demonstrate where that ghost is. If God comes to an individual from within, and , makes His presence known to that individual from within, how can we ask that individual to demonstrate God's existence by referring to what is external to the individual. — Metaphysician Undercover
What evidence do you have that St. Paul wanted to defend the act of crucifixion and vindicate the Jews? As in what sources are you basing this on? — Agustino
You're are just repeating the distinction. Since all knowledge is internal, nothing can be justified by external correspondence. — TheWillowOfDarkness
So how do we justify our claims? We do so internally. — TheWillowOfDarkness
I am asking now - and - I have asked before and you replied - "I don't have to prove the antithesis" All I see and have seen is remarks like – absurd – irrelevant – straw man – crazy - supernatural or miraculous kind - "Good sense" according to whose assessment? These are your refutation remarks. You defend your position by attacking the affirmative. I don’t see you proving atheism; just attacking theism. — Thinker
Ok - I am sorry if I have misrepresented you. I can't find what you said about these things - can you repeat it - please? — Thinker
That may be a common human experience, and one that I would take you at your word when you say that you've had it.
Interpreting it as God might be understandable, but that doesn't make it any less "crazy" in my sense — Sapientia
And no, if I have had such an experience, I haven't jumped to the conclusion that it was God - I'm not crazy. — Sapientia
My short list, then, is "god" as assurance, reason, authority. But isn't this a little strange? "God" appears to be just exactly that, that in every case meets a human need, and meets it, furthermore, without ever being an efficient cause of anything. I think it a useful exercise to recast any question that has ever been answered by "god" so that it can be answered more accessibly. — tim wood
First, if we are made in God's image, why would it be strange that what he provides matches human needs?
Also - your separation of the uses of God as assurance, reason, and authority is artificial. If you believe in him, God made the universe. He is the reason for everything. He made the rules - the laws of science and the laws of right and wrong. Those laws don't have to be consistent if he doesn't want them to be. According to some accounts, he can overrule them whenever he wants. — T Clark
The first "first" of concern is whether you know anything at all about your topic. Ah! You start with "if." On this topic, anything that starts with "if" is a waste of our time, certainly of mine, and if you're interest here is honest, then of yours. Your question is facile: "If we are made in god's image why would it be strange that what he provides matches human needs?" If in his image, then why would we have needs? Does god have needs, that you or I can know of? Or, if just in his image, do you mean we all look something like god? How would you know? Have you seen Him? Or in his image, somehow, but distinct in having human needs, then how can our identifying him through his meeting our needs tell us anything about him, himself? Your question doesn't have a bottom, it just descends further and further into nonsense. — tim wood
Perhaps your entire post is an exercise in rhetorical irony. That is, If this or that, or if I believe this or that, or if anyone believed whatever, then from that belief any nonsensical proposition could be supported. That was your point, that it all hinges on belief, not that the beliefs constitute or in themselves evidence anything at all, but that as axioms of argument, can be used to prove anything. Clearly this is what you meant, and I repent in sackcloth and ashes any harshness in the paragraphs above; I simply didn't get it at first. — tim wood
Interpreting it as God might be understandable, but that doesn't make it any less "crazy" in my sense...if I have had such an experience, I haven't jumped to the conclusion that it was God - I'm not crazy. — Sapientia
This is the part I'm curious about.
Is it your position that (a) one cannot have an experience of God, or (b) one cannot know that one has had an experience of God? You seem to accept that there is something reliable about a person's description of their own experience; but there is also something you describe as interpreting that experience, and this part requires justification.
I'd like to understand how you see this distinction. — Srap Tasmaner
Second. In what sense is my belief or non-belief, or anyone else's, constitutive of any real god? He either is as you claim, or not. I don't get a vote, and neither does anyone else. — tim wood
I'll take that as a "no." — Galuchat
There are two distinct ways in which we name things. We can use a name to refer directly to a thing, or phenomenon, even though we do not have a proper understanding of that thing. Or we can use a name referring to an understanding, or concept, without referring directly to any particular thing or phenomenon.
So it is very possible to have a disjunction between the concept which the word refers to, and the thing which the word refers to, and this would be a misunderstanding. Since human knowledge is never perfect, there is always some degree of separation between the concept and the thing, some degree of misunderstanding, where the concept of the thing doesn't exactly match the thing. Therefore it doesn't make sense to say "either God is as you claim or not". The person may have an understanding of "God" which is completely consistent with the accepted concept, just like the physicist may have an understanding of the "Higgs boson" which is completely consistent with accepted principles, but this concept of "God", or "Higgs boson" may not be a proper understanding of the real thing, or phenomenon which is referred to by these words. — MU
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.