|
Post by Josh on Jun 13, 2009 16:48:42 GMT -8
Antony Flew, long time famous atheist recently turned theist, makes this remark on the question of whether the burden of proof lies with the atheist or the theist over the question of God's existence:
"The presumption of atheism is, at best, a methodological starting point, not an ontological conclusion"
--Antony Flew, There is A God
Still, he says, theists can still maintain their argument in the face of a presumption of atheism.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jun 14, 2009 4:59:18 GMT -8
i wonder what his proof for God is. get on this website and watch some videos... particular.ly 'does God exist?': www.closertotruth.com/ shalaom- john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 14, 2009 15:10:06 GMT -8
Thanks for the link, I'll check it out when I some more time.
Flew's line of argument is going to center on the "fine-tuning" of the universe as powerful evidence for the existence of a Creator.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jun 15, 2009 14:34:29 GMT -8
so, if an atheist can not believe iun God based off of the line of reasoning "well, they cant prove he exists" than can a religious person Believe in God based off of the reasoning "well, you cant prove he IS NOT real?"
this is the problem this line of reasoning has and this is what the tread is about.
personally, i dont think thare is any burden of proof. it cannot be proved at the moment. not by either side.
shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 15, 2009 19:04:49 GMT -8
I think Flew is saying that there is no automatic burden of proof on the issue, and I agree.
If anything, the person who is trying to convince the other person should assume most of the burden.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jun 16, 2009 1:37:17 GMT -8
i agree with you as well.
actually, i dont know whay Yah has not given evidence for his existance that can be tangible and scientific, not only to the religious.
instead of debating which side should give the proof, or whether we can prve the existance of Yah, i think we need to realize that there is no proof for either side, and so we need to instead try to see if scripture gives a reason why no proof exists, aprat from religious proof sch as the bible, and Yeshua's atonement.
shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 16, 2009 7:15:15 GMT -8
Yeshuafreak, I think you should distinguish between proof and evidence. We don't have proof of the existence or non-existence of God, but we do have historical, scientific, and philosophical evidence. And the evidence has been known to convince people. For more on this, see this thread: Proof vs. EvidenceSo, I wouldn't give up on the quest for meaningful evidence. Christianity is an evidential religion from the get go: Christ rose from the dead-- here's the evidence... Still, I think it is an important point you're making about the value of asking why God might not have wanted to offer us absolute proof.
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jun 16, 2009 11:42:22 GMT -8
And the evidence has been known to convince people. I'm still waiting for convincing evidence. What has been presented to me as "powerful evidence" so far has only affirmed my suspicion that Christians have a really lousy case to make. And the burden of proof is on the side of the one who wants to convince another person, that's correct. You stole that from me, Josh ;D
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 16, 2009 14:35:42 GMT -8
Hmmm, that's funny, because I feel similarly about your supposedly powerful loopholes - out of fine-tuning, or origins of life, for instance. Many stones haven't been turned over at all (for instance, predictive prophecy), and I don't think most of the conversations we've started have even really gotten into full swing (such as historical arguments) But, I do have what I think is a good idea. Here's a link: www.aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=exist&thread=2097
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jun 29, 2009 9:30:04 GMT -8
you made a good point josh. however, all the evidence collectively is regarded as proof.
now... there is proof for the ressurection, becauase we have much more than 2 or 3 witnesses as evidnce. if the ressurection is trure, than we would have to be very very very hard headed not to eblieve there is a god.
a good boook to read :
The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict and also More Evidence that Demands a Verdict... both are by Josh McDowell- a great apolagist.
shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by Midnight Romance on Jul 2, 2009 11:27:44 GMT -8
i agree with you as well. actually, i dont know whay Yah has not given evidence for his existance that can be tangible and scientific, not only to the religious. Don't fall into that trap. There are several branches in philosophy that are argued over constantly. One is epistemology. It's the study of how we distinguish what is fact from what is fiction. It's important because before we can even debate over whether or not God is real, we must figure out first, what would constitute as "proof" of him being real. Is it argumentation? Things we can experience physically? Is there no way to really know? You're embracing the idea here of empiricism. Empiricism is the belief that all knowledge comes from the senses (and science basically) and that you can't find proof anywhere else. It's just a belief. There is no scientific evidence or factual reason why you HAVE to assume this is true. Our culture just does, but that doesn't make it fact. The ironic thing about this belief is that while it throws all arguments out the window because they aren't "proof" of anything, there is no way to "prove" that empiricism is real except with arguments. I happen to be a rationalist. Someone who believes that you can get proof from both the senses and the physical world, not just the physical world by itself. I like to combine the two. I guess you can be an empiricist and a Christian at the same time, but think about it first because you don't HAVE to be.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jul 2, 2009 12:50:39 GMT -8
thank you for the warning, but i think you misunderstood what i was trying to say. i was asking why Yah didnt just make it easy and give proof in every feild of rationale. i recently discovered that there are historical documents and such, but a good strong arugument can be made on either side, still.
anyway... "there is no scientific evidence or factual reason why you HAVE to assume rationalism is true" either.
it is all matter of preference. nurture and nature.
shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 16, 2009 21:28:40 GMT -8
Yeshuafreak,
If you want to dig a bit deeper than Josh McDowell on the resurrection, might I recommend The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Michael Licona and Gary Habermas. They take an interesting "minimal facts" approach to validating the resurrection- in other words, they build a case using only generally accepted historical facts.
|
|