Ask an Atheist
- Thread starter SkepticJosh
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
re: burden of proof
the overwhelming majority of users involved in this thread, and indeed of all mankind since the beginning believe in a divine creator & sustainer of the universe. so the "outrageous claim" in both the context of this thread and in the context of humanity is that there is no god.
the burden of proof lies with the one who makes an outrageous claim.
why do atheists press others to 'prove there is a god' or some other aspect of their faith then? to greater than 95% of all people, living now or dead, these things are self-evident.
"intellectual honesty"
the overwhelming majority of users involved in this thread, and indeed of all mankind since the beginning believe in a divine creator & sustainer of the universe. so the "outrageous claim" in both the context of this thread and in the context of humanity is that there is no god.
the burden of proof lies with the one who makes an outrageous claim.
why do atheists press others to 'prove there is a god' or some other aspect of their faith then? to greater than 95% of all people, living now or dead, these things are self-evident.
"intellectual honesty"
Agricola, I think you're correct in some regard. It's true.. no one can become a christian through clever arguments alone. But I am an example of someone who returned to Christianity through things like the Moral Argument, Kalam Cosmological Argument, Ontological Argument, Teleological Argument, etc etc. The difference is, I searched out this information on my own and didn't try to engage Christians in debate. (Felt that was pointless. Hah) I believe God played a huge part in this now.. because I wrestled with my unbelief and deep questions day and night for years. People say things like, the reality of morality doesn't matter. But they do! This kind of thinking is so shallow. I knew that I needed deeper reflection.. I had used flawed logic and shallow thinking for so long. It was through apologetics... that I finally started to see the holes in my arguments... watched how they crumbled so quickly under scrutiny... Saw how the existence for God was so much more plausible than his non-existence. I can tell you...atheism is far more irrational than theism based on the evidence. It was something that took years.. but it happened. God does use reason. He gave us rationality after all.. That's the beauty of Christianity. So much evidence in creation... so much historical evidence for the gospels. God doesn't ask us to leap blindly. He gives us plenty if we bother to look and then asks you to take the final step in trusting Him.
Another thing, I'll mention, is when the disciples preached the gospel, they took their audience into consideration. If it was Jews, they appealed to Old Testament prophecies concerning the messiah. If it was Gentiles, they appealed to evidence for the resurrection, miracles Jesus had done, evidence in God's creation (nature). Yes, they shared their personal testimony as well, but they definitely appealed to evidence. In today's society, we have to keep the audience in mind. We also need to appeal to evidence and show people that Christianity is rational and there are excellent reasons for believing it. Not everyone will be saved... Not everyone will respond... but the few that do turn into people like C.S. Lewis and they have a huge impact. =)
However, some atheists never question their atheism.. or they just think questions regarding their atheism don't actually matter..so they downplay these issues in their mind. This is where God has to come in and open up their heart and their mind. (They accept atheism without any evidence for it.) So, in that regard, you are correct... No matter how many arguments you provide or how much evidence... it won't be enough.
Another thing, I'll mention, is when the disciples preached the gospel, they took their audience into consideration. If it was Jews, they appealed to Old Testament prophecies concerning the messiah. If it was Gentiles, they appealed to evidence for the resurrection, miracles Jesus had done, evidence in God's creation (nature). Yes, they shared their personal testimony as well, but they definitely appealed to evidence. In today's society, we have to keep the audience in mind. We also need to appeal to evidence and show people that Christianity is rational and there are excellent reasons for believing it. Not everyone will be saved... Not everyone will respond... but the few that do turn into people like C.S. Lewis and they have a huge impact. =)
However, some atheists never question their atheism.. or they just think questions regarding their atheism don't actually matter..so they downplay these issues in their mind. This is where God has to come in and open up their heart and their mind. (They accept atheism without any evidence for it.) So, in that regard, you are correct... No matter how many arguments you provide or how much evidence... it won't be enough.
Dude, I wasn't trying to belittle you or be sarcastic or anything like that, I was being honest when I said that you seem intelligent. I'm not trying to get on your bad side either, so I'm sorry if I made you upset. Yes, I did read your answers. I can see things from your perspective, all I was trying to was provoke some serious thought, not attack anybody with facts or get in your face with facts, yes I realized that what I said before seemed like that but I came to that conclusion based on the perspectives I've gathered from non-believers and believers alike. So don't turn this into a verbal argument, because I'm still a bit immature, so it's kinda difficult for me to hold my temper, and I'd rather not act in a childish manner. So when you reply please don't include any snide remarks.
Last edited:
1) appeal to population is not proof of something. At one time most of mankind believed the earth was flat. Is the outrageous claim at that time that the earth is spherical? It turned out nearly the entire earth's population was wrong.
2) I'm not claiming there is no god. I would never claim such a thing because a) I acknowledge that God is a possibility and b) that if I claim it I then must prove it and I can't. I don't claim anything beyond that we can't test for god. And therfore I am unconvinced of his existence
The burden of proof lies with anyone making any claim even if it's the vast majority or the minority. And as I explained above I haven't claimed god doesn't exist.
Because the burden of proof lies on anyone making a claim. Even if that is 95% of earth's population. And we only push pepole to prove it when they claim it. If you just believe it then that's fine, but ad soon as you state it as a fact then it needs supporting. The burden of proof is extremely important to making sure that things are true. It is unaffected by the amount of people making a claim or how fervently they believe it to be true
S
A spiritual person knows there is more nuance to life than 2 plus 2 equals four and thus seeks deeper truth than what is apparent at the surface. The mind is like a garden and left unattended, useless weed seeds will take root. There is no neutral place to land in life. The Switzerland you seek is a pipe dream.
D
Have you ever been in a relationship with someone? If so, did you then ever feel the need to give a logical, almost scientific explanation for your feelings? I guess not, because that would have been weird. The same is true for our relationship with God, it's real TO US. And you might argue: 'well I can prove the object of my affection exists, but not that God exists.' But that's not the point now is it? It's all about the love, all about the relationship, we don't NEED to prove that. Get it?
in this case, it was shown that the earth is not flat. not the other way around.
i'm not presenting this as "proof" of the existence of god. just that the pretense in the god/no-god conversation misplaces the burden.
(1) this isn't a personal question or jab, but a general observation and criticism.
(a) if God is a "possibility" how important is it to seek Him out? how potentially dangerous is it to reject & deny Him if He truly does ask of you to believe without first making Himself unquestionably real to you? we carry an umbrella when there is a possibility of rain, but we don't carry faith when there is a possibility of a real God who is jealous over His name, demands faith, and promises to judge all men. while it may be held intellectually as a "possibility" just how unlikely and unimportant of a possibility do we make it?
(b) this isn't necessarily so. you claim you exist, but you've already earlier said you can't prove it and are disinclined to even discuss it. yet you go on under the assumption that you exist.
if someone says "i have produced cold fusion in my basement" though 99% of scientists in the field do not believe it, it is not the 99% that are expected to provide evidence, but the one, whether his claim is true or not.
the Bohr model of the atom was an outrageous claim at the time - was it then necessary for Bohr or his peers to prove this model was accurate, or for others to prove it wasn't?
when Heisenberg and Einstein developed relativity and a quantum approach to physics, was it expected that the overwhelming majority of their peers prove that classical mechanics were sufficient for every calculation, or was relativity's predictions earnestly sought out to be shown correct?
so though you say in hindsight that "the earth is obviously not flat" even though many people believed it was so, it was not simply said by smug men "prove it." but they brought strong arguments and evidence to light that now almost everyone is convinced of. now if prevailing wisdom throughout the history of mankind is theistic, suddenly their presumption is challenged by a small minority of very vocal and critical men, having no proof of their own but their own intellectual conceit, which they admit is flawed and incomplete. this is intellectually dishonest.
it is not everything that is stated as a fact that must be proven. your own existence you take as an axiom. your mortality, you take as an axiom. the continuance of life as you experience it, you take as an axiom. the universal nature of physical laws, you take as an axiom. to me and billions like me, a very real and living God exists axiomatically. He calls Himself I AM THAT I AM, the archetype of axiom, and He asks you to believe first, not to prove or understand.
i'm not presenting this as "proof" of the existence of god. just that the pretense in the god/no-god conversation misplaces the burden.
(1) this isn't a personal question or jab, but a general observation and criticism.
(a) if God is a "possibility" how important is it to seek Him out? how potentially dangerous is it to reject & deny Him if He truly does ask of you to believe without first making Himself unquestionably real to you? we carry an umbrella when there is a possibility of rain, but we don't carry faith when there is a possibility of a real God who is jealous over His name, demands faith, and promises to judge all men. while it may be held intellectually as a "possibility" just how unlikely and unimportant of a possibility do we make it?
(b) this isn't necessarily so. you claim you exist, but you've already earlier said you can't prove it and are disinclined to even discuss it. yet you go on under the assumption that you exist.
if someone says "i have produced cold fusion in my basement" though 99% of scientists in the field do not believe it, it is not the 99% that are expected to provide evidence, but the one, whether his claim is true or not.
the Bohr model of the atom was an outrageous claim at the time - was it then necessary for Bohr or his peers to prove this model was accurate, or for others to prove it wasn't?
when Heisenberg and Einstein developed relativity and a quantum approach to physics, was it expected that the overwhelming majority of their peers prove that classical mechanics were sufficient for every calculation, or was relativity's predictions earnestly sought out to be shown correct?
so though you say in hindsight that "the earth is obviously not flat" even though many people believed it was so, it was not simply said by smug men "prove it." but they brought strong arguments and evidence to light that now almost everyone is convinced of. now if prevailing wisdom throughout the history of mankind is theistic, suddenly their presumption is challenged by a small minority of very vocal and critical men, having no proof of their own but their own intellectual conceit, which they admit is flawed and incomplete. this is intellectually dishonest.
it is not everything that is stated as a fact that must be proven. your own existence you take as an axiom. your mortality, you take as an axiom. the continuance of life as you experience it, you take as an axiom. the universal nature of physical laws, you take as an axiom. to me and billions like me, a very real and living God exists axiomatically. He calls Himself I AM THAT I AM, the archetype of axiom, and He asks you to believe first, not to prove or understand.
I'm not asking for an explaination of your feelings. I'm asking for an explaination of why the untestable and inprovable object of your affection exists. Which is a reasonable request.
Whats "true for me" or "true for you" is irrelevant and just another way of saying "I believe". I care about what's actually true and what is actually true is independent of our beliefs. So yes that is the point.
It's all about the love, all about the relationship, we don't NEED to prove that. Get it?
have to prove it because it's all about the love.
Really? You just compared the possibility of a creator of the universe with a unicorn...Okay go take a time out and think about this for a long time. People for all of time have seriously pondered the existence of God, even atheists, that's why they write books on it. How many people ponder the existence of unicorns? If you can't understand the difference between these, then I can't take you seriously anymore. XD
Truth is truth regardless of beliefs. You're right... but since you went to the unicorn... I'm gonna have to go here... I don't believe the universe and all of life randomly came out of "nothing". And then these colliding atoms that make up life and matter randomly formed self-awareness, without any rhyme or reason to it over billions of years! And those self-aware life forms were able to study this incredible accident and who would have guessed, there's a set of laws and a system to life...Science! Nature is comprehensible! Now that's even more miraculous than a unicorn. =)
Last edited:
I fail to see how they're fundamentally different. I understand the differences but the reasons I made the connection are clear. Nobody's ever seen one. They were both believed to exist at one time. Nobody has ever tested ones existence. They're both supernatural. In these ways they are the same. At one time people deeply pondered the existence of unicorns and dragons and zeus. Whether one is still accepted and another is not is irrelevant. They both have the same amount of evidence supporting their existence.
1) what you believe is irrelavant. I thought you just agreed with that. Therfore you not believing the big bang or anything has no affect on whether it's true.
2) we don't know if it was nothing or not. The universe may have always existed. Rapid expansion from a singularity is far more believable and supported than a space less timeless immaterial intelligence willing matter to spawn into existence.
3) why does anything need a reason to be? Does a ball have a reason to land where it lands when it falls? No its just the result of gravity and other forces. Unguided. Why would the universe be different on any larger scale?
4) science isn't the laws of life or nature. Science discovered them and uses themy to discover more and more. The laws of nature are expressions of unchanging and measurable forces and occurances.
5) I agree. Life IS miraculous! The cosmos are incredible. The earth is beautiful. But until we have a single shred of evidence to suggest the existence of a supreme space less timeless intelligence that disputes everything we know about nature, physics, reality, biology, ect, we don't have a reason to believe it was created by one. The evidence shows what it shows and anyone's opinion is irrelevant.
1) what you believe is irrelavant. I thought you just agreed with that. Therfore you not believing the big bang or anything has no affect on whether it's true.
2) we don't know if it was nothing or not. The universe may have always existed. Rapid expansion from a singularity is far more believable and supported than a space less timeless immaterial intelligence willing matter to spawn into existence.
3) why does anything need a reason to be? Does a ball have a reason to land where it lands when it falls? No its just the result of gravity and other forces. Unguided. Why would the universe be different on any larger scale?
4) science isn't the laws of life or nature. Science discovered them and uses themy to discover more and more. The laws of nature are expressions of unchanging and measurable forces and occurances.
5) I agree. Life IS miraculous! The cosmos are incredible. The earth is beautiful. But until we have a single shred of evidence to suggest the existence of a supreme space less timeless intelligence that disputes everything we know about nature, physics, reality, biology, ect, we don't have a reason to believe it was created by one. The evidence shows what it shows and anyone's opinion is irrelevant.
A
Which, of course, reveals your flawed thinking as the value of love is meaningful to the discussion. One of many examples would be that agape (derives not directly from classical Greek so much as from the LXX) provides an example to examine why some regenerate human beings consistently choose to sacrifice their own life (John 15:3) when necessary for the survival and benefit of biologically unrelated, weaker, less intelligent, sexual selection competitors in the face of evolutionary biologists' assertion that intrasexual sexual selection is one the strongest and most powerful of all evolutionary forces.
I remember a true account of a Christian pastor that was interned in a Nazi death camp during the last period of WWII for hiding Jews who chose to enter a starvation box with a group of men when he didn't have to so that he could shepherd them through the death experience. He could have simply chosen to remain in line and lived to see liberation.
While no one denies there are good people in other religions, this does not equate to them manifesting agape love for only the supernatural love of God can motivate a person to express agape (cf. John 15:13; Rom. 5:6-8; 1 John 4:7). Christian agape has produced dynamic social compassion while Eastern religions have produced stagnant societies, Islam intolerant
ones, and ditto for atheism (Pinnock, WGM, 61).
It's not inconceivable that the agape love of a spiritually regenerated person could save your life someday. One need not be in a North Korea political prison to witness this very unevolutionary agape behavior which that transcends the mechanics of the nervous and endocrine systems and all biological instinct for self-preservation.
Why this saving activity is declared in John to be a demonstration of the love of God, imparting an eternal reality of life to men (Jn. 3:16; 1 Jn. 4:9f.). The whole drama of redemption, centering as it does on the death of Christ, is divine love in action (Gal. 2:20; Rom. 5:8; 2 Cor. 5:14)... an agape sacrificial love whose expression in this form is diametrically opposed to atheistic dogma.
The topic of love provides a great deal of relevant discussion to the present. You never even noticed.
I remember a true account of a Christian pastor that was interned in a Nazi death camp during the last period of WWII for hiding Jews who chose to enter a starvation box with a group of men when he didn't have to so that he could shepherd them through the death experience. He could have simply chosen to remain in line and lived to see liberation.
While no one denies there are good people in other religions, this does not equate to them manifesting agape love for only the supernatural love of God can motivate a person to express agape (cf. John 15:13; Rom. 5:6-8; 1 John 4:7). Christian agape has produced dynamic social compassion while Eastern religions have produced stagnant societies, Islam intolerant
ones, and ditto for atheism (Pinnock, WGM, 61).
It's not inconceivable that the agape love of a spiritually regenerated person could save your life someday. One need not be in a North Korea political prison to witness this very unevolutionary agape behavior which that transcends the mechanics of the nervous and endocrine systems and all biological instinct for self-preservation.
Why this saving activity is declared in John to be a demonstration of the love of God, imparting an eternal reality of life to men (Jn. 3:16; 1 Jn. 4:9f.). The whole drama of redemption, centering as it does on the death of Christ, is divine love in action (Gal. 2:20; Rom. 5:8; 2 Cor. 5:14)... an agape sacrificial love whose expression in this form is diametrically opposed to atheistic dogma.
The topic of love provides a great deal of relevant discussion to the present. You never even noticed.
I'm sorry some things you said are really bugging me.
First off, how is it that you giving meaning or purpose to anything matter at all? How is it important? Because it just is?
Second, how could you assume that my perspective was 100% eternal? To come to my conclusion, I had to look at things from the perspective of a non-believer, meaning that it had to be in the present.
Third, you said that you disagree that it had any bearing on your life right now. That sounds like an agnostic response to me.
Fourth, why would we be on the same page if it's a debate? I never said that I agreed with you about love.
First off, how is it that you giving meaning or purpose to anything matter at all? How is it important? Because it just is?
Second, how could you assume that my perspective was 100% eternal? To come to my conclusion, I had to look at things from the perspective of a non-believer, meaning that it had to be in the present.
Third, you said that you disagree that it had any bearing on your life right now. That sounds like an agnostic response to me.
Fourth, why would we be on the same page if it's a debate? I never said that I agreed with you about love.
-facepalm-
What I believe isn’t irrelevant if it’s true. I do believe in the Big Bang. You know atheists like Fred Hoyle rejected the Big Bang. You know why? Because it would show the universe had a beginning oh like.. um the Biblical account of creation.
“Fred Hoyle famously coined the term “Big Bang” to characterize the single creation theory of cosmology in a series of talks he gave on BBC radio broadcasts in the late 1940s. Equally famous was Hoyle’s own view of the universe wherein creation of matter was continuous without beginning or end. To his way of thinking, the “big bang” was counter-intuitive to nature and more at home to theology. As he said in the third programme broadcast in 1949:
“[My theory] replaces a hypothesis that lies concealed in the older theories, which assume, as I have already said, that the whole of the matter in the universe was created in one big hang at a particular time in the the remote past. On scientific grounds this big bang hypothesis is much the less palatable of the two. For it is an irrational process that cannot be described in scientific terms.”
Look up the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
There’s immense evidence that the universe is not eternal past. Rapid expansion from a singularity. Yes.. where did this singularity come from? Popped into existence out of nothing?
3. Okay stop talking gibberish. Why does anything need a reason to be? (So, you don’t like reason? I mean you keep claiming you’re the intellectually honest one). Then you give an example and explain THE REASON for why the ball lands where it lands. –facepalm-
4. We agree so there's no issue on that.
5. You already believe that the universe, physics, nature, and biology came about for absolutely NO REASON. Purposeless, meaningless. The evidence is astoundingly in God’s favor.
In Conclusion: You came here to have us ask questions... this is what I have learned from you.. "why does anything need a reason to be? " You don't care about reasons... And "...anyone's opinion is irrelevant." You don't care what we believe or why. Why are you here? To preach your atheistic gospel then?
What I believe isn’t irrelevant if it’s true. I do believe in the Big Bang. You know atheists like Fred Hoyle rejected the Big Bang. You know why? Because it would show the universe had a beginning oh like.. um the Biblical account of creation.
“Fred Hoyle famously coined the term “Big Bang” to characterize the single creation theory of cosmology in a series of talks he gave on BBC radio broadcasts in the late 1940s. Equally famous was Hoyle’s own view of the universe wherein creation of matter was continuous without beginning or end. To his way of thinking, the “big bang” was counter-intuitive to nature and more at home to theology. As he said in the third programme broadcast in 1949:
“[My theory] replaces a hypothesis that lies concealed in the older theories, which assume, as I have already said, that the whole of the matter in the universe was created in one big hang at a particular time in the the remote past. On scientific grounds this big bang hypothesis is much the less palatable of the two. For it is an irrational process that cannot be described in scientific terms.”
Look up the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
There’s immense evidence that the universe is not eternal past. Rapid expansion from a singularity. Yes.. where did this singularity come from? Popped into existence out of nothing?
3. Okay stop talking gibberish. Why does anything need a reason to be? (So, you don’t like reason? I mean you keep claiming you’re the intellectually honest one). Then you give an example and explain THE REASON for why the ball lands where it lands. –facepalm-
4. We agree so there's no issue on that.
5. You already believe that the universe, physics, nature, and biology came about for absolutely NO REASON. Purposeless, meaningless. The evidence is astoundingly in God’s favor.
In Conclusion: You came here to have us ask questions... this is what I have learned from you.. "why does anything need a reason to be? " You don't care about reasons... And "...anyone's opinion is irrelevant." You don't care what we believe or why. Why are you here? To preach your atheistic gospel then?
- Status