[jesuswhoop07]

I heard a cool analogy to help break ground to anyone looking to speak or evagelize to someone who claims to be aethist. It goes like this:

If i were to ask you if "peso" is a word in spanish what would you say? Undoubtedly 99% of the people asked would say yes. Well, then do you know every word in the sapnish language? Again, most people will not know "every" word in the spanish language, never the less they still no that "peso" is one of the words. Then, if I were to ask you is "Wang-chek (substitute any chinese sounding word)" is a word in Chinese, what would your answer be. The best anwser anyone can give is maybe or probably. In order to know truly if "wang-chek" was a word in the chinese language you would have to know everything about that language, the history creation, what words haev been erased and such, which no one does. This proves the theory of why aethisism cannot be a true belief, b/c to know that something does exists, i.e. the peso or God, you do not have to know everything about that subject. But to make the claim that god does not exist, you would have to know everything in the enitre world about everything: creation, time, ect. which is impossible. There for aethism, the claim that there is no god, has no tangible backing to being a true statement. So for all the people who do believe in aethism, since it is false are actually ignostic, the belief that there is a higher power or divine being of some sorts but they take no want or effort to find and explore that power.

That is my version of it, origianlly given by a Ph.d of Philosophy from Oxford theological in England. Give me your thoughts, critiques, and other insight to it.

If this kinda thing tickles your fancy, You have to read Anselm Onthological Arguement for the existance of God. It might be hard to fing online, i had to go to the Texas A&M library, but it is awesome. It was written in latin and then translated to early english (thou, arest, thee) so it takes a little time to read, and i would not recomend it to anyone who cannot read on a college level becuase Anslem is a prolific philosopher and it deep, well thought out material tha may be difficult to interpret and dicifer

GOD BLESS - Wes

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by jesuswhoop07

I heard a cool analogy to help break ground to anyone looking to speak or evagelize to someone who claims to be aethist. It goes like this:

If i were to ask you if "peso" is a word in spanish what would you say? Undoubtedly 99% of the people asked would say yes. Well, then do you know every word in the sapnish language? Again, most people will not know "every" word in the spanish language, never the less they still no that "peso" is one of the words. Then, if I were to ask you is "Wang-chek (substitute any chinese sounding word)" is a word in Chinese, what would your answer be. The best anwser anyone can give is maybe or probably. In order to know truly if "wang-chek" was a word in the chinese language you would have to know everything about that language, the history creation, what words haev been erased and such, which no one does. This proves the theory of why aethisism cannot be a true belief, b/c to know that something does exists, i.e. the peso or God, you do not have to know everything about that subject. But to make the claim that god does not exist, you would have to know everything in the enitre world about everything: creation, time, ect. which is impossible. There for aethism, the claim that there is no god, has no tangible backing to being a true statement. So for all the people who do believe in aethism, since it is false are actually ignostic, the belief that there is a higher power or divine being of some sorts but they take no want or effort to find and explore that power.

You really need to read Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith. I will personally mail you my copy if you promise to read it and return it.

The claims of atheism go much deeper than "no God." Just because you say you know there is a God, the burden of proof is on you to prove it, not just make arguments why you don't have to.

It's like this:

You: "Starboard Wake, I got an A on my test!"
Me: "Jesuswhoop07, I don't believe you did."

You could sit there until your face is blue telling me you got an A, and that I don't know for certain that you didn't get an A, but the burden of proof is on you. YOU have to show me that you got an A.

Let's say "wang-chek" is a word that is no longer in use, and it takes you four years of study to find an instance of that word in ancient Chinese text. Well, were you right that it was a word? Yes. Was the person who said it wasn't a word wrong? Yes. Does that word really have any bearing on daily life or daily discussion even in Chinese, as the word "fortnight" is slowly losing any grasp in our language? Not really. Besides, the person denying "wang-chek" doesn't have to provide any proof that it doesn't exist. You, the one supporting the word, have the burden to produce the proof.

And this isn't an easy point to twist. If I denied gravity, you could drop an apple on my head. This doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof was on you. It just shows that in that instance the proof was certainly demonstratable. With God, the atheist requires much more.

Likewise, in the discourse of reality, the theist or deist is making the claim that requires the burden of proof. An atheist, or an agnostic, is saying that God does not exist or is unknowable. They have no burden of proof to prove anything, since they say there is no proof and that the existence of God is unknowable. The theist or deist on the other hand has to hand over solid evidence.

Your analogy is a good opening point but be prepared to have to demonstrate a lot more to sway any serious atheist.

[Jay42]

Exactly. Atheists shift the burden of proof onto the theist. As one atheist said to me - which is apparently a paraphrase from Carl Sagan - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I had to put THAT in my pipe and smoke it for a while. ( Except I still don't own a pipe )

[Jeffrey]

But shifting the burden of proof isn't necessarily them being devious. It's a natural conclusion we use every day, as I showed with my "test" analogy.

You and an athiest look at a sunset, you say "That's the hands of God at work." The athiest says "Where? Show me that's something supernatural."

The athiest shifting the burden of proof is not necessarily a horrible thing.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by jesuswhoop07

If this kinda thing tickles your fancy, You have to read Anselm Onthological Arguement for the existance of God.

Kant basically showed that the ontological argument is insufficient.

Existence and essence are two different things. What something is, is it's essence. Whether or not it exists is existence. You can tell me what a unicorn is (essence) and still tell me that it is not real (existence).

Kant said, "But the unconditioned necessity of judgments is not the same as an absolute necessity of things. The absolute necessity of the judgments is only a conditioned necessity of the thing, or of the predicate in the judgment".

A predicate by itself, cannot assert the existence of the subject. Just because I say a unicorn is a white horse with one horn growing from the middle of it's head does not make the unicorn real.

It's all interesting though.

[cchrisr]

i think we all suffer from the fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratium:
the failure to prove/disprove a point is a disproof/proof (respectfully) of that point.
the burden should lie on both parties, even if one is the positive claim.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by cchrisr

i think we all suffer from the fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratium:

Who has argued this?

the burden should lie on both parties, even if one is the positive claim.

No. If one makes a positive claim, then the burden is upon them to prove it. If I said God exists and then went on to use the teleological argument, and you showed me how the argument is flawed, it does not mean that God does not exist. If you asserted that it did, that would be a fallacy.

[Jeffrey]

Yes, if you tell me that bears like to have thumb tacks shoved up their nose, the burden of proof is on you. I can state my negative belief and not have to prove it.

Even in normal stuff. As I said, if I say I don't believe in gravity, you have to prove it to me, even if that's simple to do, you still have to.

[cchrisr]

Originally Posted by Starboard Wake

Yes, if you tell me that bears like to have thumb tacks shoved up their nose, the burden of proof is on you. I can state my negative belief and not have to prove it.

Even in normal stuff. As I said, if I say I don't believe in gravity, you have to prove it to me, even if that's simple to do, you still have to.

so then, if i could not prove gravity (as ultimately, we cannot), does that mean it doesn't exist?

[JerryLove]

Drop something... Gravity is proven. You can now proceed to argue what gravity is, but to deny it's existance is absurd.

[Travis]

Ok, if I drop something now and it falls, how do I know the same thing will happen again two minutes from now? How do we know the future will be like the past? To say it has always been that way in the past is to beg the question. To be able to generalize to the future would require universal laws, something for which the atheistic world-view cannot account.

Are you familiar with Hume's An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding? Do you know how to resolve the problems he set forth therin? He argued that we have no philosophical reason for assuming the future will be like the past whatsoever, thus undermining the fundamental principles of science.

[Jeffrey]

Then you're faced with practical applications of any worldview. Every worldview pretty much has some extreme facet to it that while not invalid, requires secondary elaboration to fit into one's framework.

Some Mennonite and Amish sects view God's sovereign election as a deterrent to missionary work, and thus do not engage in proselyzation. They are open to witnessing, but don't make any bold effort, focusing rather on personal virtues. While we may see this as extreme, it's arguable off their worldview, much as one can say that, yes, technically it is a fallacy to assume the future will be the exact same as the past, if one chooses some atheist worldviews. You'll find holes in anyone's application of their worldview.

However, if one cannot for certain demonstrate gravity, one can by no means demonstrate God.

And no, not being able to prove gravity does not mean it does or does not exist - but whoever is supporting its existence still has the burden of proof.

[slap_j]

The Christian theistic worldview does account for the uniformity of nature though.

"While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
And cold and heat,
And summer and winter,
And day and night
Shall not cease."
- Genesis 8:22

God runs His universe in a dependable fashion.

[JerryLove]

Ok, if I drop something now and it falls, how do I know the same thing will happen again two minutes from now?

You don't. Knowing the future is unrelated to being able to prove a positive assertion about the present.

The Christian theistic worldview does account for the uniformity of nature though.

In a manner consistant with its own presuppositions. The atheistic worldview has no problem with nature being uniform within its own worldview. None of this has anything to do with weather any abstract fact is provable or not, and therefore no relevenece to burden of proof.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Starboard Wake

But shifting the burden of proof isn't necessarily them being devious. It's a natural conclusion we use every day, as I showed with my "test" analogy.

Of course not. However, the only reason that such a requirement will work is if you rely on anti-Christian assumptions -- in the case of the atheist, naturalistic assumptions. In such a case, the Christian should stand tall, for nothing meaningful has been said against his position. He then implores the atheist to disprove God's existence, for, as we know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And, for the Christian, the non-existence of God is quite an extraordinary claim! The Christian thus demonstrates that the atheist's non-Christian commitment is self-reliant; his argument against Christianity only stands on anti-Christian assumptions. And, indeed, if we begin with anti-Christian assumptions, we should not be too surprised when we wind up with anti-Christian conclusions!

Originally Posted by slap_j

Kant basically showed that the ontological argument is insufficient.

Plantinga showed Kant's objection irrelevant

Originally Posted by slap_j

Existence and essence are two different things. What something is, is it's essence. Whether or not it exists is existence. You can tell me what a unicorn is (essence) and still tell me that it is not real (existence).

Kant said, "But the unconditioned necessity of judgments is not the same as an absolute necessity of things. The absolute necessity of the judgments is only a conditioned necessity of the thing, or of the predicate in the judgment".

A predicate by itself, cannot assert the existence of the subject. Just because I say a unicorn is a white horse with one horn growing from the middle of it's head does not make the unicorn real.

In other words, Kant thinks that our problem is trying to turn existence into a predicate. However, the Ontological Argument stands if we sit with only necessary propositions. "God exists" is to be considered a necessary proposition. Thus, either it is true in all possible worlds, or false in all possible worlds. Therefore, if it is true in one, it must be true in all, and therefore true in ours. If it is false in one, it must be false in all, and therefore false in ours.

Originally Posted by Starboard Wake

Yes, if you tell me that bears like to have thumb tacks shoved up their nose, the burden of proof is on you. I can state my negative belief and not have to prove it.

Even in normal stuff. As I said, if I say I don't believe in gravity, you have to prove it to me, even if that's simple to do, you still have to.

We've got to be pretty careful when we start to get into this kind of question, because we're dealing with ultimate standards here. The Christian conceives of God as holding or being the ultimate standard of truth, reality, morality, and so on. Thus, if the Christian is correct, it will be impossible for him to prove anything (especially the existence of God) apart from tacitly relying upon the existence of God.

Also, a strict application of the standard you offered above was Descartes' problem that led to many failed epistemologies up through Kant, then caused great fallout afterwards, especially thanks to Nietzsche. If we ultimately rely on our independent intellects to get all knowledge -- in other words, if we universally maintain the "show me" standard -- we will get nowhere. I'll give you a quick example in Hume's Problem of Induction (problems like this spring up everywhere, but this is the most classic).

Science, and most all of our reasoning, is based on the assumption of induction. Specifically, let's deal with one form of induction (other forms works similarly): the future is like the past. So, we can base beliefs about the future on truths about the past. However, how can we justify induction unless we already believe in it? Well, you will say, induction has always worked in the past, so it looks plausible to accept. However, that is reasoning from past experience to future conclusions -- induction! Therefore, this answer is circular.

Speaking from the standpoint of the purely autonomous human mind, I don't think that anyone has ever adequately answered this problem. Most philosophers agree, and have decided that it's not even a problem worth our time any more, because we're never going to solve it. We've just got to side-step it somehow. Of course, they won't accept the obvious answer: God can be rationally expected to maintain uniformity between the past and the future.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Drop something... Gravity is proven. You can now proceed to argue what gravity is, but to deny it's existance is absurd.

That proves that one fact about reality seems consistent with a theory of gravity. In no way does that prove a theory of gravity. It would be like watching one baseball player strike out, and then conclude that everyone always strikes out in baseball.