Burden of Proof : Are Theists the Only People Who Have it ?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1873-burden-of-proof-are-theists-the-only-people-who-have-it
21:03 Burden of proof
Common atheist fallacies: exposed !!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK99BsNc2Ko&t=3054s
Atheists demand constantly for evidence of Gods existence, but never apply the same burden of proof to materialism.
The position of weak atheists is nothing more than a complaint about what other people believe in, referencing God. I don't believe in UFOS, but I do not go around wearing a label pin or flag to identify as one who does not believe in UFOS. So there is a problem in the logic of this issue. If you do not believe in God, big deal, but what is it that you proactively believe in, what is your positive worldview that influences your moral values, your daily behavior, your motivations, your family life, your vote, in short: that regulates or laws your own personal life? A person ought to be identified by what they believe in , not by what they do not believe in. So this is a shell game, a parlor trick. ...
We totally understand why atheists avoid the burden of proof. We all know that atheists are the very definition of a "WIMP" and why? Because they always scream about "burden of proof" We both KNOW that if the burden of proof was placed on their tiny narrow shoulders, they will IMMEDIATELY COLLAPSE!! Their worldview is irrational and pathetic We don't mind to demonstrate why intelligence is an infinitely more adequate potent cause in comparison to - wait - what exactly ?!! There is NO ALTERNATIVE to an eternal necessary powerful Creator; Maybe rub that in the face will help to wake-up their brains and start thinking ?
The way to find truth about origins is to find out, either if there is a God, an intelligent creator, or not. These are the two possible explanations, this is the framework to work with, and within these two options to find the best explanation. When weak atheists try to argue that they just do not believe in claims made by theists, until the burden of proof is met, they want to have an advantage right from the beginning. At this point, one side has to sweat to make a case, while the other side has an easy play to be the judge, without the burden of proof to provide evidence why the "no-God hypothesis" is valid.
If nonbelievers in theism are going to argue that adequate answers exist without the need for God, they are at least going to have to provide sufficient naturalistic explanations. Asking to provide positive, compelling evidence that points to the fact that the natural world can have an origin by its own, is not the same as to ask for evidence that God does not exist. It is one of the most frequent logical fallacies seen in atheism/theism debates. That is called an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. This illicit negative occurs when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises. Both sides, however, must be able to present and adopt a well-articulated, thorough-going positive worldview based on positive evidence that results in good reasons to infer naturalism or creationism/Intelligent Design. What the debater must present, is a positive case for theism/atheism by reference to the evidence that favours a theistic/atheistic interpretation of reality.
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2408-how-you-can-provide-a-better-world-view-based-on-naturalism-strong-atheism-over-a-proponent-of-creationism-intelligent-design
Comparing worldviews - there are basically just two
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2793-worldviews-there-are-basically-just-two-in-regards-of-origins#6492
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1873-burden-of-proof-are-theists-the-only-people-who-have-it
21:03 Burden of proof
Common atheist fallacies: exposed !!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK99BsNc2Ko&t=3054s
Atheists demand constantly for evidence of Gods existence, but never apply the same burden of proof to materialism.
The position of weak atheists is nothing more than a complaint about what other people believe in, referencing God. I don't believe in UFOS, but I do not go around wearing a label pin or flag to identify as one who does not believe in UFOS. So there is a problem in the logic of this issue. If you do not believe in God, big deal, but what is it that you proactively believe in, what is your positive worldview that influences your moral values, your daily behavior, your motivations, your family life, your vote, in short: that regulates or laws your own personal life? A person ought to be identified by what they believe in , not by what they do not believe in. So this is a shell game, a parlor trick. ...
We totally understand why atheists avoid the burden of proof. We all know that atheists are the very definition of a "WIMP" and why? Because they always scream about "burden of proof" We both KNOW that if the burden of proof was placed on their tiny narrow shoulders, they will IMMEDIATELY COLLAPSE!! Their worldview is irrational and pathetic We don't mind to demonstrate why intelligence is an infinitely more adequate potent cause in comparison to - wait - what exactly ?!! There is NO ALTERNATIVE to an eternal necessary powerful Creator; Maybe rub that in the face will help to wake-up their brains and start thinking ?
The way to find truth about origins is to find out, either if there is a God, an intelligent creator, or not. These are the two possible explanations, this is the framework to work with, and within these two options to find the best explanation. When weak atheists try to argue that they just do not believe in claims made by theists, until the burden of proof is met, they want to have an advantage right from the beginning. At this point, one side has to sweat to make a case, while the other side has an easy play to be the judge, without the burden of proof to provide evidence why the "no-God hypothesis" is valid.
If nonbelievers in theism are going to argue that adequate answers exist without the need for God, they are at least going to have to provide sufficient naturalistic explanations. Asking to provide positive, compelling evidence that points to the fact that the natural world can have an origin by its own, is not the same as to ask for evidence that God does not exist. It is one of the most frequent logical fallacies seen in atheism/theism debates. That is called an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. This illicit negative occurs when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises. Both sides, however, must be able to present and adopt a well-articulated, thorough-going positive worldview based on positive evidence that results in good reasons to infer naturalism or creationism/Intelligent Design. What the debater must present, is a positive case for theism/atheism by reference to the evidence that favours a theistic/atheistic interpretation of reality.
Atheists also have a burden of proof. All of us, in attempting to explain the world around us, move from a plethora of questions to a single responsibility:
There Are Only Two Kinds of Answers In the end, the answers to these questions can be divided into two simple categories: Answers from the perspective of philosophical naturalism (a view I held as an atheist), or answers that accept the existence of supernatural forces (a view I now hold as a theist). Atheists maintain that life’s most important questions can be answered from a purely naturalistic perspective (without the intervention of a supernatural, Divine Being). Theists argue that the evidence often leaves naturalism ‘wanting’ for answers while the intervention of an intelligent, transcendent Creator appears to be the best inference. In times like these, the theist finds it evidentially reasonable to infer a supernatural cause.
There Are Only Two Kinds of Answers In the end, the answers to these questions can be divided into two simple categories: Answers from the perspective of philosophical naturalism (a view I held as an atheist), or answers that accept the existence of supernatural forces (a view I now hold as a theist). Atheists maintain that life’s most important questions can be answered from a purely naturalistic perspective (without the intervention of a supernatural, Divine Being). Theists argue that the evidence often leaves naturalism ‘wanting’ for answers while the intervention of an intelligent, transcendent Creator appears to be the best inference. In times like these, the theist finds it evidentially reasonable to infer a supernatural cause.
Comparing worldviews - there are basically just two
Norman Geisler:
The creation-evolution debate is not religion versus science or the Bible versus science, it's about good science versus bad science. Likewise, it's not faith versus reason, its about reasonable faith, versus unreasonable faith.
Any worldview is limited in that it does not grant absolute truth, but only yields degrees of probability or likelihood. Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability of a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available. Bayesian inference has found application in a wide range of activities, including science, theology, and philosophy. After careful examination, all we can do is come to instant-deduction to the best explanation.
Either there is a God - creator and causal agency of the universe, or not. God either exists or he doesn’t. These are the only two possible explanations.
Naturalism:
- Multiverse
- Virtual particles
- Big Bang
- Accretion theory
- Abiogenesis
- Common ancestry
- Evolution
In regards of the origin of the universe, it was either eternal, or had a beginning, in that case, the proponent of naturalism would have to give an explanation of the cause of the universe, and/or explain how it could exist eternally, without a beginning. The universe is finely tuned, so then he has the option of multiverses, where one would be life-permitting ( ours ). In regards to abiogenesis, he has random chance, and afterwards, evolution. He has to provide good reasons why these alternatives have more/better explanatory power than design.
Theism:
- Ontological Arguments
- Cosmological Arguments
- Teleological Arguments
- Theological Arguments
- Moral Arguments
- Transcendental Arguments
- Transcendent eternal God/Creator
- created the universe and stretched it out
- Created the Galaxies, Stars, Planets, the earth, and the moon
- Created life in all its variants and forms
- Created man and woman as special creation, upon his own image
- Theology and philosophy: Both lead to an eternal, self-existent, omnipresent transcendent, conscious, intelligent, personal and moral Creator.
The Christian faith based on the Bible:
- The Bible: The Old Testament is a catalogue of fulfilled prophecies of Jesus Christ, and his mission, death, and resurrection foretold with specificity.
- Archaeology: Demonstrates that all events described in the Bible are historical facts.
- History: Historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth, and really did physically rise from the dead
- The Bible's witnesses: There are many testimonies of Jesus doing miracles still today, and Jesus appearing to people all over the globe, still today.
- End times: The signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are occuring in front of our eyes. New world order, microchip implant etc.
- After-life experiences: Credible witnesses have seen the afterlife and have come back and reported to us that the afterlife is real.
1. If the weight of the Christian worldview is making sense above 50 % compared to atheism,
or any different religion, then it is rational to believe in Christ, and commit living as a Christian.
2. Christianity has at least a 50 % chance of being true.
3. Therefore, it is rational to commit to live as a Christian.
How you can provide a better worldview based on naturalism/strong atheism over a proponent of creationism / intelligent designNorman Geisler:
The creation-evolution debate is not religion versus science or the Bible versus science, it's about good science versus bad science. Likewise, it's not faith versus reason, its about reasonable faith, versus unreasonable faith.
Any worldview is limited in that it does not grant absolute truth, but only yields degrees of probability or likelihood. Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability of a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available. Bayesian inference has found application in a wide range of activities, including science, theology, and philosophy. After careful examination, all we can do is come to instant-deduction to the best explanation.
Either there is a God - creator and causal agency of the universe, or not. God either exists or he doesn’t. These are the only two possible explanations.
Naturalism:
- Multiverse
- Virtual particles
- Big Bang
- Accretion theory
- Abiogenesis
- Common ancestry
- Evolution
In regards of the origin of the universe, it was either eternal, or had a beginning, in that case, the proponent of naturalism would have to give an explanation of the cause of the universe, and/or explain how it could exist eternally, without a beginning. The universe is finely tuned, so then he has the option of multiverses, where one would be life-permitting ( ours ). In regards to abiogenesis, he has random chance, and afterwards, evolution. He has to provide good reasons why these alternatives have more/better explanatory power than design.
Theism:
- Ontological Arguments
- Cosmological Arguments
- Teleological Arguments
- Theological Arguments
- Moral Arguments
- Transcendental Arguments
- Transcendent eternal God/Creator
- created the universe and stretched it out
- Created the Galaxies, Stars, Planets, the earth, and the moon
- Created life in all its variants and forms
- Created man and woman as special creation, upon his own image
- Theology and philosophy: Both lead to an eternal, self-existent, omnipresent transcendent, conscious, intelligent, personal and moral Creator.
The Christian faith based on the Bible:
- The Bible: The Old Testament is a catalogue of fulfilled prophecies of Jesus Christ, and his mission, death, and resurrection foretold with specificity.
- Archaeology: Demonstrates that all events described in the Bible are historical facts.
- History: Historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth, and really did physically rise from the dead
- The Bible's witnesses: There are many testimonies of Jesus doing miracles still today, and Jesus appearing to people all over the globe, still today.
- End times: The signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are occuring in front of our eyes. New world order, microchip implant etc.
- After-life experiences: Credible witnesses have seen the afterlife and have come back and reported to us that the afterlife is real.
1. If the weight of the Christian worldview is making sense above 50 % compared to atheism,
or any different religion, then it is rational to believe in Christ, and commit living as a Christian.
2. Christianity has at least a 50 % chance of being true.
3. Therefore, it is rational to commit to live as a Christian.
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2408-how-you-can-provide-a-better-world-view-based-on-naturalism-strong-atheism-over-a-proponent-of-creationism-intelligent-design
Comparing worldviews - there are basically just two
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2793-worldviews-there-are-basically-just-two-in-regards-of-origins#6492
Last edited by Otangelo on Fri 24 Dec 2021 - 15:03; edited 9 times in total
