Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Thief]

So we don't know what gave God reason to create you. If we don't know, then is it enough to say there is an unknown beginning? Or have we taken it perhaps one step too many in considering a God with a reason?

It's nice to think there must be a reason for everything. But must there be a reason for "I am" that stands apart from "I am?" Must we put that much faith in the authority of an ontological cause-and-effect model? (That's not evidence.)

In Zen, the answer is 'no.'

I must go.
But I will be back for this.

 

[Thief]

So we don't know what gave God reason to create you. If we don't know, then is it enough to say there is an unknown beginning? Or have we taken it perhaps one step too many in considering a God with a reason?

It's nice to think there must be a reason for everything. But must there be a reason for "I am" that stands apart from "I am?" Must we put that much faith in the authority of an ontological cause-and-effect model? (That's not evidence.)

In Zen, the answer is 'no.'

I'm back.

For me it stands to reason....Someone had to be first in mind and heart.
Self aware sufficiently to say I AM.
I believe that statement to be synonymous with....'Let there be light.'

The portion we humans have difficulty with is that 'spark'.
Spark of life.....spark of light.....pinch and snap of His fingers.....

I don't believe substance is 'self' starting.
Science would have us believe substance will remain at rest until 'something' causes the stuff to move.

Substance is not 'self' replicating.

Dead things do not beget life.

So it all goes back to the beginning.
And Genesis is a profound Word.....spoken.

btw....If you are the First, you would also be alone.
That would be the cause to create Man.
(angels are a different topic)

 

[Willamena]

I'm back.

For me it stands to reason....Someone had to be first in mind and heart.
Self aware sufficiently to say I AM.
I believe that statement to be synonymous with....'Let there be light.'

The portion we humans have difficulty with is that 'spark'.
Spark of life.....spark of light.....pinch and snap of His fingers.....

Okay, but if you make that person, the who gets to be first, the one who snaps his fingers, someone else, someone other than you, someone out there at the far end of the Way Back Machine, you've removed him from the realm of knowing and planted him firmly in the realm of the imagined.

To me, that eliminates the possibility that you're believing the story you've made. Rather, it's just make-belief.

I don't believe substance is 'self' starting.
Science would have us believe substance will remain at rest until 'something' causes the stuff to move.

Substance is not 'self' replicating.

Dead things do not beget life.

So it all goes back to the beginning.
And Genesis is a profound Word.....spoken.

I, too, believe that everything happens for a reason. I'm just not a one to lay my reasons on someone else, on the other.

btw....If you are the First, you would also be alone.
That would be the cause to create Man.

I am, and it is.

 

[Thief]

Okay, but if you make that person, the who gets to be first, the one who snaps his fingers, someone else, someone other than you, someone out there at the far end of the Way Back Machine, you've removed him from the realm of knowing and planted him firmly in the realm of the imagined.

To me, that eliminates the possibility that you're believing the story you've made. Rather, it's just make-belief.


I, too, believe that everything happens for a reason. I'm just not a one to lay my reasons on someone else, on the other.


I am, and it is.

So the Creator is dead?

And if the Source of reason is dead.......

 

[Willamena]

So the Creator is dead?

And if the Source of reason is dead.......

In what way is the Creator dead?

 

[Thief]

In what way is the Creator dead?

A parting of the ways....

If both parties refuse to acknowledge each other.....they are dead to each other.

 

[Willamena]

A parting of the ways....

If both parties refuse to acknowledge each other.....they are dead to each other.

That's the thing. There is only one party.

But perhaps that's a discussion for another thread.

 

[Thief]

That's the thing. There is only one party.

But perhaps that's a discussion for another thread.

Title and pm me....please.

 

[Bunyip]

Okay, we aren't supposed to believe explanations. Gotcha.

Correct, you are supposed to try to understand an explanation, it is not a belief.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

But look more closely. The atheist is making a claim: The claim that theists have not met their burden of proof.

Who decides this? There is no objective arbiter. Why should we, or the theist, accept the assertion that the burden of proof has not been met?

I think this is likely the whole issue summed up right here, because the answer to "who decides this" is "every individual" - the reason there are no "objective arbiters". Each person is free to come to their own conclusions in this realm. Even many gods supposedly support this, I've heard.

Do you really think that, if there were an arbiter of some form, people would allow themselves to be forced to accept evidence that itself usually requires belief to remain solid?

I feel like I need to provide an example for this - I go to a church, because my wife is a Christian, and I actually observe and attempt to witness... well... anything I am able, I suppose. This church likes to let the zeal take hold of them, and in the throes of their "worship" sometimes let it culminate in attempts to "heal" people in the congregation. There have been claims by people that some sight or hearing impairment had been improved, or a joint pain of some kind relieved when they were prayed over for healing - and people break out their cell-phones or cameras to record these events. There was even a claim made that, at a service I didn't go to, actual, visible wounds healed. And I thought to myself that that would have been something to see! But then, in the next service after hearing this, the pastor lauded, and had stand-up, a woman who supposedly had her back-pain relieved to the point that she could stand straighter and walk more fluidly. He specifically pointed this out and gave her testimony of the "healing" for her. Now... I suppose I am not the one to judge such things, but for myself, I couldn't help but notice that it was again something invisible - a condition dwelling within the body that was being called out here - and yet, wasn't the healing of the visible wound probably an even more forceful/convincing event? Why not call that one out as well? And why wasn't that caught on video as the others were? It got me thinking: "Where is the healing of a VISIBLE ailment?" And then the next week the woman showed up to service, as bent and hobbling as before. So - in the end - how convincing was this "evidence" for me, personally? It wasn't, at all. To the others in the crowd? Probably extremely. But their zeal for their faith does not change the fact that am allowed my skeptical interpretation of these events.