I wish this debate had been longer! I know you guys have time limits but I would've loved to see this unfold to its maximum. Great arguments Trent! Love Catholic Answers
Paulina Ramírez It did unfold to its maximum. Both sides repeatedly asked the other side to show proof that its claims are correct. Neither side could show or detail proof. Both sides repeated that the burden of proof was on the other side.
Paulina Ramírez ---it would have unfolded in favor of atheism; if they believe that "god brings good from evil", they will have to produce evidence to back up such a statement, and also prove that it was their god who did the good and not just people. After Albert Fish was caught, what good did god bring from that tragedy and how do we know it was god (an assertion from the bible wont do).
Proto Man I'm catholic do you can pretty much guess where I stand :) but I'm always open to watch and read debates like these to see what others think and also to question what I believe 'taught'.
"Are you willing to offer yourselves to God and bear all the sufferings He wills to send you, as an act of reparation for the conversion of sinners?" "Then you are going to have much to suffer, but the grace of God will be your comfort." -Our Lady of Fatima, 1917
***** When the atheist says (I don't believe in God... for whatever reason) aren't you describing the agnostic position and calling it atheistic? To be clear, the atheists say "There is no God". The Christian says "There is a God", and the agnostic "I don't know". As for "shifting the burden of proof". Evidence has been presented ad nauseum for the existence of God. None for His "non-existence". Absolutely, none and still, the atheist stubbornly stands his "ground".
+Fred Ronald King Jr Burden of proof is on the claimant...period. And I'd love to see what evidence there is for the existence of God. Since there isn't any....none.....zero....nada. You have a book...that's it....not enough. And over the years, all the scientific discoveries have shown that God wasn't involved....lightning, earthquakes, the sun, etc. Every day, the list of what God does gets smaller and smaller. He isn't needed, let the fantasy go.
The "claimant" said "there is no God". Where's his proof, or even a speck of evidence? You're reaming me for being a "claimant " when all I did was comment on the video. Did you even watch it? Are you saying that, even though "it's not enough", my "Book" is indeed evidence? If so, the claims in that "Book" bear investigation, no?
+Cole Lamers , that my friend, is some circular insanity! :-D you know very well that the burden of proof lays squarely on your shoulders, don't you? You're saying outright that God does not exist, and you accept as proof that there's no proof to the contrary? Man, snap out of it.
No the burden is on those making the positive assertion. This includes scientists when they make a claim about physics or when someone says god is real.
I really love your this channel. The hosts always give great arguments and explain issues very well (even if I don't agree with everything). I also can't help but enjoy when an atheist comes thinking he'll destroy whoever is on the other end of the line and ends up failing miserably in trying to prove god can't be real.
The problem with this conversation is that the caller assumes the "Default Position"" is with atheism or the lack of belief in God. We can test this by "default position" as a lack of belief an apply it in other places. 1. Anyone can hold a negative position. 2. The negative position isn't always true. 3. If the negative position isn't true it cannot be a default position. Example: I claim or assert that gravity is real. The skeptic tells me to prove it. I present evidence to support my claim and the skeptic tells me I haven't provided evidence. Now we all know rejecting this claim is wrong and cannot be the default position. The real problem with any discussion or debate is confusing who has the "Burden of Proof" and the answer is no one! There is no position anyone has that requires a default burden! The burden falls on the person who makes a claim to someone else! However, you do not have a burden if you present evidence; the evidence is your reason for believing or not. If the skeptic claims what you presented is not evidence that is a "CLAIM" which requires evidence. So the burden of proof is then shifted to the claim!
I believe that the burden of proof lies on both parties. We utilize constructive debate to understand the entire spectrum, and ultimately, come closer to God.
This particular atheist was very poor at supporting his position. A good case can be made for the things he said, but he did not make it. The one place the host was right, is that this atheist (claiming there is no god) does have a burden of proof. One which I believe can be met to a high enough degree to call it knowledge. But this guy did not seem to have thought through his positions well.
The host is really very good. He has a relaxed demeanor which I like. He is right in that if someone proclaims there is no god, that person has the burden of proof to validate that there is "no god". Try to follow me here... When I think of god as all-powerful, I look at the world and I don't think it has to be anything like it is. Most theists go on the notion that there is suffering because life is a test, or that we are given struggles to make us strong. If god is all-powerful, then there is no reason to give us a test, or give us struggles to make us strong. Such motives are earthly, human concepts. Along those same lines, I have heard atheists say that a heaven with nothing but bliss would be a boring, tiresome place. They are looking at heaven with an earthly, human perspective. An all-powerful god could just exclude boredom from the equation. An all-powerful god could also exclude from the equation any need for suffering. Beyond all of that, perhaps the best thing the caller said was that even if someone could show that god exists, they are still light years away from having any inkling of what the god is all about. Consequently, there is no reason to adopt any of the many religions. In fact, given that it seems that god does not answer prayers, it may be that he doesn't want to be bothered by religions. For all anyone knows, god prefers a world of atheists.
+Katie Anderson Wow. I don't know how else to put this, but your statement that the burden of proof is on the atheists is absolute nonsense. It doesn't work that way, that's why burden of proof isn't arguable. The claimant ALWAYS has the burden of proof. You can't prove a negative, that's why it's like that. The believers just know they can't prove it so they try to say the atheists have to prove he doesn't exist. This is stupid on so many levels. Please...please...stop being one of those that says this.
+GawdAweFool The same thing can be said for non believers. Non believers know they can't prove it so they try to say that believers have to prove that he exists.
It isn't the same. Burden of proof exists because of how logic works. It is impossible to prove something doesn't exist, it can't be done. That's why the claimant is responsible. This isn't just in religion, but in everything. Now look, it is not required for believers to prove anything, but if you want to make an argument as to why there is this supreme being, it only works if the claimant can make a case. But let me ask a question. Why would God make it so difficult to prove himself? Why leave no evidence. He showed up thousands of years ago in a small area of the Middle East (didn't show up in China where they were already way ahead in areas like math and writing. He does this to prove himself, like Jesus did with miracles. There's absolutely no reason not to show up now on occasion to let everyone know he is there. And does it matter? What if he does? Are you happy worshipping (being a slave) to a creature that has murdered more human beings (including children) than any person in existence? Is that the good God we should all be happy to serve?
God didn't make us robots. Men have free will do obey God do good or evil. The evil people unfortunately . A lot of suffering comes from evil. Obey Gods commandments. We sin. We need absolve.
+ella hope God can't sin huh? So is there ever a time that murdering innocent children is ok? Any time? Oh, when God did it in the flood....right. So, you need the most psychotic, genocidal mass murderer in all of existence to absolve you. Does he do this after he stones gays, unwed mothers, children who curse their parents, those that work on the Sabbath, and those that shave? Is that when he gets to absolving?
"Default setting"? So what about our race? our sexuality? color of our skin? how come those factors have no "default setting", but belief in God has to have one? Funny how this caller tries to reason his way that God isn't real, but the way he justify it is silly. How about asking yourself this....."Why do I exist? How did I come to be? How is that my organs functions like a clockwork that they are separate, yet dependent on one another? Who made me possible? My parents? Who made them possible? My grandparents? so on & on. Before you disprove or attempt to do so, why don't you start figuring out something that you know already exist and that is you.
the callers issue is that he opened with basically, 'i can disprove the existence of any god' (which is ridiculous cause a god can be defined as anything) he should have opened with i can disprove YOUR god, it is a much simpler discussion and can be proven or disproved, but by allowing the host to define god as simply "goodness" instead of questioning the validity of scripture which is the basis from which the god definition of Christianity is derived from.
If bad things happen to a many good people of this world, and religious people just say that God allows these events for some good reason, I would say that it is to identify those who will not actually get out and help these other suffering folk. In other words, it will identify those selfish people who simply stick to their religion and point the finger at it being nothing but God's mysterious work, and that is all. Thus it identifies those who have failed.
As a Catholic, I have realized that belief in God is based upon fideism, versus evidence. Christian apologetics is a useful task to undertake, but ultimately it does little to show justification for Christianity. Logic and God are not compatible, because God is incoherent by the laws of logic.
This is a poor atheist call. He allows the burden of proof to be shifted. The theist claim that there is a God. The Atheist response is we don't buy it. That's it. It's up to the person making the claim to back up their claim.
Thank you for your comment. Religion is not the cause, Human greed is. The natural order of animals, have no religion, it is a kill or be killed, eat or be eaten. We humans were created to chose better than that.
+Fr Louie Goad Fr I had the same discussion with a person claiming to be a secular humanist having the same argument as religion as the source of conflict. The person I was "debating" (it wasn't much of a debate since most of my statements were ignored) with could not accept that sin is from man and not the presence of religion. "Religion is not the cause, Human greed is." I had an identical statement and they just can't conceive that.
Thank you for your comments: Same argument? Do not argue, a simple, quiet discussion. Arguments never end up well. It is true, humans look for anyone or anything to put the blame on other than one selfe. To confess , sin, weakness, and human shortfalls is not accepted by most people. It must always be some others fault for our position. Thank you for your comment:
While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether you're talking about things like science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of proof lies with the deviation from the norm. Right now, the majority of the world's population believes there is a Supreme Being. Plus, throughout known history, humans have believed in some sort of God. These points are enough to clearly establish theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to the atheist to make a case for the deviation. In addition, atheists can't employ evidentialist principles to argue that religious belief is irrational if they are unwilling to apply those same principles to atheism, which is not evidence-based. Furthermore, there is evidence for God. Testimonial evidence abounds. Millions claim that God has touched their hearts, cured their illnesses and improved their lives. Now, atheists simply refuse to acknowledge this evidence, because they accept only scientifically verifiable evidence. However, this is a restriction that they have chosen to place upon themselves, and yet they demand that others do the same thing, which is ridiculous. Then the atheist will usually follow up by saying that human testimony can't be trusted because human senses can't be trusted. The fact is, this is simply twisted logic because it effectively discounts almost "all" life experiences. These are just a few examples of how atheism shuts down the mind.
I believe that Trent Horn's argument is merely an argumentum ad ignorantiam. The caller is correct when he says that Horn's claim is a claim of knowledge, and that the burden of proof rests on him. So too is Horn correct when he says that there is a big difference between claiming not to know if there is a god and claiming that there is no god. But the fact that we can't know if a god doesn't exist or not is a natural consequence of the fact that we can never absolutely prove or disprove something. We are left to observe the evidence we have. Evidence supporting a claim allows are to be more confident in its veracity, but will never absolutely prove it to be true. The fact that we don't know that there isn't a god, however, isn't an argument for the existence of a god, as Horn seems to make it to be. While we don't know whether or not there is a god, there is not sufficient evidence to be confident in the idea that there is a god, so it is reasonable to believe that there is probably not, but might be a god.
I am a devout Catholic and don't worry, my faith is not shaken. But the Atheist on the phone definitely has a very strong point. The burden of proof in an educational stand always end with the one who says they believe in something, not the person who says "I don't believe in that something." The existence of of God is actually our responsibility as Christians to prove, not something for us to bounce things back to the one who does not believe in God. It is not their burden of proof. I understand that the existence of our God cannot be proven by mere human evidences. That it goes into what we call faith. But in the end, we have to admit it, God Jesus Christ went down to earth to make God known to us in our very limited human understanding. Therefore, I believe there are a lot of evidence around us to prove God exists in our own limited human understanding, it is just that it is hard for us to organize and structure all of these and we can't forever hide under the mantle of "Faith" as our defense when we could not show physical evidences of his existence. Therefore, we must truly have that very strong and solid reason that God does exist in a scientific manner. I know some of us would say God is beyond Science, therefore science can't really prove His existence, but science is God's creation so that we may understand His creation. It is good if somehow, one very great Theologian can use science and the scientific process that indeed, God has always existed.
The burden of proof clearly lies with the claimant. There is no requirement for someone who says that something does not exist to prove that statement. Thus, atheists do not have to prove that God does not exist, whereas theists should at least acknowledge that they are the ones with the obligation to do so. For me it's clear. Humans invented the idea of Good for two reasons: 1. to explain why things are the way they are in the absence of anything better. 2. to make themselves feel better about death. So, simple really, Good is a human concept and that's i all there is to it.
+ella hope While I'm reasonable sure a someone named Jeshua ben Joseph lived some time around 2000 years ago, and probably preached about your God, and was executed by the Romans, I completely reject that he was a Christ, or Messiah. As for this Jewish historian "who lived back then and saw", I'm curious who you're referring to. Surely not Josephus.
+ella hope I've seen hundreds of books that claim people were abducted by aliens, probed, and then returned. Lots of witnesses. By the way, the absolute worst evidence in any case is eye witness testimony. It's always biased, never accurate. There are more books written on the Loch Ness Monster...with numerous witnesses.....sorry, doesn't matter it doesn't exist.
Jake Roberts *More than this, eye-witness accounts don't count as evidence* Indeed that is so. What's worse is that Christianity doesn't have eye-witness accounts. What they have are "good news" stories, and the general agreement is that the gospel authors are unknown.
Seems to me the point that the atheist wasn't getting across is that, he doesn't believe your definition of God, because it's contradicting itself. Also I think a good point to make with regards to epistemology and your definition of god, is that you have an epistemic burden of proof. If you claim God is the "perfect act of being, "all powerful , etc" you have an epistemic burden to prove that. Because this is definition corresponds to something in reality. It's not like saying X=2. So if you define God in that way the question how do you know still applies, and his no answer is still valid without requiring him to assume the burden of proof. All you did was pull a sophist's switcheroo.
NO! Atheist just don't tell a dying person, "Oh well, guess you just gonna die and go in the ground,." Why do religious people just make up prejudice things? Just because a person claims they do not believe in a god, does not mean they go out doing evil things or are cold at heart. Does this person go out and tell black people they are lesser, just because of the color of their shin?
You know how simple it is not to follow God? When you read His core 10 rules that not working on Sundays appears to be more important than a rule about rape. That's it. That's when I stop following.
I'm gonna have to go with the talking snake, a magic apple an old man sitting on a cloud who decides to impregnate a Palestinian peasant girl so she can present him with a son who will die on Earth ( but not really )...and then return to the clouds to be with himself.. !!! Yep I'm going with that......
And in that, you give yourself away. You're not a serious interlocutor. You think the way to undermine the opposing position is by attempting to mock/talk down at the position (and those that hold that position). This is not the classical atheistic approach: think Camus, Sartre, etc., who were serious men. Your effort (insofar as you put forth any) is much more pedantic and Dawkins-esque in style. My suggestion is that you try a little harder. If you want to actually discuss the subject, then step up and put forward an actual argument.
God allows evil and bad things to happen for a good reason? NO! That is NOT an except! If this so call god speaks to you, then what is the reason? God seems to give you all these so called "good" reasons he exists, why is he/she/it keeping this other stuff a secret? I guess we should stop prosecuting murderers, cause they're just to these evil and bad things for god's good reason, eh?
Catholic Answers is desperately needed to clarify various misconceptions about Catholicism, and it does a good job doing so.
I wish this debate had been longer! I know you guys have time limits but I would've loved to see this unfold to its maximum.
Great arguments Trent! Love Catholic Answers
Paulina Ramírez It did unfold to its maximum. Both sides repeatedly asked the other side to show proof that its claims are correct. Neither side could show or detail proof. Both sides repeated that the burden of proof was on the other side.
I agree! Wish it was longer!
Paulina Ramírez ---it would have unfolded in favor of atheism; if they believe that "god brings good from evil", they will have to produce evidence to back up such a statement, and also prove that it was their god who did the good and not just people. After Albert Fish was caught, what good did god bring from that tragedy and how do we know it was god (an assertion from the bible wont do).
Stephanie Mundy Yes I agree , what is your thoughts or position on the argument? I'd be interested to know.
Proto Man I'm catholic do you can pretty much guess where I stand :) but I'm always open to watch and read debates like these to see what others think and also to question what I believe 'taught'.
I'm an atheist and I cringed when he said "no" at 1:29.
Brilliant reply to the atheist.
"Are you willing to offer yourselves to God and bear all the sufferings He wills to send you, as an act of reparation for the conversion of sinners?"
"Then you are going to have much to suffer, but the grace of God will be your comfort."
-Our Lady of Fatima, 1917
Atheism is not the default "setting" for a person. At the beginning of your life you neither believe nor disbelieve because you have never pondered.
"The burden of proof is on he who says he knows something" "Is there a God?" "No but, the burden of proof is not on me." Atheism destrys itself.
***** When the atheist says (I don't believe in God... for whatever reason) aren't you describing the agnostic position and calling it atheistic? To be clear, the atheists say "There is no God". The Christian says "There is a God", and the agnostic "I don't know".
As for "shifting the burden of proof". Evidence has been presented ad nauseum for the existence of God. None for His "non-existence". Absolutely, none and still, the atheist stubbornly stands his "ground".
+Fred Ronald King Jr Burden of proof is on the claimant...period. And I'd love to see what evidence there is for the existence of God. Since there isn't any....none.....zero....nada. You have a book...that's it....not enough. And over the years, all the scientific discoveries have shown that God wasn't involved....lightning, earthquakes, the sun, etc. Every day, the list of what God does gets smaller and smaller. He isn't needed, let the fantasy go.
The "claimant" said "there is no God". Where's his proof, or even a speck of evidence? You're reaming me for being a "claimant " when all I did was comment on the video. Did you even watch it?
Are you saying that, even though "it's not enough", my "Book" is indeed evidence? If so, the claims in that "Book" bear investigation, no?
+Cole Lamers , that my friend, is some circular insanity! :-D you know very well that the burden of proof lays squarely on your shoulders, don't you?
You're saying outright that God does not exist, and you accept as proof that there's no proof to the contrary? Man, snap out of it.
No the burden is on those making the positive assertion. This includes scientists when they make a claim about physics or when someone says god is real.
I really love your this channel. The hosts always give great arguments and explain issues very well (even if I don't agree with everything). I also can't help but enjoy when an atheist comes thinking he'll destroy whoever is on the other end of the line and ends up failing miserably in trying to prove god can't be real.
The problem with this conversation is that the caller assumes the "Default Position"" is with atheism or the lack of belief in God.
We can test this by "default position" as a lack of belief an apply it in other places.
1. Anyone can hold a negative position.
2. The negative position isn't always true.
3. If the negative position isn't true it cannot be a default position.
Example: I claim or assert that gravity is real. The skeptic tells me to prove it. I present evidence to support my claim and the skeptic tells me I haven't provided evidence. Now we all know rejecting this claim is wrong and cannot be the default position.
The real problem with any discussion or debate is confusing who has the "Burden of Proof" and the answer is no one! There is no position anyone has that requires a default burden! The burden falls on the person who makes a claim to someone else! However, you do not have a burden if you present evidence; the evidence is your reason for believing or not. If the skeptic claims what you presented is not evidence that is a "CLAIM" which requires evidence. So the burden of proof is then shifted to the claim!
Well Eucharist miracles mean there is more then material. It is kept in being and alive by a supernatural abilities.
I believe that the burden of proof lies on both parties. We utilize constructive debate to understand the entire spectrum, and ultimately, come closer to God.
This particular atheist was very poor at supporting his position. A good case can be made for the things he said, but he did not make it. The one place the host was right, is that this atheist (claiming there is no god) does have a burden of proof. One which I believe can be met to a high enough degree to call it knowledge.
But this guy did not seem to have thought through his positions well.
The host is really very good. He has a relaxed demeanor which I like. He is right in that if someone proclaims there is no god, that person has the burden of proof to validate that there is "no god".
Try to follow me here... When I think of god as all-powerful, I look at the world and I don't think it has to be anything like it is. Most theists go on the notion that there is suffering because life is a test, or that we are given struggles to make us strong. If god is all-powerful, then there is no reason to give us a test, or give us struggles to make us strong. Such motives are earthly, human concepts. Along those same lines, I have heard atheists say that a heaven with nothing but bliss would be a boring, tiresome place. They are looking at heaven with an earthly, human perspective. An all-powerful god could just exclude boredom from the equation. An all-powerful god could also exclude from the equation any need for suffering.
Beyond all of that, perhaps the best thing the caller said was that even if someone could show that god exists, they are still light years away from having any inkling of what the god is all about. Consequently, there is no reason to adopt any of the many religions. In fact, given that it seems that god does not answer prayers, it may be that he doesn't want to be bothered by religions. For all anyone knows, god prefers a world of atheists.
+Katie Anderson Wow. I don't know how else to put this, but your statement that the burden of proof is on the atheists is absolute nonsense. It doesn't work that way, that's why burden of proof isn't arguable. The claimant ALWAYS has the burden of proof. You can't prove a negative, that's why it's like that. The believers just know they can't prove it so they try to say the atheists have to prove he doesn't exist. This is stupid on so many levels. Please...please...stop being one of those that says this.
+GawdAweFool The same thing can be said for non believers. Non believers know they can't prove it so they try to say that believers have to prove that he exists.
It isn't the same. Burden of proof exists because of how logic works. It is impossible to prove something doesn't exist, it can't be done. That's why the claimant is responsible. This isn't just in religion, but in everything. Now look, it is not required for believers to prove anything, but if you want to make an argument as to why there is this supreme being, it only works if the claimant can make a case. But let me ask a question. Why would God make it so difficult to prove himself? Why leave no evidence. He showed up thousands of years ago in a small area of the Middle East (didn't show up in China where they were already way ahead in areas like math and writing. He does this to prove himself, like Jesus did with miracles. There's absolutely no reason not to show up now on occasion to let everyone know he is there. And does it matter? What if he does? Are you happy worshipping (being a slave) to a creature that has murdered more human beings (including children) than any person in existence? Is that the good God we should all be happy to serve?
Actually it has been shown theism is a default setting in children. In studies
God didn't make us robots. Men have free will do obey God do good or evil. The evil people unfortunately . A lot of suffering comes from evil. Obey Gods commandments. We sin. We need absolve.
+ella hope God can't sin huh? So is there ever a time that murdering innocent children is ok? Any time? Oh, when God did it in the flood....right. So, you need the most psychotic, genocidal mass murderer in all of existence to absolve you. Does he do this after he stones gays, unwed mothers, children who curse their parents, those that work on the Sabbath, and those that shave? Is that when he gets to absolving?
"Default setting"? So what about our race? our sexuality? color of our skin? how come those factors have no "default setting", but belief in God has to have one?
Funny how this caller tries to reason his way that God isn't real, but the way he justify it is silly. How about asking yourself this....."Why do I exist? How did I come to be? How is that my organs functions like a clockwork that they are separate, yet dependent on one another? Who made me possible? My parents? Who made them possible? My grandparents? so on & on. Before you disprove or attempt to do so, why don't you start figuring out something that you know already exist and that is you.
the callers issue is that he opened with basically, 'i can disprove the existence of any god' (which is ridiculous cause a god can be defined as anything) he should have opened with i can disprove YOUR god, it is a much simpler discussion and can be proven or disproved, but by allowing the host to define god as simply "goodness" instead of questioning the validity of scripture which is the basis from which the god definition of Christianity is derived from.
so all he did was reverse his question on burden on him and ask him to prove his beliefs.
If bad things happen to a many good people of this world, and religious people just say that God allows these events for some good reason, I would say that it is to identify those who will not actually get out and help these other suffering folk. In other words, it will identify those selfish people who simply stick to their religion and point the finger at it being nothing but God's mysterious work, and that is all. Thus it identifies those who have failed.
As a Catholic, I have realized that belief in God is based upon fideism, versus evidence.
Christian apologetics is a useful task to undertake, but ultimately it does little to show justification for Christianity.
Logic and God are not compatible, because God is incoherent by the laws of logic.
This is a poor atheist call. He allows the burden of proof to be shifted. The theist claim that there is a God. The Atheist response is we don't buy it. That's it. It's up to the person making the claim to back up their claim.
God gets the blame for man's sin;
Atheism refuse to see God.
Thank you for the time spent on your comment.
Respect for other views, this is the best path for world peace.
Fr Louie Goad
World peace is an impossibility as long as religion exists.
Thank you for your comment.
Religion is not the cause, Human greed is.
The natural order of animals, have no religion, it is a kill or be killed, eat or be eaten.
We humans were created to chose better than that.
+Fr Louie Goad Fr I had the same discussion with a person claiming to be a secular humanist having the same argument as religion as the source of conflict. The person I was "debating" (it wasn't much of a debate since most of my statements were ignored) with could not accept that sin is from man and not the presence of religion. "Religion is not the cause, Human greed is." I had an identical statement and they just can't conceive that.
Thank you for your comments: Same argument? Do not argue, a simple, quiet discussion. Arguments never end up well.
It is true, humans look for anyone or anything to put the blame on other than one selfe.
To confess , sin, weakness, and human shortfalls is not accepted by most people.
It must always be some others fault for our position.
Thank you for your comment:
While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether you're talking about things like science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of proof lies with the deviation from the norm. Right now, the majority of the world's population believes there is a Supreme Being. Plus, throughout known history, humans have believed in some sort of God. These points are enough to clearly establish theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to the atheist to make a case for the deviation. In addition, atheists can't employ evidentialist principles to argue that religious belief is irrational if they are unwilling to apply those same principles to atheism, which is not evidence-based.
Furthermore, there is evidence for God. Testimonial evidence abounds. Millions claim that God has touched their hearts, cured their illnesses and improved their lives.
Now, atheists simply refuse to acknowledge this evidence, because they accept only scientifically verifiable evidence. However, this is a restriction that they have chosen to place upon themselves, and yet they demand that others do the same thing, which is ridiculous.
Then the atheist will usually follow up by saying that human testimony can't be trusted because human senses can't be trusted. The fact is, this is simply twisted logic because it effectively discounts almost "all" life experiences.
These are just a few examples of how atheism shuts down the mind.
I believe that Trent Horn's argument is merely an argumentum ad ignorantiam. The caller is correct when he says that Horn's claim is a claim of knowledge, and that the burden of proof rests on him. So too is Horn correct when he says that there is a big difference between claiming not to know if there is a god and claiming that there is no god. But the fact that we can't know if a god doesn't exist or not is a natural consequence of the fact that we can never absolutely prove or disprove something. We are left to observe the evidence we have. Evidence supporting a claim allows are to be more confident in its veracity, but will never absolutely prove it to be true. The fact that we don't know that there isn't a god, however, isn't an argument for the existence of a god, as Horn seems to make it to be. While we don't know whether or not there is a god, there is not sufficient evidence to be confident in the idea that there is a god, so it is reasonable to believe that there is probably not, but might be a god.
"sufficent evidence" wouldn't that be subjective to the individual?
I am a devout Catholic and don't worry, my faith is not shaken. But the Atheist on the phone definitely has a very strong point.
The burden of proof in an educational stand always end with the one who says they believe in something, not the person who says "I don't believe in that something."
The existence of of God is actually our responsibility as Christians to prove, not something for us to bounce things back to the one who does not believe in God. It is not their burden of proof.
I understand that the existence of our God cannot be proven by mere human evidences. That it goes into what we call faith. But in the end, we have to admit it, God Jesus Christ went down to earth to make God known to us in our very limited human understanding.
Therefore, I believe there are a lot of evidence around us to prove God exists in our own limited human understanding, it is just that it is hard for us to organize and structure all of these and we can't forever hide under the mantle of "Faith" as our defense when we could not show physical evidences of his existence.
Therefore, we must truly have that very strong and solid reason that God does exist in a scientific manner. I know some of us would say God is beyond Science, therefore science can't really prove His existence, but science is God's creation so that we may understand His creation. It is good if somehow, one very great Theologian can use science and the scientific process that indeed, God has always existed.
The burden of proof clearly lies with the claimant. There is no requirement for someone who says that something does not exist to prove that statement. Thus, atheists do not have to prove that God does not exist, whereas theists should at least acknowledge that they are the ones with the obligation to do so.
For me it's clear. Humans invented the idea of Good for two reasons: 1. to explain why things are the way they are in the absence of anything better. 2. to make themselves feel better about death. So, simple really, Good is a human concept and that's i all there is to it.
Atheist it is historical that Jesus Christ lived, died, did miracles written in a Jewish historian book who lived back then and saw.
+ella hope
While I'm reasonable sure a someone named Jeshua ben Joseph lived some time around 2000 years ago, and probably preached about your God, and was executed by the Romans, I completely reject that he was a Christ, or Messiah.
As for this Jewish historian "who lived back then and saw", I'm curious who you're referring to. Surely not Josephus.
+ella hope I've seen hundreds of books that claim people were abducted by aliens, probed, and then returned. Lots of witnesses. By the way, the absolute worst evidence in any case is eye witness testimony. It's always biased, never accurate. There are more books written on the Loch Ness Monster...with numerous witnesses.....sorry, doesn't matter it doesn't exist.
Jake Roberts
*More than this, eye-witness accounts don't count as evidence*
Indeed that is so. What's worse is that Christianity doesn't have eye-witness accounts. What they have are "good news" stories, and the general agreement is that the gospel authors are unknown.
Seems to me the point that the atheist wasn't getting across is that, he doesn't believe your definition of God, because it's contradicting itself. Also I think a good point to make with regards to epistemology and your definition of god, is that you have an epistemic burden of proof. If you claim God is the "perfect act of being, "all powerful , etc" you have an epistemic burden to prove that. Because this is definition corresponds to something in reality. It's not like saying X=2. So if you define God in that way the question how do you know still applies, and his no answer is still valid without requiring him to assume the burden of proof. All you did was pull a sophist's switcheroo.
NO! Atheist just don't tell a dying person, "Oh well, guess you just gonna die and go in the ground,."
Why do religious people just make up prejudice things? Just because a person claims they do not believe in a god, does not mean they go out doing evil things or are cold at heart. Does this person go out and tell black people they are lesser, just because of the color of their shin?
Ramen.
They censored your comment...lol
ugh , the caller just wasn't thinking or listening. he has the right ideas just jumbled them up during this call
Ah. Theists destroying themselves once again.
Did I even imply that I believe in a god? Rather the opposite. :) My comment quite obviously says I don't believe in a god.
You know how simple it is not to follow God? When you read His core 10 rules that not working on Sundays appears to be more important than a rule about rape. That's it. That's when I stop following.
I'm gonna have to go with the talking snake, a magic apple an old man sitting on a cloud who decides to impregnate a Palestinian peasant girl so she can present him with a son who will die on Earth ( but not really )...and then return to the clouds to be with himself.. !!! Yep I'm going with that......
And in that, you give yourself away. You're not a serious interlocutor. You think the way to undermine the opposing position is by attempting to mock/talk down at the position (and those that hold that position). This is not the classical atheistic approach: think Camus, Sartre, etc., who were serious men. Your effort (insofar as you put forth any) is much more pedantic and Dawkins-esque in style. My suggestion is that you try a little harder. If you want to actually discuss the subject, then step up and put forward an actual argument.
God allows evil and bad things to happen for a good reason? NO! That is NOT an except!
If this so call god speaks to you, then what is the reason? God seems to give you all these so called "good" reasons he exists, why is he/she/it keeping this other stuff a secret?
I guess we should stop prosecuting murderers, cause they're just to these evil and bad things for god's good reason, eh?