If Stephen Fry Met God - Revisited God & Problem of Evil

[Husker_x]

 

 

So, I still stand that if evil is the atheist's strongest point against God's existence, the atheist has a burden of proof to show how God and suffering cannot co-exist.

 

The Theist still has the initial burden of proof to show that God exists. Without that proof, literally every other part of the conversation is speculation.

Yes, but that brings us all back to the point that both sides have a hard time proving that God does or does not exist. The atheist might have certain arguments and 'evidences' and the theist the same (First Cause, Fine Tuning, Complexity,Moral, etc) What I am saying is that the atheist cannot use the existence of evil as a argument to refute the existence of God. They would have to prove first that God and evil cannot co-exist at the same time to use that as a valid argument against God's existence.

 

X - can I bingo myself ? Just kidding. I agree both sides have burdens to prove and perhaps the Theist more so - esp if the argument is only based on naturalistic evidences - what I can feel, see, touch etc.

I just want to clarify something. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity. It is NOT the claim: God does not exist. That position is called hard atheism and is actually pretty rare.

 

This distinction is important because it places the burden of proof solely on the religious advocate. Atheism is just the default position until the person with a God claim can substantiate it.

[BigRedBuster]

Again, the atheist has zero reason to prove anything. In any conversation about "god," the first question is, "Where is 'god?'" It is incumbent upon the person claiming their god exists to show that it does.

That's your opinion.

 

And, I agree with you if an atheist is walking down the street minding his/her own business and some bible thumper comes up and tries to convert them....the atheist has nothing to prove. "leave me alone, I'm perfectly happy till you can prove to me God exists" is a perfectly fine attitude in that situation.

 

However, if I'm a believer and I'm walking down the street minding my own business and an atheist comes up and tries to tell me God doesn't exist and that my ideas of reality are stupid and ignorant, then it is up to him/her to prove why my ideas of a God are wrong.

 

I don't believe I have ever started a conversation on here about God. However, if I am asked, I will tell someone why I believe there is a God. Now, you can accept my explanation and walk away or, you can question it more. If you just look at me and say, "well, that's stupid, he doesn't exist". Then....fine.....either prove to me why my ideas of reality are stupid and wrong or get out of my face and leave me alone.

 

However, I will always have complete intentions of being respectful to the atheist's view point and I expect the same from them on my view point. (and BTW..., I think lately we have had that on here)

[TGHusker]

 

 

 

So, I still stand that if evil is the atheist's strongest point against God's existence, the atheist has a burden of proof to show how God and suffering cannot co-exist.

The Theist still has the initial burden of proof to show that God exists. Without that proof, literally every other part of the conversation is speculation.

Yes, but that brings us all back to the point that both sides have a hard time proving that God does or does not exist. The atheist might have certain arguments and 'evidences' and the theist the same (First Cause, Fine Tuning, Complexity,Moral, etc) What I am saying is that the atheist cannot use the existence of evil as a argument to refute the existence of God. They would have to prove first that God and evil cannot co-exist at the same time to use that as a valid argument against God's existence.

 

X - can I bingo myself ? Just kidding. I agree both sides have burdens to prove and perhaps the Theist more so - esp if the argument is only based on naturalistic evidences - what I can feel, see, touch etc.

I just want to clarify something. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity. It is NOT the claim: God does not exist. That position is called hard atheism and is actually pretty rare.

 

This distinction is important because it places the burden of proof solely on the religious advocate. Atheism is just the default position until the person with a God claim can substantiate it.

 

X that is a newer clarification for me. I've always defined atheism towards the hard side. I've taken the "simply a lack of belief' as more agnostic.

agnostic

 

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

 

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

 

 

[knapplc]

 

Again, the atheist has zero reason to prove anything. In any conversation about "god," the first question is, "Where is 'god?'" It is incumbent upon the person claiming their god exists to show that it does.

That's your opinion.

 

And, I agree with you if an atheist is walking down the street minding his/her own business and some bible thumper comes up and tries to convert them....the atheist has nothing to prove. "leave me alone, I'm perfectly happy till you can prove to me God exists" is a perfectly fine attitude in that situation.

 

However, if I'm a believer and I'm walking down the street minding my own business and an atheist comes up and tries to tell me God doesn't exist and that my ideas of reality are stupid and ignorant, then it is up to him/her to prove why my ideas of a God are wrong.

 

I don't believe I have ever started a conversation on here about God. However, if I am asked, I will tell someone why I believe there is a God. Now, you can accept my explanation and walk away or, you can question it more. If you just look at me and say, "well, that's stupid, he doesn't exist". Then....fine.....either prove to me why my ideas of reality are stupid and wrong or get out of my face and leave me alone.

 

However, I will always have complete intentions of being respectful to the atheist's view point and I expect the same from them on my view point. (and BTW..., I think lately we have had that on here)

 

 

If we want to assign shifting burdens of proof (which I disagree with, but I'll play along with for the sake of argument), the only thing the atheist would have to say is, "Show me your god." That's a sufficient question for the discussion, and places the burden solely on the theist to prove. When the god is not produced forthwith, as gods never are, evidence comes into play - but again, the evidence also must submit to that burden of proof, and it is incumbent on the theist to show the validity of their "proofs."

[TGHusker]

From BRB

 

However, I will always have complete intentions of being respectful to the atheist's view point and I expect the same from them on my view point. (and BTW..., I think lately we have had that on here)

 

 

Agree 100% - Good points and attitudes by all. I think some of the best I've seen on HB - political/religion forum.

[TGHusker]

 

 

Again, the atheist has zero reason to prove anything. In any conversation about "god," the first question is, "Where is 'god?'" It is incumbent upon the person claiming their god exists to show that it does.

That's your opinion.

 

And, I agree with you if an atheist is walking down the street minding his/her own business and some bible thumper comes up and tries to convert them....the atheist has nothing to prove. "leave me alone, I'm perfectly happy till you can prove to me God exists" is a perfectly fine attitude in that situation.

 

However, if I'm a believer and I'm walking down the street minding my own business and an atheist comes up and tries to tell me God doesn't exist and that my ideas of reality are stupid and ignorant, then it is up to him/her to prove why my ideas of a God are wrong.

 

I don't believe I have ever started a conversation on here about God. However, if I am asked, I will tell someone why I believe there is a God. Now, you can accept my explanation and walk away or, you can question it more. If you just look at me and say, "well, that's stupid, he doesn't exist". Then....fine.....either prove to me why my ideas of reality are stupid and wrong or get out of my face and leave me alone.

 

However, I will always have complete intentions of being respectful to the atheist's view point and I expect the same from them on my view point. (and BTW..., I think lately we have had that on here)

 

 

If we want to assign shifting burdens of proof (which I disagree with, but I'll play along with for the sake of argument), the only thing the atheist would have to say is, "Show me your god." That's a sufficient question for the discussion, and places the burden solely on the theist to prove. When the god is not produced forthwith, as gods never are, evidence comes into play - but again, the evidence also must submit to that burden of proof, and it is incumbent on the theist to show the validity of their "proofs."

 

Knapp, that reminds me of a situation I was in when in college. From your Christian days you may have had a similar experience. I was sharing my faith with someone (back when I had a lot of zeal but zero tack) and the person in anger said to me "I won't believe until I see a hand come out of the clouds and point a finger at me and I hear a voice saying 'repent'".

Of course it is impossible to present God in a nice box and say here he is - that defies the very description of God. I do think God reveals himself to us when we turn our hearts towards him but that may be too much of a 'supernatural' event to be shown as evidence even if it has been life changing for billions of people from all cultures throughout the ages.

Hard evidence or proofs - Jesus said 'this generation looks for a sign' and then he says he will give the 'sign of Jonah' - referring that he'd be raised up in 3 days. The Christian faith specifically revolves around one issue - the resurrection. Everything else are just 'rabbit trails'. If Jesus was resurrected then most issues are resolved. If he wasn't then I'm with you and X - believing in only a see and touch world of materialism. I believe He was. Regarding the hard proofs you are seeking, I think we all know that there are scholars on both sides of the issues who bring up strong arguments for and against God's existence. It is a matter of what side we individually accept as valid.

[Hammerhead]

 

However, I will always have complete intentions of being respectful to the atheist's view point and I expect the same from them on my view point. (and BTW..., I think lately we have had that on here)

 

 

I wish everyone shared that same respect. Disagreement is fine, but it's sad to see two people who otherwise would probably get along great being bitter enemies because they can't reconcile their political or religious differences.

[Husker_x]

TGHusker,

 

The line that includes "most inclusively" is exactly what I'm talking about. I believe theism/atheism and Gnosticism/agnosticism address different questions. The definition of atheism I used above is without question the majority view among atheists. And the reason is pretty obvious: it's impossible to prove a negative; it is impossible to demonstrate that something--anything really--does not exist. Think Russel's Teapot orbiting Mars.

[knapplc]

Of course it is impossible to present God in a nice box and say here he is - that defies the very description of God. I do think God reveals himself to us when we turn our hearts towards him but that may be too much of a 'supernatural' event to be shown as evidence even if it has been life changing for billions of people from all cultures throughout the ages.

The problem with God revealing himself to our hearts is, Vishnu does this, Allah does this, Zoroaster does this, etc, etc, etc.

[Landlord]

It is kind of a tricky proposition, however, for the theist to genuinely try to prove a God.

 

 

When we say 'prove it', what we really mean is 'prove it according to my presupposition that proof is only bound within the confines of science', which...well. If God is doing something, that's called supernatural. Science studies natural, so we're still stuck at a standstill.

 

 

Suppose Jesus did raise from the dead. Then suppose you were there. Even if you examined his body, determined him to be fully and wholly deceased, and then also saw him exit the tomb and walk and talk and eat, you still would be ferociously hesitant to cede that he supernaturally rose from the dead, and would still find "faith" in some yet unexplained natural phenomena as to how this had happened.

[zoogs]

If we abandon the presupposition that proof is only bound within the confines of science, anything conceivably goes.

 

I guess that's an interesting one. How does one reject other faiths and their stories? I suppose it's a very personal journey for everyone. With a pretty high default weight.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Again, the atheist has zero reason to prove anything. In any conversation about "god," the first question is, "Where is 'god?'" It is incumbent upon the person claiming their god exists to show that it does.

That's your opinion.

 

And, I agree with you if an atheist is walking down the street minding his/her own business and some bible thumper comes up and tries to convert them....the atheist has nothing to prove. "leave me alone, I'm perfectly happy till you can prove to me God exists" is a perfectly fine attitude in that situation.

 

However, if I'm a believer and I'm walking down the street minding my own business and an atheist comes up and tries to tell me God doesn't exist and that my ideas of reality are stupid and ignorant, then it is up to him/her to prove why my ideas of a God are wrong.

 

I don't believe I have ever started a conversation on here about God. However, if I am asked, I will tell someone why I believe there is a God. Now, you can accept my explanation and walk away or, you can question it more. If you just look at me and say, "well, that's stupid, he doesn't exist". Then....fine.....either prove to me why my ideas of reality are stupid and wrong or get out of my face and leave me alone.

 

However, I will always have complete intentions of being respectful to the atheist's view point and I expect the same from them on my view point. (and BTW..., I think lately we have had that on here)

 

 

If we want to assign shifting burdens of proof (which I disagree with, but I'll play along with for the sake of argument), the only thing the atheist would have to say is, "Show me your god." That's a sufficient question for the discussion, and places the burden solely on the theist to prove. When the god is not produced forthwith, as gods never are, evidence comes into play - but again, the evidence also must submit to that burden of proof, and it is incumbent on the theist to show the validity of their "proofs."

 

Knapp,

 

This conversation reminds me of a conversation I had at a graduation reception last Saturday. I walked in wearing a purple shirt (don't laugh it's an awesome shirt). Anyway, my friend looks and me and laughs, "Well, at least I didn't wear a pink shirt". I looked puzzled and he leaned over and said...."ummm...it's not pink is it?" You see, he is extremely color blind so he doesn't see purple, he sees pink.

 

Now, if he didn't believe me that it was purple, I would have absolutely no way in the world of proving to him that it's purple because, he sees pink.

 

So....back to this conversation. When you say, "Show me your God", all I can do is tell you why I believe he exists and the evidence I have seen/felt/experienced that proves that to me. If that evidence isn't good enough for someone who doesn't see and experience the same thing, I can't do anything about it other than live my life in a manner that doesn't turn him off to the possibility of how I believe. That is how I see my spiritual goal in life. I can't convince people there is a God who don't have any desire or reason to believe. But, as a Christian, i need to live my life in a manner so that if someone opens up the possibility of God, I didn't do something to deter them from what I believe.

 

You believe what you believe. I believe what I believe. I can't walk in with a "person" to your office and say..."Hey...let me introduce God". If that is what people are asking, then it's not going to happen.

 

Now, if I tell my friend that my shirt is purple and he gets in a big argument with me that it's pink, then, fine, prove to me it's pink. I might even show him the tag it came with when I purchased it that says purple and he will say..."Ha...that manufacturer only wants you to think it's purple."

 

You know what??? if that's the conversation, then so be it.

[NUance]

 

Of course it is impossible to present God in a nice box and say here he is - that defies the very description of God. I do think God reveals himself to us when we turn our hearts towards him but that may be too much of a 'supernatural' event to be shown as evidence even if it has been life changing for billions of people from all cultures throughout the ages.

The problem with God revealing himself to our hearts is, Vishnu does this, Allah does this, Zoroaster does this, etc, etc, etc.

 

 

Maybe, in some instances, that's just how God appeared to those people in that time and place. I believe in the Christian God. But I can't say with certainty (nor can anyone else) that God hasn't appeared to other groups of people in other contexts.

[TGHusker]

 

Of course it is impossible to present God in a nice box and say here he is - that defies the very description of God. I do think God reveals himself to us when we turn our hearts towards him but that may be too much of a 'supernatural' event to be shown as evidence even if it has been life changing for billions of people from all cultures throughout the ages.

The problem with God revealing himself to our hearts is, Vishnu does this, Allah does this, Zoroaster does this, etc, etc, etc.

 

Yes, I agree. The testimony that 'I've been changed, etc" shows that I really believe what I believe but it doesn't mean that there is hard evidence of the kind we've been talking about. There is evidence of a changed life, I contribute that to the teachings of Christ and the power behind those teachings but the next guy may claim his change is because of Budda or Richard Dawkins.

I personally believe in the power of Christ to change a life, because I experienced it and because I believe His teachings and the resurrection event.

[Husker_x]

It is kind of a tricky proposition, however, for the theist to genuinely try to prove a God.

 

 

When we say 'prove it', what we really mean is 'prove it according to my presupposition that proof is only bound within the confines of science', which...well. If God is doing something, that's called supernatural. Science studies natural, so we're still stuck at a standstill.

 

 

Suppose Jesus did raise from the dead. Then suppose you were there. Even if you examined his body, determined him to be fully and wholly deceased, and then also saw him exit the tomb and walk and talk and eat, you still would be ferociously hesitant to cede that he supernaturally rose from the dead, and would still find "faith" in some yet unexplained natural phenomena as to how this had happened.

 

Both are good points, I think.

 

On the first part––God's supernatural status putting him fundamentally at odds with scientific exploration––we're still left with disbelief (or lack of belief I should say) as our best option. Given how many people tell whoppers about things we later know to be fraudulent (like Elvis rising from the dead and walking into a Burger King), putting faith in these batch of stories––and only these stories––is betting against the House. And my complaint isn't really so much about theists proving God exists. I'm on your side. I'm wondering why he would ask such a thing of you when he has, quite literally, unlimited power to do the job himself. Making us lowly thinking apes the conveyor of the most important message mankind has or will ever hear is a terrible idea.

 

But suppose I did see someone crucified. Suppose I watched some poor bastard whipped and beaten, watched the beard ripped off his face while a mob of psychopaths taunt him and spit on him, making a real show of the thing. And then I saw him nailed to two stout pieces of timber up on a hill where he would cry and choke and suffocate to death, all in front of a crowd. All of this public humiliation so some fat politicians back in Washington––er Rome could wag his corpse around in the faces of Jews who needed to be taught a lesson about who runs what around these parts. And then after three days of fear and grumbling all over town (not so loud that the soldiers could hear), I see what appears to be the very same guy strolling down the seashore.

 

What would I think? In my innermost thoughts, I'd think that I'd lost my marbles, or at the very least it seems a 50/50 proposition. Or that whatever it is I think I saw, I misapprehended some how (he was beat up bad). But it's a really hard question to answer, because as you say, I wasn't there. And neither was anyone who ever wrote a word about it.