Physics is only my hobby, but what you are saying jives with my limited knowledge on the subject. Staying with the double slit experiment, if you have measuring devices at the slits to determine which slit a particle goes through then you don’t get the interference pattern on the other side of the slits. This is an example of the measuring device making the observation.
Thanks for the correction.
Ok. I will change the word obvious to manifest, NT:5318> phaneros (fan-er-os’); from NT:5316; shining, i.e. apparent (literally or figuratively); neuter (as adverb) publicly, externally:
Or change it to. clearly see, NT:2529 kathorao (kath-or-ah’-o); from NT:2596 and NT:3708; to behold fully, i.e. (figuratively) distinctly apprehend:
So will say it’s not obvious, will just say that the proof of God’s existence is manifest, shining, apparent, made externally public, clearly seen, able to behold fully, and distinctly apprehended.
But what does that mean? How does it work in the real world?
People say prove to me God is real. The fact is, I don’t have to, for God has already proved it, made it manifest through the things He has created. I don’t have to struggle with the unrepentant to try to convince them that God is. What I do is proclaim the good news of the cross of Christ. That through the cross they can die to sin and be born anew, become a new creation in Jesus. That being united in Christ’s death and resurrection they not only will have forgiveness of past sins but will become bound to Jesus. He will be their Lord, not sin, the Devil, money, man or anything else in creation will lord it over them. They will be freed from the bondage to sin, to live a life of righteousness by the new spirit that God births in them and by the power of His Spirit. For freedom sake, Christ has set us free.
I can bypass all the dispute and smoke screen about them not knowing of God’s existence because God says they already know, I can go directly to the call of repentance, love, faith and obedience to God that comes through faith in Christ. Those who turn from their, “not thinking it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God” to placing all their trust and hope in the cross of Christ will be saved from their, “depraved mind and doing what ought not to be done”. It is the power of God, through the New Birth, that delivers all who lean fully on Christ from the power and lordship of sin and Satan.
That is how it works in the real world. I proclaim turning from sin and self love to an absolute trust in Jesus. I preach Christ crucified. He who knew no sin, became sin so that we would become the righteousness of God through Him. God requires the life of the sinner but Jesus paid that price to God with His own life. Jesus is our redeeming sacrifice, the price paid to free us from God’s just wrath.
HOW???
Actually, the human authors of the Bible said that.
The only argument for the existence of God which I have endorsed is “The Neglected Argument” written by Charles Sanders Pierce, described here. The reason I gave was “because it gets a handle on the subjective nature of the choice to believe.” A more cynical description would be that it embraces the fallacy of circularity as if that were a virtue rather than a logical failing. LOL
I agree up to a point. I have said it before and I will say it again… the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person who expects other people to agree. Whether it is an atheist with some nonsense about how negative claims are special and don’t require proof, or a Christian who has made the Bible the limits of any reality which he will acknowledge – no amount of such special pleading puts the burden of proof on the person you have decided must agree with you.
If that were so, we would have jails full of people who are there for no other reason that not being able to prove their innocence.
Incorrect. Punishing someone for a crime is an extreme example of requiring someone to agree with you. Everyone can believe to their hearts content that he is guilty for whatever reason – but to expect the accused to be punished requires proof. Innocent until proven guilty is an APPLICATION of this principle that the burden of proof is on anyone who expect others to agree with them. The idea that negative claim are special is just ridiculous. Anyone can say their claim is the negative one.
What negative claims? Atheism doesn’t have to make any. Let alone prove them. Despite the name.
According to your logic, a defendant would need to prove their innocence in the absence of any evidence against them.
No they do not. Prosecution and defense can believe whatever they want, with no proof required. The only need for proof is when you want to force your view on someone – which is what you do when you find the defendent guilty and make him pay. It goes to the defense by default because it is the prosecution rather than the defense who is demanding that action be taken. By your logic, it is the defense who brings the case to court – which is not only wrong but absurd.
It is the same with legislation. Whether the law is positive or negative is irrelevant. It is those who want the law passed and thus action to be taken who have to prove their case.
According to you, they do have to prove their innocence because the negative has to be supported with proof.
Doesn’t the defendant want to convince the jury they are innocent?
It is theists who claim a deity exists. The burden of proof lies with them to prove their case. The burden of proof doesn’t lie with those who are skeptical of their claims.
Nope according to me they don’t have to do anything, because they are not the ones demanding action to be taken. The burden is on the prosecution because they are the ones who want something to be done. If they have no case then the defense doesn’t have to do a thing.
Sometimes but not always. Lawyers for the defense know better and caution their client that no such thing is required.
Wrong. No more than the burden of proof lies with the defendant to prove they are innocent. The burden of proof is on those who expect others to agree with them.
Now THIS is correct! Neither theist nor atheist have to prove their case. There is only a burden of proof on someone if they expect someone else to agree with them.
The defendant is asking the jury to find them innocent.
Read the opening post and determine for yourself if people are trying to convince others that God exists.
Actually no! The choices are “guilty” and “not guilty.” The instructions the court gives to the jury every single time is that they must find the defendant not guilty if prosecution has not made their case that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether they personally think the defendant is guilty or innocent is supposed to be irrelevant. Too often it is pretty obvious that there is nothing innocent about the defendant. It is irrelevant.
Instructions given to jury:
You must decide whether the Government has proved beyond a
reasonable doubt the specific facts necessary to find the Defendant
guilty of the crime[s] charged in the indictment.
Your decision must be based only on the evidence presented here.
You must not be influenced in any way by either sympathy or prejudice
for or against the Defendant or the Government.
You must also follow the law as I explain it, even if you do not
agree with the law. And, you must follow all of my instructions as a
whole. You may not single out, or disregard, any of my instructions on
the law.
The indictment or formal charge[s] against a defendant is not
evidence of guilt. The law presumes that every defendant is innocent.
The Defendant does not have to prove [his][her] innocence or produce
any evidence at all. The Government must prove guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt, and if it fails to do so you must find [the][that]
Defendant not guilty.
Read my response which denounces the so called proof as a failure. Read my denunciations of the post by Cody_G denouncing atheists.
According to your logic, “innocent” must also be proven.
Innocence is the negative claim, and according to you the defendant must prove their innocence.
Doesn’t change the fact that there are theists who are trying to convince non-believers that God exists.
I said proof is ONLY required if you expect others to agree with you. My logic is that the burden of proof is on the prosecution because they expect others to agree with them and have the defendant punished. If the prosecution cannot make their case then both can walk away believing whatever they want. Neither have to prove a thing just because they believe the defendant is innocent or guilty.
When Cody_G tried to claim that the belief in God was obvious and that only a wicked person would disagree, I denounced this because in expecting atheists to agree the burden of proof is on him and saying it is obvious because the Bible says so just doesn’t cut it. But I will say the same to you when you play the same “I am right by default” song.
I denounce all the proofs as not only unconvincing but replacing a faith in God with a faith in dubious premises. I claim that a belief in God is inherently subjective because only the laws of nature provide any objectivity and thus anything outside them cannot be established objectively. So of course none of the proofs for the existence of God have any objective validity. Such has nothing to do with whether I believe in God and never will. I defend the rationality of both theism and atheism.
Doesn’t change the fact that there are atheists who are trying to convince believers that there is no reason to believe God exists. Furthermore, many go beyond that to say that a belief in God is irrational, immoral, delusional, or a even a mental illness – just as there are theists saying the same of atheism. I routinely denounce both of these and insist that the burden of proof is on them.
It is demonstrable that people do have reason to believe in God. Mine are found here. Are these objective? I frankly explain they are not. If all you claim is that there is no objective reason to believe in God then you have my agreement. Thus I have identified myself as an agnostic with respect to the objective knowledge of the existence of God. And yet I am a theist (1.5 on the Dawkins scale) because I don’t think reality is completely objective, but that there is an irreducible subjective aspect to reality as well.
The how has already been stated in the verses in Romans that I quoted.
If by this it is your intention to degrade what the apostle said because he is a man, your opinion has no authority or inspiration of the Spirit behind it. Paul was an apostle who was approved of by Peter and others. The record of the things that Jesus did through him and showed him is supported by others and by the truth of the very words he recorded. I can’t remember the things I have read that you have posted so I don’t know if you are a confessing Christian. If you are I would say that you would not be, if not for the writings that men have recorded in the scripture. If you have faith in Jesus it is because of the things that the human authors have written. If you have no faith in the truth that Paul or the other apostles expressed than we have no basis for a godly and profitable conversation.
As I stated earlier, the fact that there is a God is known by what He has created, is plainly stated in the scriptures. I do not have to deal with that if someone disagrees. I can go directly to the message of the good news of the Kingdom of Heaven. I can tell them the teachings of Jesus which shows the nature of the Kingdom and the Father. I can tell them they need to turn away from the sin that they already know is wrong. I can explain to them what Jesus dying on the cross and raising from the dead does for those who place all their confidence in Him. And then I can be at peace because I can trust the Word of God and the Spirit of God to convict them of sin, righteousness and judgement. I can leave it in God’s hands. Some sow, other water but it is God who brings the increase. It’s His field, I just labor in it.
What you suggest is indeed a hotly debated issue, and is not trivially dismissed. Einstein went to his grave debating this with Bohr - the “God does not play dice with the universe” argument and failed in his attempts.
Stating the measuring device itself is an observer, equates observations to inanimate matter. You can believe that of course, but one can also argue that conscious mind is required and the argument is quite compelling - not by me but by many. In summary, it opens to the door to a plausible hypothesis as to how God acts upon the physical universe in a way that is consistent with scientific evidence. It proposes a plausible answer to the “HOW” question. How can God do what he does? A book written by Dirk Schneider “Jesus Christ Quantum Physicist” does a much better job than I can do to explain this.
Where?
How do you know that?
Just so we are all on the same page, I am an atheist.
Do you think it can be misleading to characterize the Bible as the words of God when in fact they were written by men?
What I am asking is how God’s existence is known through the creation. How does that work?
I can say that the existence of unicorns is know through seeing rainbows. I can say that the existence of fairies is known through clouds. It is just platitudes unless there is an explanation of how one connects to the other.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.