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.
No such thing was debated by Einstein and Bohr. This is simply a misunderstanding by nonscientists.
What Einstein and others had difficulty with and is expressed by what you quote is the finding that some things are not determined by pre-existing conditions but are only random instead. Einstein proposed that there were hidden variables determining the result. John Stewart Bell was able to show that the existence of such hidden variables could be tested by correlations in the measurements of entangled particles. The tests were performed and the results were that no such hidden variables exist – not within the scientific worldview anyway. So that is no longer debated. Einstein was simply shown to be wrong about that.
It is not a matter of belief but of scientific results. Saying that you can believe otherwise is like saying you can believe that the moon is made of green cheese, or that God created everything by magic 6000 years ago, but this is simply unreasonable to the point of being willfully ignorant.
Nothing about God is a valid scientific hypothesis. Scientific hypotheses are limited to what can actually be tested. Unfalsifiable claims like that are a matter of philosophy, religion, and personal opinion, not science. Such are the limitations of science, leaving us with choices which cannot be decided for us by science. One such choice is naturalism, where we simply disregard and ignore anything which science cannot determine, but others like myself embrace the subjective participation which is a necessity of life itself. And I posted a link to my reasons for belief in my post above.
Yes it is only reasonable to constrain your religious theories and rhetoric to what is consistent with the scientific evidence. This talk of physical results being dependent on conscious observation is not consistent with the scientific evidence, the same as creationism. So no matter how plausible they may sound, explanations which are not consistent with the findings of science are best revised. Consistency is quite possible but it requires that some notions and rhetoric be left behind as unworkable. Too often in looking for justifications for religious belief people have replaced their faith in God with a faith in premises which are simply false – better to keep your faith in God Himself.
As a theoretical physicist, I know the physics, and if Schneider contradicts the physics then I will not be interested. I read and enjoy SF&F novels but I do not confuse these flights of fancy with reality, nor will I be interested in books which confuse these with reality either. I can contemplate the notion that the universe was created this morning with all our memories as they are, and know that there really is no proof that this is not so. But the idea serves no useful purpose, because ideas which are inconsistent with everything our memories and other evidence tells us just does not help with the living of our lives and detract from meaningfulness of our lives as well.
Jesus says that if a man looks at a woman with lust he has sinned, done wrong, that would be the same for anyone who lusts after another. Lying, stealing, dishonoring your parents are evil, wrong and should not be done. Even if you don’t murder someone, the hatred for a person that would wish them dead is evil.
So what are you going to do about all the wickedness that you have done in thought, word and deed?
I’m still waiting to understand how the creation demonstrates the existence of God.
Thank you for responding to my blog!
Agree with you that Einstein was wrong. My point is that he was driven by his inability to accept the philosophical consequences of quantum physics.
On the subject that nothing about God is a valid scientific hypothesis, indeed I am suggesting otherwise. I understand that we indeed must be careful not to find a gap in science and saying “God did that”, as intelligent design attempts to use as a proof of God. The key point is that quantum physics and the impact of observance is not a “gap” in science!
I suggest you take a quick read on Schneider’s book or at least look at his web site. It is scientifically based and he finds a link to quantum physics and spirituality as I do. I would really like to hear what BioLogos thinks of his work. Jesus Christ – Quantum Physicist: About the Author
Finally, on the point of faith, indeed I agree that it must be based on a personal relationship with God. Even some that witnessed Christ’s miracles could not believe in what He was saying. So some would still not believe even if there were scientific proof of the existence of God. Belief in God has be faith based, but that faith can still be rooted in an intelligent assessment of evidence, even scientific evidence.
T. You’re orthogonal rationality is wasted. I feel your pain, the itch. Walk away and leave them to it. Go on. Quit while you’re behind. You always will be. As you know. I know you won’t. I couldn’t.
A better way to put it is that my questions will forever be tragically rhetorical.
Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrongetty, [wrong,] wrong. Because. God.
[Wot uh really mean is yeah but no but b’coz God.]
It is after a person allows themselves to be convicted of their wickedness, that they truly see the value of Jesus and they put all their trust in Him. Then they will know God intimately, not as some way out there diety.
God becomes valuable only after you see your need for Him. A starving man hungers for food. A drowning man longs for the safety of the shore and a condemned man pleads for mercy from the judge. We must hunger and long for God and plead with Him to show us the mercy that He gives willingly through Jesus.
If you want a deep reality of God, then look at your sinfulness and look to God for mercy and safety. You will find Him and will need no one to prove to you that He is.
The “How” question was my issue too! I could not get my head around “how” God could do what he does in the bible. How can miracles be possible?
Now I remain convinced that quantum science does give God a way in through the back door of science. In C.S. Lewis’s book Miracles (p.18 & 19 of latest edition), he discusses quantum physics (even though he does not call it that in the book): I quote, "Some modern scientists … seem to think that the individual unit of matter ( it would be rash to call it any longer a ‘particle’) moves in an indeterminate or random fashion; moves, in fact, ‘on its own’ or ‘of its own accord’. The movement of one unit is incalculable… Now it will be noticed that if this theory is true we really have something other than Nature. If the movement of the individual units are events ‘on their own’, events which do not interlock with all other events, then these movements are not part of Nature. …all our confidence that Nature has no doors, and no reality outside of herself for doors to open, would have disappeared. There is apparently something outside of her, the Subnatural; it is indeed from this Subnatural that all events and all “bodies’ are, as it were, fed into her. And clearly if she has a back door opening on the Subnatural, it is quite on the cards that she may also have a front door opening on the Supernatural - and events might be fed into her at that door too.” I will note that Lewis goes on and suggests that science as it progresses may abolish this notion, and so “moves on to other ground” in his discussion on miracles. As stated by Mitchell, Einstein was wrong about determinism, and so we remain with Lewis’ point!
Many scientists are intent on suggesting that Darwin’s evolutionary theories showed how you do not need a God to create man, which was a philosophically unscientific leap. But for quantum theory, determinism has proven false, and at least should open the possibility to a theory that someone is directing the ‘Subnatural’ as Lewis calls it.
In summary, I suggest that quantum physics gives us a possible answer as to how God can do what he does. At least the argument that miracles are scientifically impossible, and therefore God cannot exist has to debunked - at least for now.
Once I got past the “how” issue for miracles and realized that there is a possible way for God to do what he does, than the other evidence, such as the existence of a “Moral Code” and of Jesus Christ and his resurrection, is now feasible, and becomes THE compelling compelling evidence for God. And I accept this argument indeed.
Huh? The fact that miracles are scientifically impossible - which they are kinda by definition ya know? - means God cannot exist how?
The site does not have enough information and I haven’t been able to find out more on his views elsewhere… and I cannot justify buying such a book when I have no income.
“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.