Atheism's Burden of Proof

[Silmarien]

Yeah. I've been following since page 1. I'm allowed to address specific smaller points within the larger scope of the discussion. That's a thing people do sometimes.

Thanks for the recap, though. I don't know how to read, you see.

Yes, I thought that might have been the case.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Seriously, what question with an objective answer can religion answer that religion can't?

 

[bhsmte]

Seriously, what question with an objective answer can religion answer and religion can't?

Think you may have a type there.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Think you may have a type there.

I don't see it. But, I made an edit that I hope makes my question clearer.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Seriously, what question with an objective answer can religion answer and religion can't?

Being that this is a Christian Apologetics forum, I'm not going to try to speak on behalf of any other World Religions, or even for the Philosophy of Religion itself. I'm only going to address aspects of Christian faith and any philosophy that may be relevant to it.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Being that this is a Christian Apologetics forum, I'm not going to try to speak on behalf of any other World Religions, or even for the Philosophy of Religion itself. I'm only going to address aspects of Christian faith and any philosophy that may be relevant to it.

OK, so what question with an objective answer can Christianity answer that science can't?

edit -- got words reversed. Dang.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

OK, so what question with an objective answer can Christianity answer that science can't?

edit -- got words reversed. Dang.

Since you're bringing up the "objectivity" requirement, you need to define it, and we can go from there.

 

[Tinker Grey]

objectively

1. (a) Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real: objective reality. (b) Based on observable phenomena; empirical: objective facts.
2. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

objectively

1. (a) Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real: objective reality. (b) Based on observable phenomena; empirical: objective facts.
2. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.

So, are you wanting me to demonstrate the act of answering a question that shows God is "real"? Or, are you wanting me to ask and answer questions about God without getting all fussy and teary eyed about it all?

...just know that one of these is something I probably won't be able to do.

 

[Tinker Grey]

So, are you wanting me to demonstrate the act of answering a question that shows God is "real"? Or, are you wanting me to ask and answer questions about God without getting all fussy and teary eyed about it all?

...just know that one of these is something I probably won't be able to do.

I didn't ask about "God is real". I asked where Christianity provides an objective answer to a question that science doesn't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I didn't ask about "God is real". I asked where Christianity provides an objective answer to a question that science doesn't.

Ok. You forced me to it. So, here it goes, but stop me if you've heard this one before:

"Why did the Israelites cross the Red Sea ...?"

If the answer is "...to get to the other side," I'm left wondering, objectively, how scientists know this.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Going for humor again?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Going for humor again?

Well, look who you're asking, Tinker.

Actually, if we are proponents of Methodological Naturalism, then we won't expect science to slide on over into the field of religion, or vice verse. So, you're question is kind of moot, really, and it only becomes a problem if you open yourself up too far to those like Richard Dawkins, or even David Hume going further back in time.

Moreover, as I've stated many times before here, there, and everywhere on CF, there is no central epistemological lynchpin by which humanity can get the goods on God. Mainstream science frowns on the assumption that humanity can do any kind of experimental science that 'gets us God,'; and the epistemology in the Bible also indicates that God turns the dial of belief either up or down based on the extent to which a person cooperates or rebels against Him. So, should we expect, for good reasons, some kind of objectivity where no one expects it to be found? Na. Probably not.

 

[KCfromNC]

But sure, go ahead and psychoanalyze people who disagree with you. That's totally not at all sociopathic.

The strawman is strong in this thread. It makes me concerned that the claimed superior systems for analyzing reality might not be as good as we've been led to believe.

 

[KCfromNC]

An analogy -

Suppose there is a mason jar full of dice. Regular, six-sided casino dice. We are both taxed with guessing how many dice are in the jar.

I guess sixty five.

You guess a hundred and eighteen quadrillion.

Are both of our guesses equally valid?

Learning from this discussion, I think we have to know if you or the other person are anti-realists with a bias towards outdated notions of positivism before we can even conclude that it is possible the dice are real or not. I mean, if we can try to label people as instrumentalists or naive realists the whole nature of the conversation changes.

 

[KCfromNC]

This all began because several of the local atheists threw a fit over the fact that a professional mathematician in the thread was a platonist.

"Threw a fit"? Seems just a bit necessarily emotional - and from someone who was complaining about others discussing their mental state, too.

 

[KCfromNC]

Do you usually address women with "buddy"?

I'll take "ways to try and derail a conversation for $400, Alex".

 

[KCfromNC]

...see @KCofNC, philosophy is relevant, unless you disagree and feel like arguing the point with @Eight Foot Manchild.

Get back to me when philosophy can give us anything more substantial than "There are arguments for all of the positions involved", unless you disagree and feel like arguing the point with @Silmarien

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Get back to me when philosophy can give us anything more substantial than "There are arguments for all of the positions involved", unless you disagree and feel like arguing the point with @Silmarien

Ok. Here's one. ..................."be respectful to people; don't ever assume they're morons."

This one would be very useful in all walks of life, and in most occupations that are worth having. So, ONE UP for philosophy [i.e. Ethics/Moral Philosophy] (...but of course, "loving one's enemy" is likely the most useful thing ever said, so ONE MORE UP for Christianity).

Moreover, your comment about me arguing the point with @Silmarien is misplaced. She and I tend to agree on a lot of essentials, even if not on all of the specifics.

 

[KCfromNC]

Ok. Here's one. ..................."be respectful to people; don't ever assume they're morons."

I'm not sure of the relevance, except maybe as an attempt to poison the well. That's an ad hominem, as I'm sure you're aware.

This one would be very useful in all walks of life, and in most occupations that are worth having. So, ONE UP for philosophy [i.e. Ethics/Moral Philosophy] (...but of course, "loving one's enemy" is likely the most useful thing ever said, so ONE MORE UP for Christianity).

That's nice, but you were talking about how useful epistemology was. Why the attempt to change the subject?