Atheism's Burden of Proof

[xianghua]

In my understanding, Atheism is the positive denial of the existence of god/a deity and I believe this is in fact the understanding of the majority of Christians as well. This is not a widely accepted view amongst atheists on online communities even if it has a long history with philosophers such as Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx and Frederich Nietzsche to its name. This has admittedly been the cause of a great deal of frustration and confusion and my beliefs are therefore not as fully developed as I would want them to be because there are few, if any, people who I can discuss this understanding of atheism with.

I am, if you wish, a militant atheist and want to know how best to deal with the challenge of proving that Atheism- the cliam that there is no god- is true. It would seem reasonable to ask religious believers, especially Christians given it is the worlds largest religion, what they imagine such a position would look like and what it would have to do to compete effectively in a online discussion.

To my knowledge, this view of Atheism relies on at least two assumptions: a) that it is possible to know god does not exist and b) that it is possible to demonstrate it. I would therefore like to ask:

1) What Christians would expect Atheists to offer as arguments or evidence that disproving the existence of God is possible, either philosophically or scientifically, rather than saying it is impossible (i.e. Strong Agnosticism).

2) What Christians would expect Atheists to offer as arguments or evidence that disproving the existence of God is a statement of fact about the objective world, rather than Atheism being subjective belief, (or faith/dogma/religion) of a single individual.

3) Are there any specific elements of Christian Belief and Theology that would have to be shown to be false to demonstrate that Christianity, is in its entirety, based on natural causes and was not authored by a deity but by man himself.

4) What elements of Christian Belief, such as historical accounts of the bible, the historical existence of Jesus, the legacy of scientific and philosophical christian thought or christian morals, would you say could be independently verified as true regardless as to whether God exists and would therefore continue to have value to an Atheist?

I'm hoping that the "wisdom of crowds" means that collectively Christians drawing on their own experiences and knowledge will be able to give me a picture of areas I will need to research offline to better understand and clarify my own beliefs. I hope the exchange that follows is mutually beneficial and I look forward to your responses. Long and detailed responses are very welcome.

the burden of proof is indeed on the atheism side. like the burden of proof is on someone who claim that a self replicating watch can evolve naturally (evolutionery claim). as you can see here: the self replicating watch argument

 

[jayem]

As my profile states, I am a naturalist. I believe that the universe is purely a function of matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature. I reject the existence of anything supernatural. Which I would define as something claimed to be beyond, or outside the realm of matter/energy and the natural properties thereof. By logical extension, that makes me an atheist regarding any supernatural gods. But more fundamentally, I am a naturalist. I know I can't prove naturalism with absolute metaphysical certainty. My worldview requires faith (just like any other belief.) But it's faith based on inductive reasoning. Human beings have always dreamed up supernatural entities to explain what they didn't understand. Weather, disease, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, the perceived motion of the sun, moon, and stars, and many other events at one time were all thought to be the products of of supernatural forces. But as our knowledge has increased, we know that all of these events are perfectly natural phenomena. In the entire history of human knowledge, a supernatural cause has never been shown valid for anything. It is true that there are many things we cannot yet explain. But, by simple a posteriori logic, why should I believe that there is supernatural causation for all these things we still don't understand? And, by the same logic, why should I believe that any supernatural gods exist?

 

[Tom 1]

1) What Christians would expect Atheists to offer as arguments or evidence that disproving the existence of God is possible, either philosophically or scientifically, rather than saying it is impossible (i.e. Strong Agnosticism).

I’m not sure this is actually possible. There are philosophical arguments on both sides that offer some understanding of each position but I don’t think any can be seen as conclusive proof. Some atheists who are scientists, such as Richard Dawkins, argue from science that God isn’t necessary but disproving the possibility of God is another question - as God is not of the physical universe, he isn’t subject to scientific study. I suppose a possible avenue in theory at least would be to try and disprove the affect of God on or his presence in the universe, but I really have no idea how you would go about trying to do that.

3) Are there any specific elements of Christian Belief and Theology that would have to be shown to be false to demonstrate that Christianity, is in its entirety, based on natural causes and was not authored by a deity but by man himself

4) What elements of Christian Belief, such as historical accounts of the bible, the historical existence of Jesus, the legacy of scientific and philosophical christian thought or christian morals, would you say could be independently verified as true regardless as to whether God exists and would therefore continue to have value to an Atheist?

Anything I can think of that relates to these last 2 has already been argued to death from both sides. I would question thinking about any of this as being something you can either prove or disprove finally or conclusively. The best avenue I would say would be to familiarise yourself with all the material you can find that is relevant and look for a new angle or maybe something you feel has been missed.

 

[Tom 1]

Because even if God was real I probably wouldn't submit to a higher power. Proving that there is no god would be a liberation from the fear of punishment by either organised religion in this life or eternal punishment in the next. It would be contrary to my interests to believe that I only have value as God's creation and exist to serve god rather than myself (or perhaps "humanity" in general). In my experience, and it is a very primitive and instinctual sensation than a rational argument, my pursuit of Freedom has more value than God's will, purpose or creation.

It’s interesting that, as an atheist, you have such a religious idea of who God is! This is a kind of common denominator view of God, it’s God after all of the subtelty and depth and complexity of God’s relationship with man has been filtered out, leaving only the basic ideas that have been useful for social control in the past. Getting to know God as he actually is has been for me anyway a long process, still ongoing.

 

[Radagast]

I am, if you wish, a militant atheist and want to know how best to deal with the challenge of proving that Atheism- the cliam that there is no god- is true. It would seem reasonable to ask religious believers, especially Christians given it is the worlds largest religion, what they imagine such a position would look like and what it would have to do to compete effectively in a online discussion.

You're asking Christians to prove atheism for you? Are you serious?

the historical existence of Jesus

The existence of Jesus is a historical fact, accepted even by atheist historians. AFAIK, no historian denies it.

collectively Christians drawing on their own experiences and knowledge will be able to give me a picture of areas I will need to research offline to better understand and clarify my own beliefs

I don't understand that. You have beliefs but you don't know what they are?

 

[Radagast]

Man ultimately creates logic to an extent.

Speaking as a mathematician, I would deny that. The truths of logic didn't suddenly become true when people appeared on the planet.

If i had to chose between being illogical or dismissing evidence, I would chose being illogical

Evidence can be misinterpreted, but (P => R & Q => R) => (P \/ Q => R) and 2 + 2 = 4 are unquestionably true.

I have already said in this thread that I would reject rational arguments for god because they do not serve my interests (post #5).

So knowledge is ultimately something that serves my interests in a sense and has practical value. Hence relying on observation.(At this point you can probably tell I prefer to be illogical because there is a self-contradiction in what I've just said which I can't resolve without really thinking about it

Admitting that you're rejected logic gets honesty points at least, but it does mean that the last shred of intellectual common ground between us has gone.

Indeed, it seems to me that you're already somewhere in the eighth circle of hell.

 

[Shadow]

It’s interesting that, as an atheist, you have such a religious idea of who God is! This is a kind of common denominator view of God, it’s God after all of the subtelty and depth and complexity of God’s relationship with man has been filtered out, leaving only the basic ideas that have been useful for social control in the past. Getting to know God as he actually is has been for me anyway a long process, still ongoing.

Its odd I know. I find Atheism is more of an impulse and I don't actually understand it very well, but its something I've trusted up to this point. I'm not sure if it will mean anything to you but according to the Myers-briggs personality test I would (probably) come out as an INFJ. What that means is I think based largely on intuition and "feeling" my way through a problem. Thinking about it is still just a means of sorting out all the inner experiences and I'm now aware there is something "missing" and doesn't add up.

So my "feeling" of Atheism is very emotional, irrational and mystical if you will and I can relate to lots of ideas about faith because I've already have that kind of experience. I have been a Communist which is basically religion for atheists (i.e. fighting over scripture and who is the true prophet, rooting out heretics, enforcing correct thinking and behaviour, wanting people to surrender themselves completely to the cult for meaning and purpose in life, trying to build heaven on earth only to become obsessed with sin and condemn everyone to oblivion in hell because a section of them become convinced only they are "pure" enough to build utopia- you know, the "usual". ). I haven't taken it seriously for a while though and would like to walk away from it entirely if I could. Its too horrific to be fulfilling in the end. I think I said earlier that I get on better with religious people than atheists and this is probably why. Most Atheists are thinking with their head rather than their heart but that doesn't actually tell you anything about religious experience, "why" people believe and completely miss the point.

I’m not sure this is actually possible. There are philosophical arguments on both sides that offer some understanding of each position but I don’t think any can be seen as conclusive proof. Some atheists who are scientists, such as Richard Dawkins, argue from science that God isn’t necessary but disproving the possibility of God is another question - as God is not of the physical universe, he isn’t subject to scientific study. I suppose a possible avenue in theory at least would be to try and disprove the affect of God on or his presence in the universe, but I really have no idea how you would go about trying to do that.

Yeah. This would look like an idea peculiar to materialism in which God is "physical" or "material" in some way and can therefore be studied by Science.

Anything I can think of that relates to these last 2 has already been argued to death from both sides. I would question thinking about any of this as being something you can either prove or disprove finally or conclusively. The best avenue I would say would be to familiarise yourself with all the material you can find that is relevant and look for a new angle or maybe something you feel has been missed.

Thanks, that's good advice. you've been very helpful.

 

[Shadow]

You're asking Christians to prove atheism for you? Are you serious?

Absolutely. Or at least get me half way there.

The existence of Jesus is a historical fact, accepted even by atheist historians. AFAIK, no historian denies it.

Denying Christ's existence is based on a kind of extreme scepticism of the bible, so yeah, I agree with you here.

I don't understand that. You have beliefs but you don't know what they are?

Yes. I am an atheist but I don't know why. Its like walking in to the kitchen knowing you are hungry but don't know what to eat. Hard to explain.

Speaking as a mathematician, I would deny that. The truths of logic didn't suddenly become true when people appeared on the planet.

The content of logic depends on it reflecting particular processes, but there is nothing to say particular words or sentences need to describe it. Language is a man-made thing. The word "tree" is dependent on human language, even if the concept reflects a "tree" as an object.

Evidence can be misinterpreted, but (P => R & Q => R) => (P \/ Q => R) and 2 + 2 = 4 are unquestionably true.

Well, "2" is just a concept. So it doesn't have an inherent meaning, even if it may reflect a physical value. Different cultures have different ways of describing numbers and at least part of it is convention. So if 4=5 then 2+2=5.

Don't tell George Orwell I said anything.

Admitting that you're rejected logic gets honesty points at least, but it does mean that the last shred of intellectual common ground has gone.

There is always our one shared reality from which we gain facts. We can ignore facts but they don't cease to exist simply because we ignore them. That much always remains common ground even if people reach different interpretations on what facts mean. But yeah, being illogical takes some getting used to.

Indeed, it seems to me that you're already somewhere in the eighth circle of hell.

Excellent. Only one more to go before I get my scouts badge!

 

[jayem]

The existence of Jesus is a historical fact, accepted even by atheist historians. AFAIK, no historian denies it.

I can believe there was a Rabbi Yeshua in Roman occupied Judea. Who was a charismatic Jewish teacher, and attracted a mass of followers. He ran afoul with the religious and civil authorities of the day and was executed by crucifixion. But that doesn't mean I must believe that he performed miracles and came back to life after being dead for 2 days. I expect you'd accept that Siddartha Gautama was a real person who founded a monastic order in India sometime in the 5th or 6th century BC. His teaching was very influential, and he became known as the Buddha (the Enlightened One.) But would you also believe that he ascended into heaven for a week to preach to his deceased mother, and then descended back to earth on a flight of golden stairs? The reason you wouldn't believe that is the same reason I don't believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

 

[Tom 1]

I can believe there was a Rabbi Yeshua in Roman occupied Judea. Who was a charismatic Jewish teacher, and attracted a mass of followers. He ran afoul with the religious and civil authorities of the day and was executed by crucifixion. But that doesn't mean I must believe that he performed miracles and came back to life after being dead for 2 days. I expect you'd accept that Siddartha Gautama was a real person who founded a monastic order in India sometime in the 5th or 6th century BC. His teaching was very influential, and he became known as the Buddha (the Enlightened One.) But would you also believe that he ascended into heaven for a week to preach to his deceased mother, and then descended back to earth on a flight of golden stairs? The reason you wouldn't believe that is the same reason I don't believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

The question of what is credible is an interesting one. When I first picked up a bible when I was 15 and started reading Genesis, I just thought ‘what the....?’ and put it down again. Having since studied a lot more, and regarding that example understood better the meanings of the text, I do find the claims of the bible credible, in their context and in understanding the differences in uses of language in different books of the bible etc. I’m not sure if this credibility through better understanding is universal when it comes to religious texts. To give a few examples, I remember talking with a Mormon and saying something like ‘I don’t find the idea of some guy finding some gold specs and gold tablets which then disappeared credible’. His response was that much of what the bible contains also seems incredible - he seemed to be arguing that there isn’t any need to figure out if something is credible or not, in it’s own context. I’ve had a few discussions with Muslims about Mohammed’s claim that he is the last in the line of biblical prophets, given that he meets the biblical criteria of being a false prophet, and that of being ‘wicked’ to boot. Mohammed had a vague understanding of biblical teachings from his contact with Jewish tribes and various heretical Christian groups, and accepted the bible as ‘legit’. When later Muslim scholars began to realise his teachings and behaviours often contradicted the bible, the idea that the bible had been ‘corrupted’ was born. This idea is very difficult to defend, but Muslims who know this (at least the few I’ve spoken to) will still believe that their text is credible in relation to the bible, although the bible makes it clear that isn’t the case. I have never asked a Hindu to be honest but I think it’s a fairly safe assumption that many educated Hindus, although sincere in their belief system, probably don’t actually believe that the earth is balanced on an elephant and a turtle.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

You can only prove to a rock, that thinks it is a tree that he is a rock, by showing him to be like other rocks. To show him other trees would only serve to explain that he was a different type of tree. The same can be applied to the faith in Jesus Christ versus all other faiths. We as humans are born into a condition commonly called sin. Everyone knows that people die at the end of their mortal life. That is the wages of sin. It is the logical conclusion, it is the just judgment of a righteous and holy God. Otherwise a life that exists would be without end. There would logically be no need for death. Attaining knowledge and enlightenment does not preclude one from this inevitability. A murderer on death row does not avoid judgment or death by attaining wisdom from Nietzsche, or achieving one's astral form in Buddha. Salvation is the assurance that after death, one will live for eternity. This only comes by way of Jesus Christ. As fables and myths aren't viable for solid evidence, belief, or even matters of the law, it is helpful to realize that with Christ, Jesus was crucified and there were many eyewitness accounts. He was resurrected from the dead and there were many eyewitness accounts. In both points, it wasn't just a small handful of people who conspired to make something up, but believers and non-believers alike who testified to the fact that this man was killed and rose again. For this reason, many people came to know Christ as their savior. The same is the hope that we as Christians hold true. While it is "supernatural" to believe in things that defy natural laws, such as walking on water, or feeding 5000 people with several loaves and a couple fishes, it is not really all that out of the realm of possible, even to an atheist. An atheist would assert that all of creation was made by nothing, out of nothing, from things that existed for all eternity. Such "forces of nature" would not exist if the origin of such things were nothingness. Hence the argument for God. There is no other logical conclusion one could come to that explains the existence of... existence. It isn't the crazy person who believes, but the one who does not. The one who does not, denies that he himself was created, and in fact always existed, and is in fact God himself. So either way you look at it, you still come to the same conclusion that God exists. An atheist just asserts that he is that God. Once you give that "throne" to the true God, everything aligns as it should. This includes seeking whatever it is you seek. God is not some obscure fable or some self-righteous dictator in the sky that no one can see. The very order in the chaos of the universe, the existence of life, and a number of things that are so beyond man's limited comprehension, speak volumes to and about a God who loves us. If he did not love us, we would not be here. If you did not suspect that there is a God or half suspect that there was something to this Jesus character; you would not be on a Christian site, asking Christians. There are far more reliable sources for things which do not pertain to Christ elsewhere on the web. The fact that you are speaking to Christians means something very specific. The logical thing to do, would be to ask yourself why would you ask a Christian if not to learn about Christ? A Christian's testimony is very personal, but sharing it is out of love, not intellectual need for logical supremacy. Lastly, scriptures tell us that we as humans were made in God's image. We as humans are a mind, a body, and a soul. God is the Father (mind), Son (body), and Holy Spirit (soul). Our very nature is created to be a reflection of him. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. With regards to this, the very fact that one would only use the mind and body, and not the spirit would inevitably leave someone feeling hollow and ever seeking things that always elude them. Most importantly, you have to know where and how to look. The meaning of life is not found in the things that are dead, but in the God who is living. Logically.

 

[Spikey]

An atheist would assert that all of creation was made by nothing, out of nothing, from things that existed for all eternity. Such "forces of nature" would not exist if the origin of such things were nothingness. Hence the argument for God.

So are you saying that God was the only thing that existed in the nothingness and then suddenly one day he decided to create existence?
Two questions... How long did God exist for before he decided to create everything? And what was he doing with his time before that particular point?

 

[Dave RP]

I'm in agreement with you on Dawkins. Although I haven't read much of their books, the impression I have had of them is the "New Atheists" have a very limited understanding of what they are talking about. They ignore historical and theological argument and reduce some of the most complex and controversial problems in human existence to "lack of evidence". That doesn't seem right and it seems very much preconditioned on accepting the scientific method as valid (even though it is itself the product of a long historical evolution). Overall, I'm of the opinion they have done great damage to Atheism, even if I should perhaps read some of their books before coming to a firm opinion on that.

I have tried to think about how someone could support the idea of a flat earth, because it is obviously something that is confirmed by our immediate experience. The horizon is flat and finite, so clearly this involves saying we should go "beyond" our immediate impression. It is perfectly logical for early tribes to believe that the world is flat/finite because they didn't have the mobility to cross the horizon, and perhaps they didn't have the capacity to reason that there was something "beyond" the horizon. It is remarkable how much we take for granted when in reality many of ideas are part of a collective inheritance of generations of hard, patient work of people figuring things out, gradually expanding our range and reach of knowledge of time. I'm of the opinion that you could probably present any position in a way that is "convincing" and "believable" but that doesn't necessarily make it true. Honestly, my ideas about truth are quite a muddle because so much of my own experience directly contradicts my expectations or the "official" version of how things are/should be.

Actually the horizon is not flat, if you look out to sea the horizon is curved. My understanding is that early civilisations which lived by the coast new the earth was round. No one who went to sea thought you'd fall off the edge of the planet.

 

[Dave RP]

So are you saying that God was the only thing that existed in the nothingness and then suddenly one day he decided to create existence?
Two questions... How long did God exist for before he decided to create everything? And what was he doing with his time before that particular point?

I'll answer for the religious fraternity - God is eternal and timeless, you can't measure time like we do with God. I only say that because I've asked the same question many times.

My response is always the same - well maybe the universe is eternal and timeless and the big bang was just a new phase in its existence.

 

[Tom 1]

I'll answer for the religious fraternity - God is eternal and timeless, you can't measure time like we do with God. I only say that because I've asked the same question many times.

My response is always the same - well maybe the universe is eternal and timeless and the big bang was just a new phase in its existence.

Whichever version you go with, the idea of eternity is a difficult one for anybody to get their head round. Ideas like ‘how long?’ etc don’t apply to eternity. Anything that is eternal just ‘is’, without beginning or end. It isn’t measurable or definable in units of time. God when Moses asked him ‘who shall I say sent me?’ answered ‘I am’. When responding to questioners, Jesus responded ‘before Abraham was, I am’. God is.

Re. whatever can be in eternity, it can’t be our physical universe, or any variation such as steady state theory or a multiverse. Any theory that extends the existence of the universe beyond its current estimated age just puts off the question of how it began. It is not possible for something with physical qualities to be eternal, to exist without having a starting point. I doubt if you can find any scientific or philosophical writer who would absolutely deny that, although I’d certainly be interested if you do, that could provide a possible avenue for the OP.

Here’s a (non religious) article as a starting point if you’re curious: Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

So are you saying that God was the only thing that existed in the nothingness and then suddenly one day he decided to create existence?
Two questions... How long did God exist for before he decided to create everything? And what was he doing with his time before that particular point?

Natural law as we know it would dictate that nothingness would produce nothingness. And only Life can produce life. Therefore, in the "nothingness" (I hate using that word), God existed. Then he created existence and the life in it.

Unfathomable is the time he existed before creation. It is unmeasurable by human standards, as time as we know it is relative to us and the present. I'm uncertain as to God's hobbies. If one were to gossip according to Hollywood, I hear he is a big skee-ball fan. Eternity before creation, eternity after.... it's all relative. What will God do after all this? The bible says he goes to prepare a place for us. I imagine that's what he did prior to creation. He drew up plans, flew kites, how would I know? If one were to ask and he told you, it would presumably explode your head. The universe I imagine could be likened to a small grain of sand in the grand scope of things when comparing it to him. So there really is no limit on what he could have done or is still doing. Remember he is eternal, so things that he does are eternal, everlasting, and without end.

 

[Radagast]

I can believe there was a Rabbi Yeshua in Roman occupied Judea. Who was a charismatic Jewish teacher, and attracted a mass of followers. He ran afoul with the religious and civil authorities of the day and was executed by crucifixion.

I said what I did because the O.P. seemed to be doubting even that -- which, as I said, I think every historian accepts.

 

[Dave RP]

Whichever version you go with, the idea of eternity is a difficult one for anybody to get their head round. Ideas like ‘how long?’ etc don’t apply to eternity. Anything that is eternal just ‘is’, without beginning or end. It isn’t measurable or definable in units of time. God when Moses asked him ‘who shall I say sent me?’ answered ‘I am’. When responding to questioners, Jesus responded ‘before Abraham was, I am’. God is.

Re. whatever can be in eternity, it can’t be our physical universe, or any variation such as steady state theory or a multiverse. Any theory that extends the existence of the universe beyond its current estimated age just puts off the question of how it began. It is not possible for something with physical qualities to be eternal, to exist without having a starting point. I doubt if you can find any scientific or philosophical writer who would absolutely deny that, although I’d certainly be interested if you do, that could provide a possible avenue for the OP.

Here’s a (non religious) article as a starting point if you’re curious: Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning

The idea of eternity is impossible for the human mind to conceptualise, the concept of eternal life offered by many of the worlds religions is one of the reasons I am an atheist, i just cannot understand how that would work.

As for the universe and how it started, Stephen Hawking has a theory which doesn't require god, as follows:

The Origin of the Universe

 

[Dave RP]

Natural law as we know it would dictate that nothingness would produce nothingness. And only Life can produce life. Therefore, in the "nothingness" (I hate using that word), God existed. Then he created existence and the life in it.

Unfathomable is the time he existed before creation. It is unmeasurable by human standards, as time as we know it is relative to us and the present. I'm uncertain as to God's hobbies. If one were to gossip according to Hollywood, I hear he is a big skee-ball fan. Eternity before creation, eternity after.... it's all relative. What will God do after all this? The bible says he goes to prepare a place for us. I imagine that's what he did prior to creation. He drew up plans, flew kites, how would I know? If one were to ask and he told you, it would presumably explode your head. The universe I imagine could be likened to a small grain of sand in the grand scope of things when comparing it to him. So there really is no limit on what he could have done or is still doing. Remember he is eternal, so things that he does are eternal, everlasting, and without end.

Yes but that still misses the big question - where did god come from?

It's always an interesting debate, one which is un-resolvable, if you believe in god, well he just has eternally existed, if you don't believe in god the universe must have had a natural starting point.

 

[Radagast]

Absolutely. Or at least get me half way there.

Possibly you don't quite understand what we Christians are about.

Language is a man-made thing.

I don't need language to do logic.

Well, "2" is just a concept. So it doesn't have an inherent meaning, even if it may reflect a physical value.

Huh? To quote Roger Penrose, “The natural numbers were there before there were human beings, or indeed any other creature here on earth, and they will remain after all life has perished. It has always been true that each natural number is the sum of four squares, and it did not have to wait for Lagrange to conjure this fact into existence.”

Different cultures have different ways of describing numbers and at least part of it is convention.

No. The underlying numerical relationships are exactly the same, across all cultures.

But yeah, being illogical takes some getting used to.

From where I'm standing, it looks a little like this: