Is Suffering Part of God's Plan?

[shagdrum]

no, it just doesn't assume blind faith as correct.

How is that at all rebuttal to my point? Are you really so desperate to dodge that materialist assumption and shift the burden of proof to proving God?

The burden of proof is on atheists to prove their materialist assumptions. Without that assumption you start from a neutral point, instead of a heavily slanted playing field in the Atheist's favor. Atheists always insist on that slanted playing field by assuming materialism and attempting to put the burden of proof on theists to prove God with that materialist assumption in place. This article is no different. Every single conclusion implicitly assumes materialism. Otherwise, the conclusion is absurdly illogical.

It seems that is your goal; to shift the burden of proof to proving God. All Theists will tell you that is due to faith and you cannot argue faith. To attempt to do so is to take that faith out of context. However, Atheists will deny to their dying day that point of materialism that is implicit in any Atheist argument.

Unless you can justify your materialist assumption, you are left with dodging and attempting to reframe the debate in your favor; to "stack the deck". That is precisely what this article is being used for and you as well as everyone reading it on this forum knows it.

Justify materialism or please stop wasting everyone's time with your "wall-o-text" trollish posts.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Whew..... I finally got to the end of this thread.
Wondered if I really would.
Some very interesting points have been made.
One in particular I don't recall who stated it, or what number post it was, but I felt I needed to answer it here.
This was copied from that post.

"There have been numerous accounts of an afterlife experience by these people, including Don Piper's 90 Minutes In Heaven. Verifying weather or not they truly experienced the afterlife is almost impossible to do; in large part because an afterlife is not, by it's very nature, something that can be empirically verified.".


What If I could back up a claim that I have physical proof of the afterlife, though some of the proof is not my own, but rather a documented, and varified collection of instances where those in the afterlife can be heard speaking, as a result of recording their voices?
Would that be considered a "leap of faith", or would you dismiss the evidence as technology impossible?
I have a video made in the early nineties, which was recorded on vhs tape.
I can upload it to a cd, but would not know how to put in online.
Pictures I have no problem posting, but video is something I have never done.
The proof is there regarding the afterlife, and the afterlife does exist.
Bob.

 

[hrmwrm]

It seems that is your goal; to shift the burden of proof to proving God.

i'm not shifting any burden.
i am claiming nothing.
i am not saying something exists and shifting the burden to prove it does exist.
here, i'll let you peruse the link YOU posted many threads ago.

Fallacy: Burden of Proof



Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")

Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:


Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Examples of Burden of Proof

Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

religions have had eons to prove thier basis, yet have failed at all times.
which is what relegates them to mythology.
when asked for evidence, the silence speaks volumes.

All Theists will tell you that is due to faith and you cannot argue faith.

blind faith at that.

even i have faith. i just refuse to play blindly.

 

[shagdrum]

religions have had eons to prove thier basis, yet have failed at all times.

Because it is based if faith!

Your arguments keep ignoring that point and, in the process, taking religion out of context.

You can not argue faith, and you keep trying to.

blind faith at that.

even i have faith. i just refuse to play blindly.

All faith is blind. It is a very weak and desperate argument to admit you have faith and claim that religious faith is somehow "more extreme". If you believe something that cannot be logically proven and/or empirically verified, you are subscribing to faith. period. In the context of what you are saying, there are no greater and lesser degrees of faith.

To claim to have faith and in the same argument infer some monopoly on reason is absurd. Do you even know what you are saying at this point, or just wildly grasping at rationalization, because it looks like you are just desperately flailing. Is there some point you are trying to make?

Are you admitting that your atheist viewpoint takes materialism on faith?

 

[fossten]

hrmwrm, you consistently make the opposite argument - that absence of evidence equals evidence of absence - which is logically flawed.

Without absolute, infinite knowledge, you cannot prove the nonexistence of God, yet that is what you claim.

 

[hrmwrm]

Without absolute, infinite knowledge, you cannot prove the nonexistence of God, yet that is what you claim.

read careful.
i'm not trying to prove the non existence.
i'm asking you, the believer, to prove the existence.
if it exists and interacts daily with us, it should be simple to prove.
but i see nothing forthcoming.

All faith is blind.

faith
n noun
1 complete trust or confidence.
2 strong belief in a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. Øa particular religion.

religious faith is blind.
not all faith is blind. it is based on experience and trust/confidence.

 

[shagdrum]

read careful.
i'm not trying to prove the non existence.

No one said you were. You simply make the claim and then attempt to shift the burden of proof onto Theists to prove God. That is the argument you always make on this forum.

However, in making a positive claim that God does not exist, the burden of proof is as much on you as it is on any Theist point of view.

Also, you keep ignoring the fact that THEISM IS ROOTED IN FAITH!

To claim that the Theist has to prove their viewpoint is to misrepresent and distort.

if it exists and interacts daily with us, it should be simple to prove.

"if it exists and interacts daily with us...". That highlighted part is a big assumption

What if deism is right and God does not interact with us daily?

Or, what if the means of God's interactions are so subtle as to be indistinguishable from nature?

Your entire argument doesn't account for and in fact ignores those possibilities. It is simply more posturing aimed at framing the debate in a way that favors the Atheist point of view.

faith
n noun
1 complete trust or confidence.
2 strong belief in a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. Øa particular religion.

religious faith is blind.
not all faith is blind. it is based on experience and trust/confidence.

The definition you cite in no way proves your distinction between faith and "blind" faith. Your attempt to differentiate faith and "blind" faith is simply a distinction without difference; a cheap and false means of differentiating your faith from the faith of religion. In fact, the only basis you give to that being a legitimate distinction is your mere assertion.

 

[shagdrum]

By the way, you never answered my earlier questions:

Is there some point you are trying to make?

Are you admitting that your atheist viewpoint takes materialism on faith?

 

[04SCTLS]

The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven.

The material world that is observable follows rules.

The world beyond our observative skills is unknown.

The spiritual world is not very observable nor do we know it's rules, if there are any.

Therefore I would say that materialism is observable and easier to have faith in as a known than the unknown spiritual world.

Of course if God IS the universe rather than having created it as I have suggested in other posts, then that rather obvious conclusion does not help either camp in their arguments.

The existence of the universe is proof of a God that gives life and death but the universe does not scentiently care about you personally.

 

[shagdrum]

The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven.

The material world that is observable follows rules.

Agreed.

The world beyond our observative skills is unknown.

Not exactly. Look up the Allegory of the cave, or dualism.

Therefore I would say that materialism is observable and easier to have faith in as a known than the unknown spiritual world.

There are things outside of the material world that can be known and understood. And I am not talking about some "spiritual" existence.

"Ideas" are a prime example of something that is not physically present in the material world but is also not "unknowable".

 

[hrmwrm]

What if deism is right and God does not interact with us daily?

then what is the point?
if it just started things, then left them to be, kinda makes praying etc pointless.

"if it exists and interacts daily with us...".

i guess more pointed at the idealist who believes that way.

The definition you cite in no way proves your distinction between faith and "blind" faith. Your attempt to differentiate faith and "blind" faith is simply a distinction without difference; a cheap and false means of differentiating your faith from the faith of religion. In fact, the only basis you give to that being a legitimate distinction is your mere assertion.

you were the one who said ALL faith is blind.
just pointing out that NOT ALL faith is blind.
religion is just a good example of it.(blind faith)

By the way, you never answered my earlier questions:

Is there some point you are trying to make?

as usual, just replying.

The existence of the universe is proof of a God that gives life and death but the universe does not scentiently care about you personally.

it's proof of no such thing.
but if it makes you feel better.

 

[04SCTLS]

it's proof of no such thing.
but if it makes you feel better.

We are stardust and therefore the universe is our creator.
That is a proven fact.
It's up to you what you consider that... if anything.

 

[hrmwrm]

We are stardust and therefore the universe is our creator.
That is a proven fact.

that i'll agree.

 

[fossten]

read careful.
i'm not trying to prove the non existence.
i'm asking you, the believer, to prove the existence.
if it exists and interacts daily with us, it should be simple to prove.
but i see nothing forthcoming.

'Should be simple to prove' - moving the goalposts. Heck, according to your logic, evolution should be simple to prove, yet nobody's been able to do it. Lemme know when you find those missing links.

You demand proof of existence yet you claim nonexistence - but have no proof.

Got it.

 

[Calabrio]

I can upload it to a cd, but would not know how to put in online.

Does that mean it's an .avi file?
Then uploading it to the internet is easy.

Webpages like Youtube walk you through the process.
Or pages like putfile.com are good for longer movies. (over 10 minutes)