God and Unicorn —— The Analogy Atheists Use to Show They Have No Burden Of Proof

Discussion in 'Defending the Faith' started by DyeLi, Jun 25, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Supersillymanable

    Supersillymanable Puritan Board Freshman

    As to your first response to what I said, I wasn't pointing out that that was a good reason to believe. I was pointing out that the premise of their argument was flawed. They assume the burden of proof is on us, which is simply not true. It was simply a side comment that I find the argument for there being a God (not even specifically a Christian God, was a better one).

    I think I misunderstand what you are saying on the second part though. If you're objecting to the also which I inserted, which implied we couldn't justify obtaining knowledge of justifying our belief that our senses give us real or rational information about a real and rational world, that wasn't intended. I do believe that Christianity provides that basis, while atheism does not. If that isn't what you're objecting to, could you clarify?
  2. Philip

    Philip Puritan Board Graduate

    In that case, stop arguing and give the atheist the floor.

    What I am objecting to is the assumption that if you can't come up with some sort of metaphysical explanation for trusting faculty X, that you have no warrant for trusting faculty X. Warrant for faculty X has to do with actual proper function regardless of whether you can provide such a theory.

    I agree that atheism provides a much less exhaustive, satisfactory, and complete account of why the faculties are basically trustworthy, but what exactly does that prove? Giving the argument that basically "your theory is incomplete" is, more or less, merely an aesthetic argument. You haven't proven it untrue, merely unsightly.
  3. Philip

    Philip Puritan Board Graduate

    Not exactly---their point is de jure: "we have no compelling reason to believe that God exists."
  4. Pilgrim Standard

    Pilgrim Standard Puritan Board Sophomore

    These are Atheists and not Agnostics in the op.

    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

    They stand with their hands over their eyes and claim you can not prove what is before them, for the evidence is not seen, because they deem it unworthy.
  5. J. Dean

    J. Dean Puritan Board Junior

  6. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    I was just mowing a huge field and I was thinking about this thread. I would like to add onto my first post. The burden of proof can also be established in other ways. If the atheist initiates the conversation, than they have the burden of proof in proving why they don’t believe in God. In fact they are making a positive assertion that they are not convinced. Ask them why?

    That is a practical way to demonstrate who has the burden of proof. When they say that they are an atheist and they are unconvinced than they must have reasons why they are unconvinced, or else we have no reason to listen to them. Also ask them how they are sure they understand the evidences and arguments? Since people can always be unconvinced due to ignorance, how do they know this is not the case? How do they know they are being fair or objective? People often times think they are being fair and objective when they are not.

    Those questions force to the surface the greatest error in modern atheism which is that by defining your position as unconvinced of something and trying to have that prove that the burden of is on the Christian is very pompous. It proves too much. Why are atheists so important that they deserve to have everything proven to them? I wouldn’t say this in a debate or discussion per se because that is accusing them of possible motives they may not have which would violate the 9th commandment. But asking these questions is a good way of bringing this up without outright accusing them of false motives.
  7. Peairtach

    Peairtach Puritan Board Doctor

    Many of the atheists have conceded the existence of pink unicorns by their embrace or openness to the multi-universe theory.
  8. Supersillymanable

    Supersillymanable Puritan Board Freshman

    I don't really understand the point in saying this... I was simply answering the original posts question. Namely, the analogy is based on a flawed premise.

    I also didn't say that, nor did I assume it. I simply said atheists aren't able to justify it. I was essentially taking their claim "you have no justification for believing in God" hence, the analogy for the unicorn, as they believe there is no warrant for that, and applying it to things they accept as true and warranted. I never claimed any of these things were untrue. I was simply pointing out the double standard by which they argue by.

    William Lane Craig sets out one form of arguing, which takes the form of taking the assumptions that one is applying to your argument or belief and apply it to theirs, to show how the position is untenable, in order to force them to give up one of their beliefs, in this case, either that the belief in God is unwarranted, or that we can trust our senses. Neither of which they want to do. The point isn't proving something, it's simply helping them to see the false assumptions they've been lead to believe.
  9. Semper Fidelis

    Semper Fidelis 2 Timothy 2:24-25 Staff Member


    I just told my son last night that the reason there are no unicorns is that the carnivores ate one of them on Noah's Ark.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page