Friday Q&A: The burden of proof is on you if you claim God is real

Monday’s article continues to spark discussion, as atheists continue to react to the idea that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a credible attack against the idea of God.

In today’s exchange, M. states that the burden of proof is on theists, not atheists. Atheists are only mocking an idea, whereas theists are asserting a claim about reality. That puts the burden of proof on theists to demonstrate that God really does exist.

Here’s our conversation:

a tiny spaghetti monster

---

M. Wrote:

"God is infinite. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not." - the burden of proof is on you then as you claim something about reality.

---

My Response:

Hello M., thanks for responding.

You said:

“"God is infinite. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not." - the burden of proof is on you then as you claim something about reality.”

Which part do you mean, my friend?

My words are accurate in describing how each one is presented. The Bible presents God as in infinite. Those who talk about the Flying Spaghetti Monster present it as finite.

Do you mean, then, that the burden of proof is on me to prove that something infinite exists?

If so, that is easily met.

Our universe is finite. Everything about it and everything we have ever measured in it is finite. Everything about our universe is bound by finite limits of time, matter, energy, and space.

But finite things are dependent things. Finite things can’t exist on their own. Finite things do not exist forever; by definition, their temporal existence is bound by finite limits, as every other aspect is.

That requires something to exist prior to the finite universe, such that it can bring the finite universe into existence.

Whether our finite universe is the only universe, or whether 15,000 universes existed prior to it, either way it requires an infinite entity to pre-exist if all, such that it can cause the first finite thing to begin existing.

A finite universe requires an infinite Source.

---

M. Wrote Back:

Thanks for a response.

I can see that you are presenting the first cause apologetic argument.

I do think that this kind of presupposition is an error in logical reasoning as you need to set it as an axiom otherwise you fall into infinite regression trap - who created the creator, etc.

Also this type of argument violates the law of parsimony - you need two entities in the picture, cosmos and some kind of a creator deity. I can think of a cosmos withouth a creator deity and I have no problems with that.

Hence "a finite universe requires an infinite Source" is a presuposition, not a scientifically proven fact.

But that's fine, people do use various apologetic approaches that fall short when confronted with logical reasoning. It's ok.

---

My Second Response:

Hello M., thanks for responding.

You said:

"Thanks for a response. I can see that you are presenting the first cause apologetic argument. I do think that this kind of presupposition is an error in logical reasoning as you need to set it as an axiom otherwise you fall into infinite regression trap - who created the creator, etc."

There's no error in logical reasoning, here.

Only a logical conclusion that makes people uncomfortable.

Logically, a finite entity cannot exist independently. It is a dependent entity, depending on something outside of it to cause it to begin existing, because its existence begins and ends. It has limits on all of its properties.

A limited entity cannot be limitless.

Likewise, it is illogical to have an infinite series of finite entities. A large number of finite entities does not negate the necessity that the first finite entity in the chain needs to be caused to exist by something outside of it.

There is no logical answer to how a finite entity can come into existence unless there is an infinite entity existing at the bottom of the chain, an independent entity whose existence does not depend on anything else to create it.

Such a thing is logically necessary to explain the existence of any finite entity, including our finite universe.

All of that is purely logical. I haven't appealed to religion or faith at all.

You said:

"Also this type of argument violates the law of parsimony - you need two entities in the picture, cosmos and some kind of a creator deity. I can think of a cosmos withouth a creator deity and I have no problems with that."

A finite cosmos cannot exist on its own. It is a dependent entity, as all finite entities are. It depends on something outside of itself to bring it into existence.

But an independent, infinite creator can exist on its own.

Further, an independent, infinite creator can explain all the universe we see. It can explain where everything came from: an infinite creator who can create all dependent, finite things.

But a finite cosmos cannot explain where itself came from, let alone everything else.

You said:

"Hence "a finite universe requires an infinite Source" is a presuposition, not a scientifically proven fact."

It's a logically proven fact, not a scientifically proven fact.

Many scientific facts begin as logically proven facts, using the logic to guide scientific exploration.

You said:

"But that's fine, people do use various apologetic approaches that fall short when confronted with logical reasoning. It's ok."

No, it isn't.

An argument that can't survive scrutiny isn't okay.

Such as the idea that a finite cosmos can exist on its own.

That idea cannot survive logical scrutiny.

---