Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-04-2010, 05:27 AM
 
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
Quote:1. I will grant that there were prophets during that time.

Given, many religions have their prophetic proponents (look at Joseph Smith for the Mormon religion; Muhammad for Islam)

Quote:2. You said there is NO evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus. Super just linked a debate where the atheist, with impressive credentials, had no problem in admitting that Jesus existed. The idea that there is no evidence to support Jesus, whether you believe Jesus existed or not, is just as stupid as saying that the sky is green.

You accuse me of not watching the Ehrman vs. Craig debate on whether Jesus rose from the dead. However, as you have constantly done in previous posts, you have cherry picked the parts that would help your argument.

At about 00:32:00 into the video, Ehrman states that the 'resurrection' can be viewed in two ways: historically and theologically. Theologically, the resurrection story can be true, but I attest theologically to mythologically, meaning that it is great as a story, but untrue. Historically, Ehrman states, "historians can only state what PROBABLY happened in the past. The problem with historians is they can't repeat the experiment..." he continues on talking about if we want proof today for something, we go into the sciences to prove things.

So, tell me martin, have you conducted any 'resurrection' experiments? Know of anyone who has? Has a resurrection, other than one claimed by you and a billion other Christians, ever been proven that it has occurred again (and I'm not counting mythological stories of Mithra, Horus, etc. etc). I'm talking about a human being, dead, coming back to life after being DEAD for 3 days.

Quote:3. Obviously your argument is fallacious and should not be taken seriously.

I will side with Unbeliever and Ashley on the burden of proof. They way I read it is simple: Christians make the claim (especially around Easter, BTW) that Christ has risen. Show me the proof.

If Christ/God want to make their presence known, then why don't they/he? The argument I hear from Christians is 'you have to believe in god to KNOW god, etc., etc.' But, if mankind were created BY god, then he should show himself to ALL human beings, regardless of their denomination of faith.

Let's take a personal example...

I have two boys, aged 6 1/2 and (almost) 3. For the sake of secrecy, let's call them Logan and Clark.

Logan professes his undying commitment to me, on a daily basis. I recognize this and, although a bit uncomfortable at times, I accept it. Logan is an important child because he confirms my existence and my authority on a daily basis. If I ask Logan to do something, he does it without question.

Clark, on the other hand, professes his undying commitment to his mother, on a daily basis. Although I have attempted many times to get him to do what I want, he 'blasphemes' against me by worshipping his mother instead of me. He wouldn't care a single bit if I wasn't even around.

Now, in my example above, would it be right of me to disown/ignore Clark's existence, simply because he doesn't worship me like Logan does? Again, this is a purely personal, human-being laden example. This is the way I view a Christian's claim...

If there is a god (which, based on the sheer lack of evidence of such a being, there PROBABLY isn't...not making a truth claim here), I don't see the reason why he/she/it won't reveal itself to the world to 'put to rest' the whole god debate once and for all.

Look forward to your (logical, non-personal attack) response.
Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2010, 05:58 AM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(08-04-2010 11:02 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Outside of his saying that, which holds zero weight

Show how. Don't just assert.

Quote:what proof did he show.

That is my evidence. Astute readers will also notice that you are leaving out the "probably" from my statement. He was probably a fictional character based on real-life "prophets".

Quote:You said there is NO evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus. Super just linked a debate where the atheist, with impressive credentials, had no problem in admitting that Jesus existed.

Argument from authority fallacy. I don't care what he thought. I'm not him. If he proved that Jesus existed, then show me the evidence.

Quote:The idea that there is no evidence to support Jesus, whether you believe Jesus existed or not, is just as stupid as saying that the sky is green.

Then present the evidence.

Quote:Obviously your argument is fallacious and should not be taken seriously.

Then show how. Why is it so hard to get anything other than out-of-hand dismissal and insults out of you?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2010, 03:14 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
Not to overwhelm you Martin, but I think my last question got washed away in the sea of debaters.

Let's say that someone got a really nice new job. However, it is in a small city, and there is only one place conveniently located near your new job. Some people claim that it is haunted by an evil spirit. So, you go ask some people why they think it's haunted, and they don't give convincing arguments. Then you ask someone if they think the house is haunted, and they no, I've never seen any evidence to imply that it is. That person has just shifted the burden, not giving any other reason to think it is not haunted.

So, what should you do, according to your belief of who gets the burden of proof and when, do? Neither sides have fulfilled the burden of proof, and you have to make a choice, move into the house or not. So, which side would you pick?

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2010, 04:11 PM
 
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(09-04-2010 03:14 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  Not to overwhelm you Martin, but I think my last question got washed away in the sea of debaters.

Let's say that someone got a really nice new job. However, it is in a small city, and there is only one place conveniently located near your new job. Some people claim that it is haunted by an evil spirit. So, you go ask some people why they think it's haunted, and they don't give convincing arguments. Then you ask someone if they think the house is haunted, and they no, I've never seen any evidence to imply that it is. That person has just shifted the burden, not giving any other reason to think it is not haunted.

So, what should you do, according to your belief of who gets the burden of proof and when, do? Neither sides have fulfilled the burden of proof, and you have to make a choice, move into the house or not. So, which side would you pick?

It would depend on my view of "Hunted Houses". If I believed a Haunted house could exist, then I would err to the side of not moving in no matter what proof they had. If I didn't believe in haunted houses, then I would need to see some proof that the house was haunted, if there was no proof then I would move in.

I like what the atheist Cline said in the article I posted, He said it is more support for a claim. Ashley, I like you and the way you think, yet we are on opposite sides of the fence.

I am using Unbeliever as an example. I will give you a tip when it comes to these debating a topic. In my opinion the best way to do that is let the person hang themselves, your job is to give them rope. Unbeliever has no clue about the burden of proof, and he proved it by quoting a Wikipedia page that proves my position. Here are some of the quotes-"Philosophic Burden of Proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. In any such dispute, both parties will hold a burden of proof. However, their respective burdens of proof will often be unequal or asymmetrical. The burden of proof has been demonstrated to be a useful tool in public debate and scientific methodology" "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim.[1] This burden does not demand a mathematical or strictly logical proof (although many strong arguments do rise to this level such as in logical syllogisms), but rather demands an amount of evidence that is established or accepted by convention or community standards.[2][3]

This burden of proof is often asymmetrical and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive claim, or makes a claim more "extraordinary"[4], that is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts"As a starting point, the person who does not know whether fairies exist is not subject to any burden. It is only when one has an opinion and argues this opinion publicly that the burden of proof takes effect. In this case, the party making no claim about fairies has no burden of proof.

Once a party begins to form a belief or makes a claim, the burden of proof is initiated, and that burden is often not symmetrical to the opposing belief or claim. There are many reasons why the burden might not be symmetrical. However, two common reasons are that the claim goes against conventional or community standards or that the claim is ontologically positive. The asymmetry in this example stems mainly from conventional knowledge informing the epistemic dispute over fairies.[5]

Even though I am not a big fan of Wikipedia, he quoted it and it shows he is wrong.
Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2010, 04:16 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(09-04-2010 04:11 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  If I believed a Haunted house could exist, then I would err to the side of not moving in no matter what proof they had.

So your prior opinion could not be influenced by any amount of evidence?

Quote:If I didn't believe in haunted houses, then I would need to see some proof that the house was haunted, if there was no proof then I would move in.

Exactly. This is what we are doing here.

Quote:I am using Unbeliever as an example. I will give you a tip when it comes to these debating a topic. In my opinion the best way to do that is let the person hang themselves, your job is to give them rope. Unbeliever has no clue about the burden of proof, and he proved it by quoting a Wikipedia page that proves my position. Here are some of the quotes-<snip>

Even though I am not a big fan of Wikipedia, he quoted it and it shows he is wrong.

No, it doesn't. It shows you to be wrong. I have supported my position. That you continually deny this is simply mind-boggling. Even if you ignore the fact that my claim is ontologically negative and that yours is ontologically positive, I have shown the evidence in favor of there not being a historical Jesus - that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
Stop pretending that I haven't provided support for my position. I have. The burden of proof is now on you. If you wish to prove that there was a historical Jesus, give us your evidence. If you do not, my case - that there is no evidence - stands, and is perfectly valid.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2010, 04:53 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(09-04-2010 04:11 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  It would depend on my view of "Hunted Houses". If I believed a Haunted house could exist, then I would err to the side of not moving in no matter what proof they had. If I didn't believe in haunted houses, then I would need to see some proof that the house was haunted, if there was no proof then I would move in.

I like what the atheist Cline said in the article I posted, He said it is more support for a claim. Ashley, I like you and the way you think, yet we are on opposite sides of the fence.

Interesting, but somewhat missing the point of the analogy. You wouldn't have an opinion. We are birthed knowing basically nothing, and gain knowledge throughout our lives. I suppose I could have added that, but dropping the analogy, if a person is undecided about something, finds little evidence for the positive side of it, but when investigates the negative side, only hears that the burden of proof is not on them, what position should should with person take?

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2010, 12:17 AM
 
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
I really don't care about the burden proof and I am done discussing it with Unbeliever as he has no idea what it is or how to apply it.

You need to do your own research into God or Haunted Houses or whatever it is you question. The best way to do that is to research the other position and try to prove yours wrong. If you can't prove the other side wrong then believe in your position. The idea that prayer doesn't work, from what I read on this site is wrong, as nobody that I have read knows anything about prayer. So prove that prayer works and do the research yourself and see if it works. Let's say God exists, and you are standing in front of Him and you say "I didn't believe in you because the burden of proof was not on me" How stupid would that sound? Forget the burden of proof and do your own research on whatever topic it is you are dealing with.
(09-04-2010 04:16 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(09-04-2010 04:11 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  If I believed a Haunted house could exist, then I would err to the side of not moving in no matter what proof they had.

So your prior opinion could not be influenced by any amount of evidence?

Quote:If I didn't believe in haunted houses, then I would need to see some proof that the house was haunted, if there was no proof then I would move in.

Exactly. This is what we are doing here.

Quote:I am using Unbeliever as an example. I will give you a tip when it comes to these debating a topic. In my opinion the best way to do that is let the person hang themselves, your job is to give them rope. Unbeliever has no clue about the burden of proof, and he proved it by quoting a Wikipedia page that proves my position. Here are some of the quotes-<snip>

Even though I am not a big fan of Wikipedia, he quoted it and it shows he is wrong.

No, it doesn't. It shows you to be wrong. I have supported my position. That you continually deny this is simply mind-boggling. Even if you ignore the fact that my claim is ontologically negative and that yours is ontologically positive, I have shown the evidence in favor of there not being a historical Jesus - that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
Stop pretending that I haven't provided support for my position. I have. The burden of proof is now on you. If you wish to prove that there was a historical Jesus, give us your evidence. If you do not, my case - that there is no evidence - stands, and is perfectly valid.

There you go again with your "No it doesn't"

Explain this quote from Wikipedia page "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim.

Explain this quote from Wikipedia page based on you making this claim not me "He was probably an amalgamation of several "prophets" of the time. "It is only when one has an opinion and argues this opinion publicly that the burden of proof takes effect. In this case, the party making no claim about fairies has no burden of proof." I have no burden of proof you made the claim now support it. You have shown no proof on there not being an historical Jesus.
Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2010, 05:05 AM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2010 08:43 AM by Germanatheist007.)
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(10-04-2010 12:17 AM)martinb59 Wrote:  You have shown no proof on there not being an historical Jesus.

but you haven´t shown a proof that there is one and that´s the important thing
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2010, 08:19 AM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(10-04-2010 12:17 AM)martinb59 Wrote:  I really don't care about the burden proof and I am done discussing it with Unbeliever as he has no idea what it is or how to apply it.

You need to do your own research into God or Haunted Houses or whatever it is you question. The best way to do that is to research the other position and try to prove yours wrong. If you can't prove the other side wrong then believe in your position. The idea that prayer doesn't work, from what I read on this site is wrong, as nobody that I have read knows anything about prayer. So prove that prayer works and do the research yourself and see if it works. Let's say God exists, and you are standing in front of Him and you say "I didn't believe in you because the burden of proof was not on me" How stupid would that sound? Forget the burden of proof and do your own research on whatever topic it is you are dealing with.

I'm going to presume that was meant for me. Well, if you have lost interest than so be. I still stand behind my belief, that if you make a claim, you must always support, and a claim that something didn't happen/doesn't exist is not a real claim in that sense. If I ever stand before god and realize that he is real, and he asks me why I didn't believe, I think my out would be as valid as any other.

"I'm sorry Flying Spaghetti Monster, I just saw no evidence that you existed" That point I was, hopefully, trying to lead it to, is that I am exactly where I should according to you burden of proof. I don't say there definitely is no god, which means if someone walked up to me and said there is no god, but has no way to prove to conclusively, I wouldn't believe him. I just believe that there probably is no god. I reject that side saying there is definitely no god, and the side that says there definitely is.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2010, 10:37 AM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(10-04-2010 12:17 AM)martinb59 Wrote:  I really don't care about the burden proof and I am done discussing it with Unbeliever as he has no idea what it is or how to apply it.

Fine. You can ignore me all you want. You have no case, and I've shown that. Anyone else reading this thread can see for themselves. You have repeatedly misinterpreted the articles that you read, you have dismissed several sources out of hand simply because they do not agree with you and you constantly strawman my position. But I'll keep responding to you anyway, because letting your fallacies slide grates on my nerves.

Quote:You need to do your own research into God or Haunted Houses or whatever it is you question. The best way to do that is to research the other position and try to prove yours wrong.

This is true, at least under certain circumstances.

Quote:If you can't prove the other side wrong then believe in your position.

This doesn't make any sense. You can't disprove your opponent's position, but you hold on to yours anyway?

Quote:The idea that prayer doesn't work, from what I read on this site is wrong, as nobody that I have read knows anything about prayer. So prove that prayer works and do the research yourself and see if it works.

The research has been done. Double-blind studies have been performed on multiple occasions. On every experiment, the results have come up negative. Prayer does not work. There is no case in its favor.

Quote:Let's say God exists, and you are standing in front of Him and you say "I didn't believe in you because the burden of proof was not on me" How stupid would that sound?

Actually, it would sound perfectly logical. Let's say that Cthulhu exists, and you are standing in front of it and you say "I didn't believe in you because the burden of proof was not on me".
It is entirely true that the lack of evidence is not one hundred percent proof that Cthulhu does not exist, but it is evidence that it is overwhelmingly likely that he does not.
In the total absence of evidence in favor of the existence of something, the only rational conclusion is that it does not exist.

Quote:Explain this quote from Wikipedia page "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim.

You act as if I haven't addressed this already. Even if you ignore the fact that "Jesus did not exist" is a negative claim, and place the burden of proof on me anyway, I have made the case against Jesus - that there is no case for him.
Stop acting like I haven't responded to you.

Quote:Explain this quote from Wikipedia page based on you making this claim not me "He was probably an amalgamation of several "prophets" of the time. "It is only when one has an opinion and argues this opinion publicly that the burden of proof takes effect. In this case, the party making no claim about fairies has no burden of proof." I have no burden of proof you made the claim now support it. You have shown no proof on there not being an historical Jesus.

You have shown no proof of there not being a historical Cthulhu.
In any case, yes, I have shown evidence of there not being a historical Jesus. The evidence against Jesus is that there is no evidence for Jesus. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: