Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-11-2010, 07:57 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
Fr0do

So, your insistence on hermeneutics and the "mainstream" view of interpretation got me thinking that maybe I was missing something and I did some searching around. Based on what I found on Google, I still contend that yours is a vastly minority position and that most Christians are taking the basic stories in the bible as true. There does seem to be some view that some of it is allegorical, as with the talking snake, but the people and things are specifically called out as being true and historical. There are a dozen or so examples of this on just a very quick search.

Here is one site I found, which includes the following:

Yet, so many interpreters continue to be intimidated by the truth claims of modern science, and either deny what the Scriptures apparently teach or stretch them to fit the current scientific consensus. The truth claims of science always seem to trump exegesis, regardless of how thorough it is and how well done. At this point, one would do well to head the warning of John D. Hannah:

‘[In the 19th century] science appeared to speak with the inerrancy that we accord to Scripture alone. It behooves us to remember to be cautious not to neglect the exegesis of Scripture and the qualitative gulf between special and general revelation.’54

E.J. Young asks:

‘Why is it so difficult to [get at the meaning the author sought to convey] with the first chapter of the Bible? The answer, we believe, is that although men pay lip service to the doctrine of creation, in reality they find it a very difficult doctrine to accept.’55

Indeed, it appears that when considering the doctrine of creation, the difficulty is not understanding the teaching of Scripture, but believing it … .


That does not read to me like someone who is doubting the creation story as it is written. Sure, some of the details like the snake in the Garden of Eden may be metaphors but I don't think there is any doubt in the authors mind that Adam and Eve were real and the first people on Earth and we all descend from them.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2010, 08:17 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(22-11-2010 02:29 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  
(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  There is no reason to believe anything without proof. It's irrational.
That's a tautology.

No.

Quote:What we believe without proof IS purely rational.

No.

Quote:
(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I am a skeptic. I believe only that which is supported by the evidence. Anything else is, quite frankly, stupid. Even if you're not a skeptic, believing something with absolutely no evidence supporting it is stupid.
I'm a skeptic. I question everything. Denying logic is the definition of stupid, and it's a position that you're aligning yourself with.

No.

Quote:
(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Please come back to me on that if you know better. ie please let me know how BOP applies to a subject where there cannot be proof.

There can be proof. That's the point. Either there can be proof of God's existence or he does note exist. If there cannot be evidence of God, then he does not exist. Whether this proof is philosophical or scientific or irrelevant. There must be proof.
There cannot be proof according to the logic.

Then God does not exist.

Quote:
(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  This seems to contradict your "exactly" above. First you say that you agree that knowledge is not belief. But you said earlier that you "know through faith (belief)". If belief is not knowledge, you can't know through belief. You can only believe through belief.
It doesn't contradict at all.

"Knowledge through faith" or 'belief' is not scientifically verifiable knowledge.

Belief =/= knowledge.
Belief = knowledge though faith

Then why do you insist on calling it "knowledge" when it very clearly is nothing but belief? "Knowledge" is when something is established fact.

Quote:
(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Saying that I will not accept evidence from the Bible is not the same as saying that I will not accept evidence from anywhere else.
Yes it is, as it's identical evidence.

That's not my problem. If you can't find any evidence outside of the Bible, that doesn't change the fact that I did not say that I wouldn't accept other evidence. It's your failing, not mine.

Quote:
(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Point two, I did not say that I would never accept evidence from the Bible. I said that using the Bible as evidence of God is circular. The former is simple dismissal, which I did not do. The latter is rejection with reason.
Which until now you have neglected to explain.

I've explained it before. That you missed the explanation or didn't understand it is not my fault.

Quote:
(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Using the Bible as evidence of God is circular. The Bible is only true if God exists. By claiming the Bible as evidence of God, you have essentially formed this argument:

PREMISE ONE: The Bible is true.
PREMISE TWO: The Bible says that God exists.
CONCLUSION: God exists.

This is circular reasoning. It is unsound and invalid. It assumes its conclusion. P1 is only true if the conclusion is true.

Circular.
I have to have faith, to believe that the bible is true. To anyone without faith it isn't true.

It isn't true to anyone with faith, either, because that's circular logic. You aren't responding to my objection. You're simply repeating your already refuted logic.

Quote:Certainly not circular.

Entirely circular.

Quote:
(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:None of which addresses the question that you were supposed to be answering - to show me a Christian who said that they had scientifically acceptable evidence of God's existence.
Yes, it does. It answers that question exactly. NephilimFree claims to have scientifically valid evidence that God exists. He says it in almost every video. Did you even bother to watch a single one of his talks on his flood theory?
No I didn't. I have limited bandwidth and asked you to link a single proof - not a whole library where I have to go search myself.

Then don't accuse me of failing to provide evidence. Again, you failed here, not me. Don't try to blame others for your mistakes.

Quote:
(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:If you have no examples then please withdraw the statement.
I have examples galore. If you'd bothered to look at his channel like I asked, you'd see them. Here's a video in which he claims that intelligent design can be scientifically proven: Biology Proves Design
Why are you linking me to something else? I asked for his statement that God exists - nothing else.

(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And here's a comment in which he claims that DNA is proof of creationism:

Quote:DNA is proof of design and Special creation. As for God, the evidence is overwhelming. His written Word posesses properties only a supernatural intelligence and power could have given it, the personal experiences, including miricles, of so many millions of people, the fact that science supports His Word completely, hundreds of specific fulfilled prophecies. The Bible alone proves God is who He says He is.
Again... where the only statement I asked you for? Why on earth are you going off topic???

Jesus Christ, man, how obtuse are you? He says in that very video AND in that comment that he has proof of God.

Quote:
(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  So no, I will not retract the statement, and I'd appreciate it if, in future, you actually looked at the evidence I provided.
I'll refrain from vitriol here and give you another chance to link to what I asked.

I already did. You denying it doesn't change it. You're only making a fool of yourself now.

Quote:
(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  there is no way to defend the Bible's account of the Christian god.
Another bold statement of faith.

Not faith. Evidence.

Quote:
(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:
(21-11-2010 03:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  That specific god does not exist, because we know now that many things which were attributed to him are perfectly natural.
A positive claim which I now request evidence from you to back up.

Creation is, of course, the biggie - and, seeing as we know that abiogenesis is possible and that the universe was not created in six days and humanity evolved rather than being created, we can discard that one.
Off topic again.

No.

Quote:A literal interpretation of poetry.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy again.

Quote:There are 2 creation accounts - how do you think the ancient goat herders managed such illogic?

Don't ask me. I'm not them. I didn't write the Old Testament, and I don't know how they passed down their religious beliefs.

Quote:
(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The walls of Jericho is another. The walls of Jericho did not collapse at any time near when the Bible claims that they did. We can also discard the parting of the Red Sea, as there is no evidence that it is even physically possible, let alone that it happened.
Again off topic

No.

Quote:Dare anyone say "supernatural". It's the subject of the book, but not according to you. Again, congratulations on your stunning logical rebuttal of accepted wisdom. you're on a roll!

What are you on about?

Quote:
(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And that's only if you accept that any of these events are anything more than nonsense in the first place. Seriously. It all comes down to "MAGIC!" when you ask how it was done. How can you take this crap seriously?
Magic huh.

Yup.

Quote:There is no point that cohesively links all the biblical logic into a message of course.

No, not really, as it's all nonsense.

Quote:
(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Nice straw men. Try addressing the subject.
I am addressing the subject. You seem to be confused on what the subject is.
Hmmm... I saw not one point addressing the subject there. I bow to your superior logic tho', and believe through faith that you're not talking sdhit as you appear to be doing.

Nice dodge.

Quote:
(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  If you want to prove that Jesus existed, the onus is on you.
I don't want to prove he existed. You want me to prove he existed.

Yes, because the burden of proof is on you.

Quote:Proving he existed is completely illogical to the framework of my world view.

Then your worldview is illogical.

Quote:
(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It's irrational to everyone.
Are you claiming mind reading powers now? It appears so.

Nice straw man. No, I am not claiming mind-reading powers. I am merely saying that a statement is irrational whether or not someone thinks that it is.

Quote:
(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:instead of confronting the rational view?
You haven't presented one. You've tried (fallaciously and unsuccessfully) to shift the burden of proof. Like it or not, it's up to you to prove that your beliefs are valid.
It doesn't matter what I've presented or not.

Yes, it does.

Quote:You have failed to show how the BOP applies. Without the success of proving my responsibility you cannot demand I provide proof. First you have to establish how. I certainly can't see how.

You believe that a God exists. You believe that the Biblical Jesus was real. You are a Christian. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of your beliefs. If part of your worldview is that the burden of proof is not on you, then your worldview is simply wrong. A belief is irrational unless it has evidence for it. Sliding in a clause that there can't be evidence supporting your belief doesn't change that.

Quote:
(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Are you so afraid of the weakness of your argument? I can only conclude that this is indeed the case.
Then you are deluded.
Without rational support we are forced to conclude your argument false.

Right back at you.

Quote:
(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:I've provided reasoning for the rational viewpoint as stated already, twice now.
And I've debunked it each time.
I'm sorry you haven't done so once yet.

Denying it doesn't change facts, fr0d0.

Quote:
(21-11-2010 11:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Are you so afraid of the weakness of your argument?
My argument is stated and stands unrefuted. If you fail to present an argument you are in fact calling a double bluff. Stop trying to address the weakest interpretation of religion to easily shoot it down. Man up and argue with the grown ups.

fr0d0, I am "arguing with the grown-ups". That you don't have enough of a grasp of the principles involved to understand that you're getting destroyed does not invalidate my arguments in any way, shape, or form.

"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
22-11-2010, 09:48 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
I only read up to page 5, so this may have been mentioned, but no one hit this aspect of it as far as I noticed:

Atheism is not an independent belief system; it is a rejection of the theist claim. If theism didn't exist, then consequently neither would atheism because there would be no claims to reject. We are not making a claim, therefore no proof is required. We are rejecting your claim, and hence do not need to prove the non-existence of god, but rather we only need to prove why the theistic claims are false. The problem with this is, theists have no proof for us to refute. You can't logically argue against faith because the entire concept of "faith" is based in non logical terms. Seeing no reason to believe, but believing anyways is faith, which is the complete opposite of logic. So the reason atheists are viewed as unable to provide "proof" for their beliefs is that they are forced to refute evidence that isn't there in the first place.


-notice- I am super high and blasting Megadeth so loud I can't think... so if this makes sense even grammatically, it's a victory for me.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2010, 09:51 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
Quote:You believe that a God exists. You believe that the Biblical Jesus was real. You are a Christian. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of your beliefs. If part of your worldview is that the burden of proof is not on you, then your worldview is simply wrong. A belief is irrational unless it has evidence for it. Sliding in a clause that there can't be evidence supporting your belief doesn't change that.

You know ... this particular passage in the exchange got me thinking a little.

UB - I don't know if you realize this or not, but you are making two different points here. Playing Devil's advocate a little, I think if someone, anyone, claims to believe in something, and they just believe it because they do, why do they have a burden to prove it to anyone else? If I believe that there is a planet somewhere in the universe made of corn chips, I mean really believe it, why do I have a burden to provide evidence of it? You're right that without evidence to support it, even subjective evidence that I believe that no one else may, the belief is irrational. However, that does not not mean I have an obligation to prove it if I'm not advocating the position, just believing the position.

I'm a bit tired so I'm not sure if this makes sense, and it may seem like I'm jumping sides in this argument, but I think in my nighttime fog I've started to understand fr0d0's point: he believes in the Christian god because he does, and he has no obligation to you (or to me) to explain why he does. That doesn't make the belief rational, but it's at least rational to him.

Does that make sense?

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2010, 10:42 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
Quote:UB - I don't know if you realize this or not, but you are making two different points here. Playing Devil's advocate a little, I think if someone, anyone, claims to believe in something, and they just believe it because they do, why do they have a burden to prove it to anyone else? If I believe that there is a planet somewhere in the universe made of corn chips, I mean really believe it, why do I have a burden to provide evidence of it? You're right that without evidence to support it, even subjective evidence that I believe that no one else may, the belief is irrational. However, that does not not mean I have an obligation to prove it if I'm not advocating the position, just believing the position.

Correct. But once you start advocating that Corn Chip Planet theory be taught in schools alongside the "theory" of astronomy, and convince your government to put 'In Corn Chip Planet We Trust' on their currency, and your Corn Chip Planet followers declare open war on the non-believers... it becomes imperative that the Corn Chip Planet theory be studied, by scientists and Acorn Chip Planetists (Atheist, Acorn get it). And once 95% of the scientists agree that it is highly probable that there is no Corn Chip Planet, the believers are then in a position where they are opposing the scientific method, evidence, and logic in general... and as such, must provide proof for their continued beliefs.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2010, 12:40 AM (This post was last modified: 23-11-2010 01:17 AM by fr0d0.)
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
Hi BnW

(22-11-2010 06:28 PM)BnW Wrote:  That site is not saying that the bible stories are not what they say they are.
It's saying what they are is not mostly literal. Which is all I'm trying to show.

(22-11-2010 06:28 PM)BnW Wrote:  if you do a quick google search you will find, for example, Christian groups using hermeneutics and claiming that the flood was 100% true.
There are a minority who do, yes. I count them as brothers and sisters in Christ. I also find their logic indefensible.

(22-11-2010 06:28 PM)BnW Wrote:  And, as for what the majority believe, given how specified the field of history is I seriously doubt that a majority of people who call themselves historians would claim they are all knowledgeable equally on any one subject.
Yes. I wasn't meaning to include historians who haven't studied the subject. My mistake.

(22-11-2010 06:28 PM)BnW Wrote:  Finally, again, I'm willing to concede that the Jesus story is based on a real person. It may not be, but I think that is almost irrelevant to the basic argument "is there a god, is there no god".
Agreed again. There can be no convincing God argument so beyond the human I don't expect to find evidence. I find the biblical record to be consistent with the nature of God as conceptualised, and on that basis assert that it's a true record, as far as we (as believers) can know currently.

Hi again. Considering your next post...

Yes those are creationists who also have a mostly literalist view. They're not as blind as YECs, but still have a flawed viewpoint - according to scientific proofs and theological logic. See they're trying to assert that scripture is knowledge, where it is never knowledge. I expect you to laugh as hard as I do when they make scientific claims on the back of it. I don't deny that they make a good case. These people are the exception rather than the rule tho'. Our modern society seems to have a large proportion of crazies. Sometimes the US seems to represent the lobotomised majority. I dunno maybe I'm the crazy one thinking that a rational view pervades.


Hey Unbeliever.

You didn't respond at all there. I understand you're ill, so I won't push you on that, except to request evidence of a Christian saying that they have scientifically acceptable evidence of Gods existence. I will accept nothing less than this. AND I'd like to re-iterate: if such a Christian DOES exist then you and I would rightly I think subject that person to a request of proof, which I'm sure they couldn't provide. We're onto a winner here my friend. Don't go throwing it away.
(22-11-2010 09:48 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  I only read up to page 5, so this may have been mentioned, but no one hit this aspect of it as far as I noticed:

Atheism is not an independent belief system; it is a rejection of the theist claim. If theism didn't exist, then consequently neither would atheism because there would be no claims to reject. We are not making a claim, therefore no proof is required. We are rejecting your claim, and hence do not need to prove the non-existence of god, but rather we only need to prove why the theistic claims are false. The problem with this is, theists have no proof for us to refute. You can't logically argue against faith because the entire concept of "faith" is based in non logical terms. Seeing no reason to believe, but believing anyways is faith, which is the complete opposite of logic. So the reason atheists are viewed as unable to provide "proof" for their beliefs is that they are forced to refute evidence that isn't there in the first place.


-notice- I am super high and blasting Megadeth so loud I can't think... so if this makes sense even grammatically, it's a victory for me.

Hey Buddy Wink

I don't think atheism is merely a rejection, I think it's also a pass. If you've made no decision of the subject that also makes you an atheist in my book. Just sayin.
(22-11-2010 10:42 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  But once you start advocating that Corn Chip Planet theory be taught in schools alongside the "theory" of astronomy... (etc)
LOL Big Grin

I agree Buddy. Belief isn't something that can be legislated for, or declared as scientific knowledge. That's intellectual suicide.

Religion is supposed to benefit mankind and not destroy it. The aim, to me, is utterly positive. I also think that being such also attracts to polar opposite: with people abusing it. The skeptic is entirely correct to be suspicious and question motives IMO.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2010, 09:02 AM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
Quote:Religion is supposed to benefit mankind and not destroy it. The aim, to me, is utterly positive. I also think that being such also attracts to polar opposite: with people abusing it. The skeptic is entirely correct to be suspicious and question motives IMO.

And this takes us into what can probably be its entirely own topic.

I don't know what religion is "supposed" to be but it has historically been anything but positive and has not been for the benefit of mankind by any reasonable definition of "benefit". On the contrary, it has been used to subjugate, enslave, and prevent the spread of intellectual enhancement. Yesterday it was mostly Christianity that did this and today it is largely Islam. Judaism, as the oldest of the monotheistic religions, seems to have gone through its worst growing pains long before real scientific inquiry was around and maybe that spared the Jews the worst of the extremism, but make no mistake about how violent the earlier Hebrews were to anyone who did not believe as they did and got in their way.

There is a difference between belief in God based on a purported authoritative document and the enactment of that belief in the form of organized religions. Organized religions have been, for most of their history, flat out evil in my opinion. I suppose you could argue that the belief in god is in and of itself benign and with a positive aim but, personally, I don't see how any objective reader of the old or new testament or the q'uaran can come to that opinion.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2010, 11:45 AM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
I would argue that following Christ is extremely positive and beneficial to humanity, and that God is a God of love. Something also supported pre-Christianity. I agree that organised religion has been quite the opposite. To me it proves the biblical concept right, on the nature of humanity. Well, it could be said that's it's merely accurate observation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2010, 12:31 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(22-11-2010 09:51 PM)BnW Wrote:  UB - I don't know if you realize this or not, but you are making two different points here. Playing Devil's advocate a little, I think if someone, anyone, claims to believe in something, and they just believe it because they do, why do they have a burden to prove it to anyone else?

I know what I was saying. I didn't say that you need to prove your beliefs to anyone. If you believe something that is irrational, that's fine. Just don't try to pretend that it's rational.

fr0d0 is arguing that his personal beliefs are rational. They aren't. It's up to him to prove that they are.

Quote:I think in my nighttime fog I've started to understand fr0d0's point: he believes in the Christian god because he does, and he has no obligation to you (or to me) to explain why he does. That doesn't make the belief rational, but it's at least rational to him.

No, it isn't. Rationality isn't subjective. He believes that what he believes is rational. It isn't.

"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
23-11-2010, 12:36 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(23-11-2010 12:40 AM)fr0d0 Wrote:  Hey Unbeliever.

You didn't respond at all there. I understand you're ill, so I won't push you on that, except to request evidence of a Christian saying that they have scientifically acceptable evidence of Gods existence.

YO, FR0D0.

I NORMALLY CONSIDER TYPING IN LARGE, BOLD FONTS ANNOYING. BUT SINCE YOU SEEM TO BE IGNORING EVERYTHING THAT I SAY, THIS IS ABOUT THE LAST THING I CAN TRY THAT MIGHT GRAB YOUR ATTENTION.

NEPHILIMFREE HAS CLAIMED THAT HE HAS SCIENTIFICALLY ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE OF GOD'S EXISTENCE. HE SAYS IT IN EVERY VIDEO. HE SAID IT IN THE COMMENT WHICH I QUOTED, IN FULL, TO YOU. DENYING IT ONLY MAKES YOU LOOK STUBBORN AND FOOLISH.

IN ADDITION, I RESPONDED TO EVERYTHING THAT YOU SAID. DESPITE THE FACT THAT I AM ILL, I AM QUITE LUCID, JUST TIRED. YOU SIMPLY SAYING "OH, THAT DOESN'T COUNT AS A RESPONSE" DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. IT SIMPLY MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE AN INTELLECTUAL COWARD, UNWILLING TO ATTEMPT TO DEFEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. CLOSING YOUR EYES AND GOING "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" DOESN'T MAKE IT GO AWAY.

"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: