The Burden of Proof
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2015, 05:20 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 09:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  One of our resident theists (Tomasia) levied this claim: "There’s abundant and compelling evidence that Harry Potter is an entirely fictional character, and not evidence even remotely in support of him being a historical person, or being based on one."

The last half of that sentence is mind numbing, but suggests that there exists no evidence to suggest that Harry Potter is a real historical person who existed or that the Harry Potter character is based on a historical one.


What exactly would constitute evidence for non-existence? How does one provide proof positive that a character is fictional for instance? It is certainly true that we accept that Harry Potter the wizard is fictional, but there is no evidence that would actually demonstrate this. The author is still alive and could indicate that she completely made him up, but assuming that someone read these books 100 years from now and Rowling's comments on the stories were lost, what evidence from the books themselves (the place from which the character originates) indicates proof positive evidence that Harry is fictional?

On a similar vein, how would one prove that Bigfoot isn't real with evidence? Alien abductions? Fairies? Etc.

This is mostly a challenge to ol' TommyBoy. Demonstrate evidence for non-existence of an entity like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster or fairies. What would constitute proof positive for fictionality/non-existence? Can one ever provide evidence for something that does not exist or did not occur?

Drinking Beverage

There is no burden to prove that the non-existent doesn't exist and to ask one to prove non-existence is to ask one to step outside of existence to look for evidence. No one can prove a negative. But we can prove that theism is false.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
20-10-2015, 05:25 PM
The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 05:20 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 09:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  One of our resident theists (Tomasia) levied this claim: "There’s abundant and compelling evidence that Harry Potter is an entirely fictional character, and not evidence even remotely in support of him being a historical person, or being based on one."

The last half of that sentence is mind numbing, but suggests that there exists no evidence to suggest that Harry Potter is a real historical person who existed or that the Harry Potter character is based on a historical one.


What exactly would constitute evidence for non-existence? How does one provide proof positive that a character is fictional for instance? It is certainly true that we accept that Harry Potter the wizard is fictional, but there is no evidence that would actually demonstrate this. The author is still alive and could indicate that she completely made him up, but assuming that someone read these books 100 years from now and Rowling's comments on the stories were lost, what evidence from the books themselves (the place from which the character originates) indicates proof positive evidence that Harry is fictional?

On a similar vein, how would one prove that Bigfoot isn't real with evidence? Alien abductions? Fairies? Etc.

This is mostly a challenge to ol' TommyBoy. Demonstrate evidence for non-existence of an entity like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster or fairies. What would constitute proof positive for fictionality/non-existence? Can one ever provide evidence for something that does not exist or did not occur?

Drinking Beverage

There is no burden to prove that the non-existent doesn't exist and to ask one to prove non-existence is to ask one to step outside of existence to look for evidence. No one can prove a negative. But we can prove that theism is false.

Tomasia claims otherwise, and I've asked him to pony-up his evidence of fictionality/nonexistence and he hasn't disappointed in his inability to deliver or admit he doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 05:25 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 04:59 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You claim Jesus is real and based on a historical Yeshua, but provide no evidence. You provide the same level of "evidence" as exists for other mythological/fictional characters and claim its sufficient. You're simply wrong. In every conceivable way.

You ignore the epistemological differences.

I'll express my view in ways that those epistemological differences should be apparent.

What I claim is that a secular historical explanation like Ehrman's is more reasonable than mythicist/fictional explanations. That the explanations of historicity like Ehrman offer a greater explanatory capacity that ones that presuppose a non-historical/mythicist messiah. That even with the sources we have, historical explanations are the best explanations that can be formed, as opposed to mythicist ones. That mythicist explanations stretch credulity. My claim is that historicity is better explanation, than mythicist explanations. And that reasonable conclusions can be drawn from the material we have available.

The formulation of my view is in contrast to competing explanations.

Your view is not one of those competing claims, your view is not even a view, it's primarily a defense of level for 4 agnosticism on the question of historicity.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 05:29 PM
The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 05:25 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 04:59 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You claim Jesus is real and based on a historical Yeshua, but provide no evidence. You provide the same level of "evidence" as exists for other mythological/fictional characters and claim its sufficient. You're simply wrong. In every conceivable way.

You ignore the epistemological differences.

I'll express my view in ways that those epistemological differences should be apparent.

What I claim is that a secular historical explanation like Ehrman's is more reasonable than mythicist/fictional explanations. That the explanations of historicity like Ehrman offer a greater explanatory capacity that ones that presuppose a non-historical/mythicist messiah. That even with the sources we have, historical explanations are the best explanations that can be formed, as opposed to mythicist ones. That mythicist explanations stretch credulity. My claim is that historicity is better explanation, than mythicist explanations. And that reasonable conclusions can be drawn from the material we have available.

The formulation of my view is lieu of competing claims.

Your view is not one of those competing claims, your view is not even a view, it's primarily a defense of level for 4 agnosticism on the question of historicity.

More red herring as you continue to shirk your burden of proof with logical fallacy.

You make a claim that is demonstrably wrong, ignorant, asinine. You fail to admit you don't know what you're talking about, that you're wrong, and that you can't provide that which you've explicitly said you could. Instead, you offer red herrings and shift the burden of proof and attempt to redefine words to suit your preconceived faith-based conclusions.

You're in so far over your head, the anglerfish is bobbing its glowing lure in front of your face but you think it's a fairy.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 05:30 PM
The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 05:25 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 04:59 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You claim Jesus is real and based on a historical Yeshua, but provide no evidence. You provide the same level of "evidence" as exists for other mythological/fictional characters and claim its sufficient. You're simply wrong. In every conceivable way.

You ignore the epistemological differences.

I'll express my view in ways that those epistemological differences should be apparent.

What I claim is that a secular historical explanation like Ehrman's is more reasonable than mythicist/fictional explanations. That the explanations of historicity like Ehrman offer a greater explanatory capacity that ones that presuppose a non-historical/mythicist messiah. That even with the sources we have, historical explanations are the best explanations that can be formed, as opposed to mythicist ones. That mythicist explanations stretch credulity. My claim is that historicity is better explanation, than mythicist explanations. And that reasonable conclusions can be drawn from the material we have available.

The formulation of my view is in contrast to competing explanations.

Your view is not one of those competing claims, your view is not even a view, it's primarily a defense of level for 4 agnosticism on the question of historicity.

I don't have to provide an alternative claim, to reject an ignorant claim that has no corroborating evidence.

You make the claim, the burden of proof is yours.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 05:39 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 05:01 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Then you get mad when people reject your claims and tell you that there are far better explanations for what you think you see that are logically consistent with reality.

In regards to historicity you don't offer explanations, let alone better explanations, lol. All you do is decide that a certain set of sources are not evidence, then you draw some wall around it to announce that no explanation can be drawn from them.

You see yourself not as offering better explanations, or proposing affirmative claims of your own, but merely as disputing claims. That's basically what this entire thread is about, a means of defining yourself in any argument as merely that person disputing a claim, not someone offering better explanations.

Quote:I don't have to provide an alternative claim, to reject an ignorant claim that has no corroborating evidence.

And there's your confession to not offering explanations let alone better ones.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 05:44 PM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2015 05:49 PM by TheBeardedDude.)
The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 05:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 05:01 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Then you get mad when people reject your claims and tell you that there are far better explanations for what you think you see that are logically consistent with reality.

In regards to historicity you don't offer explanations, let alone better explanations, lol. All you do is decide that a certain set of sources are not evidence, then you draw some wall around it to announce that no explanation can be drawn from them.

You see yourself not as offering better explanations, or proposing affirmative claims of your own, but merely as disputing claims. That's basically what this entire thread is about, a means of defining yourself in any argument as merely that person disputing a claim, not someone offering better explanations.

Quote:I don't have to provide an alternative claim, to reject an ignorant claim that has no corroborating evidence.

And there's your confession to not offering explanations let alone better ones.

More red herring and shifting of the burden of proof.

The cognitive dissonance is strong with you. And the illogic of your ignorance doesn't even register in the pea you call a brain Laugh out load

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 05:44 PM
The Burden of Proof
And the blatant dishonesty grows more and more obvious with each successive dishonest post

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 05:50 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 05:25 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 05:20 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  There is no burden to prove that the non-existent doesn't exist and to ask one to prove non-existence is to ask one to step outside of existence to look for evidence. No one can prove a negative. But we can prove that theism is false.

Tomasia claims otherwise, and I've asked him to pony-up his evidence of fictionality/none xistence and he hasn't disappointed in his inability to deliver or admit he doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about Drinking Beverage

Theists hide behind the claim that their God can't be disproved, but they make claims about the nature of the universe which can be shown to be false. I'd just like one of them to tell me of a reliable method to distinguish what they call God from something that is merely imaginary. So far not one that I have asked can do it.

Until they can do that there is no reason to even consider their claims.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
20-10-2015, 05:52 PM
The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 05:50 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 05:25 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Tomasia claims otherwise, and I've asked him to pony-up his evidence of fictionality/none xistence and he hasn't disappointed in his inability to deliver or admit he doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about Drinking Beverage

Theists hide behind the claim that their God can't be disproved, but they make claims about the nature of the universe which can be shown to be false. I'd just like one of them to tell me of a reliable method to distinguish what they call God from something that is merely imaginary. So far not one that I have asked can do it.

Until they can do that there is no reason to even consider their claims.

Indeed. The dishonesty runs deep Thumbsup

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: