Of course. We are on a Christian forum. You say that I made the "extraordinary claim" that the Bible is true and therefore I have a burden of proof to show that. It is not an extraordinary claim at all. That is the status quo among Christians, and one which everyone here already accepts (or nearly everyone it seems). Therefore I am under no burden of proof whatsoever.
You keep on using logical fallacies. This is a textbook example of the well known fallacy of appealing to the crowd, or argumentum ad populum (Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia). Just because a lot of people believe something it doesn't mean it is true. Lots of Mormons believe in the Book of Mormon, should I conclude that you believe in the Book of Mormon as well? Lots of Muslims believe in the Quran, so you believe in the Quran as well?
Furthermore, you very clearly have the burden of proof, because you are the one who is making a claim. I'm not making any claim.
Given the claim X = "Acts 2 was a historical fact", there are 3 possible options you could adopt:
1) I claim that X is true: here you have the burden of proof to show that X is true.
2) I claim that X is false: here you have the burden of proof to show that X is false.
3) I withhold judgement with respect to X: here you don't claim neither that X is true nor that X is false, you just withhold judgement and do not defend either position. For example, agnostics usually fall into this category with respect to the claim "God exists". More generally, if you lack enough information to give a verdict in favor of either option, you fall into this category by default. This should be the default position when you don't know if X is either true or false. This could also be labeled as the "I don't know" position.
With respect to the claim X = "Acts 2 was a historical fact", I'm withholding judgement (option 3), I've never claimed at any point in our discussion that X is either true or false. On the other hand, you sir, as a cessationist, are making the positive claim that X is true. That's a claim, so you have the burden of proof to show that that's the case. That's how the burden of proof works. If someone claims that X is true, they have to give evidence for why X is true. If someone claims that X is false, they have to give evidence for why X is false. If someone withholds judgement, they have no burden of proof.
If you say that X is true because lots of people are saying that X is true, sorry sir, but that's a terrible justification. That's literally the textbook definition of the fallacy of appealing to the crowd. If the crowd has very good reasons to believe that X is true, quote the reasons instead, and forget about the crowd.
It depends on the testimony. In these sorts of things you always have to make judgements on a case by case basis, but yeah, I would say there are testimonies where that appears to be the case.So you believe the alien abduction stories, but instead of them being aliens from another planet they were actually demons?
A typical story would be a flying saucer came and hovered over someone's car, levitated the person into the craft, where they were placed on an operating table and surrounded by aliens with bug-like heads, who performed experiments on them, giving them injections, inserting probes into their mouth etc, before dumping them back on the ground.
So you believe all this happened in real life, just as they claimed, except it was demons performing the experiments and not aliens?
As I said before, you have to judge these things on a case by case basis. It wouldn't be fair to make blanket judgements based on a story you just made up when the proper thing to do should be to take into account all the details surrounding the person and their testimony.
Instead of having me analyze your just made-up story, how about you cite a concrete testimony you might be interested in and I share my thoughts on it?
Last edited:
Upvote
0