Burden of Proof

Umaro · Jan 26, 2007

phoenixgw said:
I tried your email, Umaro--it bounced me out. I hope you are still with us. We need sharp minds like yours to keep our faith honest. Here is the letter that I tried to send you:

Umaro:
I haven't been on this website long, but in the last couple of weeks I have seen your name all over the place--questions, challenges, arguments. You seem to want to prove the existence of this Jesus so that you can believe, or disprove all claims of his existence so that you can get on with your life--good luck with that.

I asked you to read the book of Luke for a reason. Luke's Gospel focuses on the perfect humanity of Jesus. This differs from the other Gospels--Matthew's account focuses on Jesus, the High Priest & King; Mark: Jesus, the Conqueror of death & sin; John: Jesus: the incarnation of God.

You have indeed found many, if not all of the discrepancies in the Gospels that describe parts of Jesus' life & his ministry. Your scholarship is very good. I have come across many of these discrepancies as well in my MDiv. studies. What you haven't done, however, is find fault in the man they called Jesus. You have, in effect, built a strawman out of the 4 Gospels & tore it down. Jesus is still standing. You have failed in your attempt to find fault in the man they call Jesus. These different accounts of parts of Jesus' life & ministry don't trouble me at all & I'll tell you why.

My professor, a PhD graduate & noted scholar, used modern analytical techniques as you have & came up with almost the exact same argument that you did. This man, a professing Christian, said, "When I read the Gospels, I see 4 different Jesuses. How can I believe their accounts?" I answered him with this. Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John are 4 witnesses pointing their fingers at a star. When you see the star, you don't need the fingers anymore.

The professor could not refute my argument, for to do so would be to admit that he hasn't saw (experienced) the presence of Jesus (the star) in his life. He was dumbstruck. Like you, his "faith" (beliefs) was based on logical arguments & scholarship. His knowledge of God & the Scriptures was very broad, but not very deep. His emptiness was there for all to see. That is the power of God-given revelation, which is greater than any PhD degree.

The Gospel is supposed to be good news. Why are you trying to "gun down" his messengers? The Bible is like a tapestry. The inconsistencies you point out are part of the Bible we read. The Bible itself seems like a tangled, disjointed collection of works that give us no complete history, no comprehensive guide to living, or even a complete account of Jesus's life. When one beholds the other side of the tapestry, however, revelations of how God is weaving perfections out of our imperfections (including the Gospel author's) come to light, and harmony is restored to our minds & souls.

You are in a bad place now, lacking inner peace & full of unrest. I've been there. If you are looking for intelligent scholarship to articulate matters of faith, I would suggest that you read the works of Karl Barth. If you want peace of mind, I suggest you keep searching for Jesus until you find him, or he finds you at your rope's end, when reason has failed you (more likely).

Keep asking, keep seeking, keep knocking. I wish you well on your faith journey and will pray for the light of Christ to shine your way.

I'm still here, and I don't know why the email bounced, as I get notifications from these boards.

I seem to be misunderstood here. I see absolutely no problem with believing a man named Jesus lived and went around preaching to be kind to people. I don't think I have ever pointed out flaws in his character, and I don't think I need to. There is nothing in my reasoning that says a man such as this can't exist, and the character of a man in no way shows them to be divine.

The questions I come to these boards all involve God, not the man Jesus, because all of my reasoning says a God as described by this religion cannot exist. I question the miracles, and the supernatural because my understanding of science, my reason, and my logic all say they cannot be. For example, the Christian God cannot exist in my mind because He is omnipotent, and omnipotence creates paradoxes and cannot exist.

You are right in that I seem to question and attack the Bible a lot. I do this because I do not understand the reasoning of basing your entire life around a two thousand year old book. To me, there is absolutely no reason to oppose homosexual marriage, and it seems the Bible and church is the only reason a majority of (Christian) people do. I also despise double standards, and it irks me when people pick and choose parts of the Bible when it is convenient for them. The best example I've found of this is the 10 Commandments. Everyone wants them posted everywhere, but whenever I remind them of the commanded punishments (usually stoning to death) for breaking them which are listed in the same book and chapter range, somehow those no longer apply. I mean, if you can pick out the good parts and ignore the bad parts, why do you need the book in the first place?

I would disagree with you that I lack inner peace. I reached my personal center years ago, probably earlier than I should have, but I was pushed toward it by personal happenings. Christians always talk about the peace that follows after accepting Jesus, but without a belief in a God, I have complete and utter personal freedom, and that generates and ever greater peace within me.

I'm not looking for "intelligent scholarship to articulate matters of faith" when I come here. I personally see "faith" as a flawed concept because believing in something without any evidence, and often in spite of evidence is just something I can't agree with. I come here not seeking anything for my religious beliefs. I'm here because I live in America, and everywhere I look I see people basing politics around this ancient and demonstratively flawed book, and I want to understand why. I want to understand why someone can base their entire life around that which reason says cannot exist, and why they somehow believe bigotry is justified just because the god in one of the ancient books says it is. I want to understand why they feel I should hang their beliefs in public buildings, beliefs a large number of people disagree with. I want to understand why Christians claim America is a "Christian Nation" when the Treaty of Tripoli directly says it is not.

I'm not here to convert, I'm here to understand what I see as a flawed an ignorant lifestyle.

phoenixgw · Jan 27, 2007

Your arguments are consistent with a modern line of reasoning, Umaro. I present to you 7 convictions of modernism. See for yourself how many you hold dear.

1) People are emancipated, autonomous individuals.
2) The human mind is the indubitable point of departure for all knowing.
3) Reality is divided between thinking subjects & objects, which can be analyzed & manipulated.
4) Process is viewed as cause & effect. The concept of purpose is arbitrary.
5) A high premium is based on progress & expansion.
6) All true knowledge is factual, value-free, & neutral.
7) Society's ills are designated as "problems," which, in principle, are solvable (i.e. Social Sciences - Pyschology, Sociology, etc.)

These are the foundations on which modern society is built. Do you know where these modern convictions sprouted from, Umaro?--the Christian Church!

During what is now known as the Enlightenment Period, Christian scholars began to formulate the concept that faith in God could be explained with the use of reason, apart from God-given revelation. The first universities in the U.S. were built by churches. Perhaps this information will help you to make sense of your society & your situation.

In my Masters studies, we have moved past modernism & onto postmodernism. Enquiring minds like yours examine what happens when the convictions of modernism no longer "hold water." For instance--is our perception reality? Can we really examine articles like the Bible objectively? Will progress & expansion ultimately satisfy us? Can we really solve society's problems with science?

As the modern world (including the U.S), & modern religion is rapidly crumbling before your eyes, Umaro, these are questions you can ask yourself & others.

For many, Christian faith is a psychology; others, a philosophy--none of these hold water & will eventually wither & die. As I said before, the Bible that you examine is like the backside of a tapestry. People like you & others who try to examine it as an object with the use of reasoning will ultimately fail to realize its genius.

My suggestion to you is to read this book cover to cover & allow the book to read YOU. If nothing happens, move on. Go get your degree in science, law, or whatever & build your life on a crumbling world.

You are at your intellectual & physical peak now, Umaro. However, as you read this, your body, along with this universe, is rapidly deteriorating. Picture yourself in a casket one day, wearing a nice suit & pallbearer's makeup. What good will your reason do you then?

"(God) has set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end" (Ecclesiastes 3:11b, NIV).

Keep asking, keep seeking, keep knocking. You might not believe in God, but God believes in you, Umaro.

Zeena · Jan 27, 2007

Umaro said:
I would disagree with you that I lack inner peace. I reached my personal center years ago, probably earlier than I should have, but I was pushed toward it by personal happenings. Christians always talk about the peace that follows after accepting Jesus, but without a belief in a God, I have complete and utter personal freedom, and that generates and ever greater peace within me.

Umaro, you say you have personal freedom. But really, what is this freedom other than license? You may construde yourself as having personal freedom, but your PERSONAL freedom is walking over other persons 'personal' freedom, of that to believe in God!

Umaro said:
I'm not looking for "intelligent scholarship to articulate matters of faith" when I come here. I personally see "faith" as a flawed concept because believing in something without any evidence, and often in spite of evidence is just something I can't agree with. I come here not seeking anything for my religious beliefs. I'm here because I live in America, and everywhere I look I see people basing politics around this ancient and demonstratively flawed book, and I want to understand why. I want to understand why someone can base their entire life around that which reason says cannot exist, and why they somehow believe bigotry is justified just because the god in one of the ancient books says it is. I want to understand why they feel I should hang their beliefs in public buildings, beliefs a large number of people disagree with. I want to understand why Christians claim America is a "Christian Nation" when the Treaty of Tripoli directly says it is not.

I'm not here to convert, I'm here to understand what I see as a flawed an ignorant lifestyle.

SEE?

Your 'personal' freedom is really no freedom at all!
For you continue to subject the freedom of persons to your PERSONAL will! =P
And you will continue to revolve around hatred to all that you cannot understand!

God is not mocked!

Umaro · Jan 27, 2007

Zeena said:
Umaro, you say you have personal freedom. But really, what is this freedom other than license? You may construde yourself as having personal freedom, but your PERSONAL freedom is walking over other persons 'personal' freedom, of that to believe in God!

SEE?

Your 'personal' freedom is really no freedom at all!
For you continue to subject the freedom of persons to your PERSONAL will! =P
And you will continue to revolve around hatred to all that you cannot understand!

God is not mocked!

By personal freedom, I mean I'm not tethered to your God, and therefor all of my actions good and bad are entirely my own, everything that happens to me is chance or because of someones action. None of that "God's Plan" nonsense. I don't have to follow false morality like persecuting homosexuals, and I'm free to base my life entirely on reason. It's an inner freedom, not a freedom to do as I please.

Ryft · Mar 26, 2007

The personal correspondence I was engaged in with [name]Umaro[/name] on this subject appears to have come to an end, and he is no closer to supporting his assertions than when he began.

His opening post (#1) asked the question, "Why is the burden of proof placed on the disbelievers?" Properly understood, the burden of proof is not necessarily placed on non-believers. It shows no regard to the presence or absence of belief 'X'; the burden is placed on whoever asserts a conclusion. It is just that simple. As I had said (#21), the burden of proof is nothing more than "the responsibility of providing a valid argument in support of a conclusion"and it does not matter what the conclusion happens to be. "If you state a conclusion, expect to be held responsible for supporting it." That is just what the 'burden of proof' is. If you claim that 'Y', then you shoulder the burden of proving that claim, in as much as someone who claims that 'X'. Anyone can state unsupported conclusions all day long if they like, I said, "but they should not be surprised that no one is giving them much consideration" (#26). In the final analysis, an unsupported conclusion is just an assumption trying to look presentable.

1. ESTABLISHED: The "burden of proof" is the epistemic duty of supporting any stated conclusion, regardless of the belief system from which it originates. Conclusions are drawn from arguments, not thin air. The burden of proof is your duty to expose the argument from which your conclusion is drawn.

In another post of his (#22) he asserted, "The logical default for something without proof is not 'maybe'; it's 'no'." I submit that this is a grave error in thinking. It is not the logical default; it is the logical fallacy known as 'argumentum ad ignorantiam'i.e. the fallacy of arguing that something must be false because it has not been proved true. If I said, "There is a red ball on my floor," but did not offer any proof, is it therefore a false statement? Umaro would insist that we must consider it false, but according to the rules of sound thinking that would be irrational. It may be true that there is a red ball on my floor, or it may be false; without the requisite proof one has no reason to believe its truth or falsehood. Umaro was taken aback by such a response and asked, "So doesn't that mean every god ever conceived exists because you cannot prove it wrong?" (#27), but that is simply the opposite pole of the exact same fallacy, only this time it is arguing that something must be true because it hasn't been proved false. Stephen N. Thomas explains that "the reasoning in both these arguments is fallacious" because "lack of proof or evidence about a claim establishes neither that it is true nor that it is false" (Practical Reasoning in Natural Language, 5th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997). If Jones makes a claim that 'X' but offers no support for the claim, we have no reason to accept itbut also no reason to reject it. (We are here assuming that 'X' is not a self-contradiction.) "The truth-tracking method of effective philosophic inquiry," writes David H. Lund, "would lead us to believe a proposition when the evidence available to us justifies our believing it, to reject a proposition when our evidence disconfirms it, and to suspend judgment about it when our evidence neither confirms nor disconfirms it" (Making Sense of It All: An Introduction to Philosophical Inquiry, 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2003).

2. ESTABLISHED: For any conclusion that is not rationally supported, the "logical default" is to suspend judgment about it; that is, we neither believe that it is true nor believe that it is false. It may be true, or it may be false. Until the claimant meets his burden of proof, allowing us to examine it, we are unable to say.

"So shouldn't that mean everyone be completely agnostic to all gods then?" he asked (#30). The answer, very simply, is "no." One should remain agnostic about the claim that 'X' only if one has no good reason to believe it. When the evidence disconfirms 'X', a belief that it's true is delusional. When the evidence justifies our believing 'X', a belief that it's false is irrational. When there is good reason to believe a proposition, we have epistemic justification for doing so.

3. ESTABLISHED: One should remain agnostic only about claims whose truth one has no good reason to believe.

Umaro then claimed that "there is no evidence for God" (#33), which I found to be a remarkable statement since it can be made only by someone who is practically omniscient. Making this statement implies that one has heard every single argument for the existence of God that has been made, will be made, and can be made, and has furthermore solidly refuted them all. Although it is reasonable for Umaro to state that he has thus far never encountered a good argument for God's existence, to state that therefore no such arguments exist is irrational because that simply does not follow (#34). There may be credible evidence for the existence of God that he has not yet heard, made all the more probable by his young age.

4. ESTABLISHED: It is irrational to state that there is no credible evidence for 'X' when there are evidential arguments one has not validly refuted or not even heard yet. When it is possible that there may exist credible evidence for 'X', one's rational duty is to admit it. He may state that he has not heard any, but that does not justify his claim that therefore none exist. Smith has never met my daughter; is it rational for him to conclude that she doesn't exist?

humbledbyhim · Mar 26, 2007

Umaro said:
Why is the burden of proof placed on the disbelievers? In every other instance apart from religion, the burden of proof rests on the positive claim. Nonbelievers shouldn't have to disprove God until believers can prove Him. If I walked up to you and said "Fairies exist and made our entire world, and since you cannot prove me wrong I am speaking truth," you'd all think I was crazy. If you make a positive existence claim, positive proof is your burden, or is there a reason it shouldn't be like that?

The burden of proof is on everyone. the problem is that the standard of truth is different between a Christian and an atheist. An atheist requires scientific proof based on observations that can only be made using the five senses. Christians have a 'sixth sense' so to speak. It's called the Spirit. Of course non-believers don't believe in the Spirit and understandably so. Take the following example:

(note that this analogy isn't perfect, but you get the point of it once you read it)

Suppose there was a planet with a population of 1,000,000 where all but 1000 people were born blind. The blind people would never discover light or color with their four functioning senses. It would take one of the thousand people with sight to tell the others that color and light existed.

Suppose that the 1,000 people with sight had discovered a surgery to give sight to the other blind folks, but the only way for a person to have the surgery is for that person to accept that light and color exist and want to experience light and color. It would take an act of faith by the blind people to accept the testimony of the seeing people that light and color exist. This is the Chrisitian dilema. We experience something that requires six senses to fully comperehend (salvation, heaven, God, etc.) and are expected to prove it based on the five senses.

MikeMcK · Mar 26, 2007

Umaro said:
Why is the burden of proof placed on the disbelievers? In every other instance apart from religion, the burden of proof rests on the positive claim. Nonbelievers shouldn't have to disprove God until believers can prove Him. If I walked up to you and said "Fairies exist and made our entire world, and since you cannot prove me wrong I am speaking truth," you'd all think I was crazy. If you make a positive existence claim, positive proof is your burden, or is there a reason it shouldn't be like that?

I'm all for Christians giving evidence of God's existence. However, you've come to a Christian message board where you know that the pre-supposition is that there is a God. This board, being a Christian board, operates on the assumption and pre-supposition that there is a God.

Therfore, it is up to those challenging the pre-supposition to make their case, not up to us to defend ours.

The same would be true for Christians if we were to go to an athiest website. If I went to Internet Infidels, where the premise of that website is that there is no God, then I would be the person challenging their premise and the burden of proof would fall on my shoulders.

While I believe that such apologetic exercises can be good to a point, as somebody else pointed out, we're not called to convince you. We're only called to present the Gospel to you.

Umaro · Mar 27, 2007

Ryft said:
The personal correspondence I was engaged in with [name]Umaro[/name] on this subject appears to have come to an end, and he is no closer to supporting his assertions than when he began.

His opening post (#1) asked the question, "Why is the burden of proof placed on the disbelievers?" Properly understood, the burden of proof is not necessarily placed on non-believers. It shows no regard to the presence or absence of belief 'X'; the burden is placed on whoever asserts a conclusion. It is just that simple. As I had said (#21), the burden of proof is nothing more than "the responsibility of providing a valid argument in support of a conclusion"and it does not matter what the conclusion happens to be. "If you state a conclusion, expect to be held responsible for supporting it." That is just what the 'burden of proof' is. If you claim that 'Y', then you shoulder the burden of proving that claim, in as much as someone who claims that 'X'. Anyone can state unsupported conclusions all day long if they like, I said, "but they should not be surprised that no one is giving them much consideration" (#26). In the final analysis, an unsupported conclusion is just an assumption trying to look presentable.

1. ESTABLISHED: The "burden of proof" is the epistemic duty of supporting any stated conclusion, regardless of the belief system from which it originates. Conclusions are drawn from arguments, not thin air. The burden of proof is your duty to expose the argument from which your conclusion is drawn.

In another post of his (#22) he asserted, "The logical default for something without proof is not 'maybe'; it's 'no'." I submit that this is a grave error in thinking. It is not the logical default; it is the logical fallacy known as 'argumentum ad ignorantiam'i.e. the fallacy of arguing that something must be false because it has not been proved true. If I said, "There is a red ball on my floor," but did not offer any proof, is it therefore a false statement? Umaro would insist that we must consider it false, but according to the rules of sound thinking that would be irrational. It may be true that there is a red ball on my floor, or it may be false; without the requisite proof one has no reason to believe its truth or falsehood. Umaro was taken aback by such a response and asked, "So doesn't that mean every god ever conceived exists because you cannot prove it wrong?" (#27), but that is simply the opposite pole of the exact same fallacy, only this time it is arguing that something must be true because it hasn't been proved false. Stephen N. Thomas explains that "the reasoning in both these arguments is fallacious" because "lack of proof or evidence about a claim establishes neither that it is true nor that it is false" (Practical Reasoning in Natural Language, 5th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997). If Jones makes a claim that 'X' but offers no support for the claim, we have no reason to accept itbut also no reason to reject it. (We are here assuming that 'X' is not a self-contradiction.) "The truth-tracking method of effective philosophic inquiry," writes David H. Lund, "would lead us to believe a proposition when the evidence available to us justifies our believing it, to reject a proposition when our evidence disconfirms it, and to suspend judgment about it when our evidence neither confirms nor disconfirms it" (Making Sense of It All: An Introduction to Philosophical Inquiry, 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2003).

2. ESTABLISHED: For any conclusion that is not rationally supported, the "logical default" is to suspend judgment about it; that is, we neither believe that it is true nor believe that it is false. It may be true, or it may be false. Until the claimant meets his burden of proof, allowing us to examine it, we are unable to say.

"So shouldn't that mean everyone be completely agnostic to all gods then?" he asked (#30). The answer, very simply, is "no." One should remain agnostic about the claim that 'X' only if one has no good reason to believe it. When the evidence disconfirms 'X', a belief that it's true is delusional. When the evidence justifies our believing 'X', a belief that it's false is irrational. When there is good reason to believe a proposition, we have epistemic justification for doing so.

3. ESTABLISHED: One should remain agnostic only about claims whose truth one has no good reason to believe.

Umaro then claimed that "there is no evidence for God" (#33), which I found to be a remarkable statement since it can be made only by someone who is practically omniscient. Making this statement implies that one has heard every single argument for the existence of God that has been made, will be made, and can be made, and has furthermore solidly refuted them all. Although it is reasonable for Umaro to state that he has thus far never encountered a good argument for God's existence, to state that therefore no such arguments exist is irrational because that simply does not follow (#34). There may be credible evidence for the existence of God that he has not yet heard, made all the more probable by his young age.

4. ESTABLISHED: It is irrational to state that there is no credible evidence for 'X' when there are evidential arguments one has not validly refuted or not even heard yet. When it is possible that there may exist credible evidence for 'X', one's rational duty is to admit it. He may state that he has not heard any, but that does not justify his claim that therefore none exist. Smith has never met my daughter; is it rational for him to conclude that she doesn't exist?

I stopped debating with you because you arbitrarily began claiming established verdicts, even when my messages were still debating them. I still claim several of your points are wrong, but I am done debating with you, since I don't appreciate when someone tries to muscle a victory.

Search

Search

Burden of Proof

Umaro

Senior Veteran

More options

phoenixgw

Well-Known Member

More options

Zeena

..called to BE a Saint

More options

Umaro

Senior Veteran

More options

Ryft

Nihil sine Deo.

More options

humbledbyhim

Senior Member

More options

MikeMcK

Well-Known Member

More options

Umaro

Senior Veteran

More options

Similar threads