Christianity and the Burden of Proof

[Left]

NothingIsImpossible - Just seems to me like you fail to understand atheist arguments and dismiss them as rhetoric when it was an actual argument. If you want an example of good arguments, check out Nihilist Virus' posts.

 

[Left]

ServingZion - I was probably done for before I entered this forum. My mom was a Lutheran and my dad considered himself psychic. I came here already having a pre-existing condition known as schizophrenia. And I came here not so much for theology, but under the delusion there were people who understood Philosophy here. When the reality is, few do.

I will consider leaving the forum for a couple days, maybe, but all that will do is give me a break from discussing Politics and such.

 

[Serving Zion]

ServingZion - I was probably done for before I entered this forum. My mom was a Lutheran and my dad considered himself psychic. I came here already having a pre-existing condition known as schizophrenia. And I came here not so much for theology, but under the delusion there were people who understood Philosophy here. When the reality is, few do.

I will consider leaving the forum for a couple days, maybe, but all that will do is give me a break from discussing Politics and such.

I did notice quite a pronounced change in you though, as I described, mainly around your willingness to collaborate.

Schizophrenia is a medical term for a personal experience of the spiritual world. Some people shut it off before it takes hold, others open the door to it not knowing the dangers.

I would like to offer you this information to ponder: Adonai Reigns : The Holy Spirit . Because God is spirit, and The Holy Spirit is a person we can get to know this way, it has been helpful information for people who have been uncomfortable with that perception of life.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

3. Science has already proved the Bible pretty silly on the Genesis account of Creation.

Not really. All they have done is assumed and made theories with no real proof of how things started. They can talk about it but its not evidence. When they can show me legit evidence, like a video of how things started. I'll believe them. That may sound silly but its essentially what a non-believer expects from a believer in terms of Creation.

I will say looking at how complex our bodies are, just our brains themselves is enough to make you believe Someone created something so complex. It wasn't by random chance. Because of it was the infinite amount of planets would have some form of life at least. That and past our bodies look at the complex nature of animals, weather, the planet, space, time...etc. That order doesn't appear from no where. Because no where can create something like taht since nowhere supposedly is just "random" and "chance".

Just seems to me like you fail to understand atheist arguments and dismiss them as rhetoric when it was an actual argument

Well its because they are rhetoric. Most have no real need to understand christianity. Which is why I disapprove of non-christians on here who don't ask question because they may wonder if Gods real, but only are here to have repetitive arguments that lead no where because in short they are trolls. There are some who have been here years and post in certain sections looking like they want legit answers, but don't really. You can read every post since they joined and see they don't have any legit questions.

Which is why I am glad I am not the owner of this forum. I wouldn't allow non-christians at all. Well they would have to have a sound reason for wanting to join first so I could separate the trolls from the legit people. And if they lied and caused issues they would be banned no questions asked. If they want to be trouble makers there are a hundred forums they can do that at that are for non-christians. Actually they can just go to reddit which is full of trolls.

 

[Left]

I did notice quite a pronounced change in you though, as I described, mainly around your willingness to collaborate.

Schizophrenia is a medical term for a personal experience of the spiritual world. Some people shut it off before it takes hold, others open the door to it not knowing the dangers.

I would like to offer you this information to ponder: Adonai Reigns : The Holy Spirit . Because God is spirit, and The Holy Spirit is a person we can get to know this way, it has been helpful information for people who have been uncomfortable with that perception of life.

Contrary to popular belief, your Voice is speaking to me. And it tells me I have a few things to think through. For example, did I become an Agnostic because I truly wanted to, or because I'm unhappy with some Christians?

 

[Left]

Which is why I am glad I am not the owner of this forum. I wouldn't allow non-christians at all.

I find this a little rude, but I'll let it go.

 

[Left]

So I thought it over, and realized, I can't blame the forum for my Agnostic enlightenmet. The only thing that would change my mind is some really good facts.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So I thought it over, and realized, I can't blame the forum for my Agnostic enlightenmet. The only thing that would change my mind is some really good facts.

...if only it was as easy as taking Morpheus' "red pill." In a certain kind of way, though, isn't this what Jesus is offering us-----------a "red pill"?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I am making use of the definition given by the OP's Wikipedia reference. What two definitions do you claim to be talking about? Spell them out.

You already pointed out the colloquial understanding of "burden of proof." Formally, though, the burden is on the one making a positive claim. A negative claim has no burden of proof.

For example, suppose I say that adding race stripes to your car won't make it go faster. Is that claim under the burden of proof? No, because it is a negative claim. The claim that racing stripes do make a car faster would be under the burden.

Formally, I could say that there is no God and I'm under no burden of proof. Outside of formal circles, however, that is taken as an actual claim about reality. In that case it would be a positive claim and would be under the burden of proof.

Many atheists feel that they can logically disprove the existence of a deity with omni-properties because those can result in paradoxes. But I really doubt that an atheist would believe his or herself able to disprove the existence of a magical anthropomorphic immortal any more than they could disprove the existence of unicorns.

 

[Left]

Actually, saying something WON'T do something puts you under Burden of Proof. Suppose we have a poisonous mushroom in front of us that will clearly kill you if you eat it. If I tell people it WON'T kill you eating it, the Burden of Proof is on me.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I find this a little rude, but I'll let it go.

To be fair I wouldn't ban you! You are fun! Though long ago in the late 90s we had a tiny forum online where I was an admin. We had a zero tolerance policy. More so because it was meant as a group for christians to ask questions when seeking help.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wikipedia had some great text on Burden of Proof in an argument:

"Internet personality Matt Dillahunty gives the example of a large jar full of gumballs to illustrate the burden of proof.[12][13] The number of whole gumballs in the jar is either even or odd, but the degree of personal acceptance or rejection of claims about that characteristic may vary. We can choose to consider two claims about the situation, given as:

1. The number of gumballs is even.
2. The number of gumballs is odd.

Either claim could be explored separately; however, both claims tautologically take bearing on the same question. Odd in this case means "not even" and could be described as a negative claim. Before we have any information about the number of gumballs, we have no means of checking either of the two claims. When we have no evidence to resolve the proposition, we may suspend judgment. From a cognitive sense, when no personal preference toward opposing claims exists, one may be either skeptical of both claims or ambivalent of both claims.[14][15][16] If there is a dispute, the burden of proof falls onto the challenger of the status quo from the perspective of any given social narrative.[17] If there is no agreeable and adequate proof of evidence to support a claim, the claim is considered an argument from ignorance.[18]"

Philosophical burden of proof - Wikipedia

So what it is saying, in my opinion, is not only should we generally suspend judgement when a side fails to prove itself, but if there isn't proper proof or evidence to support Christianity when the Burden of Proof is on it, it becomes a Logical Fallacy crudely named Appeal From Ignorance.

How would you refute that Christianity can't be properly proven or the specifics of what Wikipedia said?

You don't "refute" it. If Christianity is true, then it won't be something that can be "properly" proven. This situation should be what we would predict would be the case for each person who wrestles with "Christian evidences."

If Christianity could be proven, allowing the emergence and solidification of faith as a process of pure analytical deliberation, then such a state would contradict the Epistemological Indices present in the Biblical writings--Deuteronomy 29:29 being one such example.

What we have, we have ...so that if a person is "called by God," there is ample material in the process to set that person's mind on course toward God while at the same time, finishing by way of God's orchestration of whatever else is needed for the final formation of faith in that person's mind and life.

And if a rational person (such as myself) doesn't happen to like the fact that God has His hand on the overall process of human belief, enabling us to only keep a partial amount of it under our own control...then that's just something that the non-rational side (i.e. emotional side) of a rational person's brain will have to contend with. Thank you JESUS...I'll take that "red pill" now.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[zippy2006]

You already pointed out the colloquial understanding of "burden of proof." Formally, though, the burden is on the one making a positive claim. A negative claim has no burden of proof.

I disagree, and I think the Wikipedia article is much more on point than your own idea.

For example, suppose I say that adding race stripes to your car won't make it go faster. Is that claim under the burden of proof? No, because it is a negative claim. The claim that racing stripes do make a car faster would be under the burden.

What matters, as the Wikipedia article points out, is the status quo. In a world where the belief that racing stripes makes a car go faster is pervasive, the person holding that they don't has the burden of proof.

Formally, I could say that there is no God and I'm under no burden of proof. Outside of formal circles, however, that is taken as an actual claim about reality. In that case it would be a positive claim and would be under the burden of proof.

Negative claims are also claims about reality, namely that reality has the absence of some thing.

And what even is your definition of a negative claim? The claim that racing stripes will not make a car go fast, that there is no God, or that God is not worthy of belief are all claims about reality. I don't see any coherent difference between "negative" and "positive" claims. Both make a claim that reality is one way rather than another, and if you are pushing against the status quo then you have the burden of proof regardless of whether your claim is "positive" or "negative."

 

[Left]

If Christianity is true, then it won't be something that can be "properly" proven.

Christianity is too complicated a subject to be self-evident.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Christianity is too complicated a subject to be self-evident. Just sounds like you are taking something kind of like a self-evident proposition, that can prove our own conscience but little more, and applying it to a vast subject. This introduces fallacies.

It may sound like that, but when you become as widely read as I am, then you might be able to really say this as something with a valid point. Until then, keep reading and keep studying.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well even if that is the case it doesn't change the fact I asked someone to show proof He doesn't exist. Non-believers ar VERY good with playing word games to try and always avoid questions they are asked. See here:
Fallacies of Relevance

Like I said, I proved it last night.

And most atheists I've met do say they don't believe He exists.

Which is different from a belief that he does not exist. See the gumball machine analogy in the OP.

I've never seen one say they are unconvinced.

Again... gumball machine analogy.

Though on rare occasions a agnostic will say that since they do believe there "might be" something out there.

Christians always provide evidence to the repetitive questions they get from atheists.

My personal experience with apologetics contradicts that.

But atheists use anything they can to disprove that evidence.

Aren't we supposed to? Isn't that the whole point of testing ideas?

So its why many don't bother responding because they know its the atheist troll trap. To get you in a never ending cycle where they just use fallicies to keep you going while change the goal post or redirecting anything put back at them. Actually the best answer I can give when all else fails is you will find out when you die if He is real. If you are wrong though you face the ultimate never ending torture.

So you say that atheists are trolls who argue fallaciously, and then you follow that up with Pascal's Wager? I love the wager. Let's up the ante. Maybe go sell all that you have, give to the poor, and wander the world doing good works while preaching the gospel. You know, just in case Jesus would've said the same thing to you as he did to the rich young ruler. If it turns out you didn't have to, what have you really lost? If it turns out you did have to, wouldn't that far outweigh any riches lost in this mortal life?

Of course the response to this (I've played this game for years) "Your assuming theres only heaven or hell. What if theres not any of that but maybe you are reborn as a buddhist would believe?". Again its just redirecting and what not. WHich is usually when I stop responding because I don't have time for circular fallacy games. We will all found out one day who is right or wrong. Obviously I believe I am right, I know I am right. So for me there is heaven. Though for argument sake, and I really shouldn't say this because its not good to as a christian. But lets pretend I die and I was wrong. There is nothing, I just disappear. Technically then I'd be in a win/win situation. If heaven is real I go there. If heaven is not real I won't know because I am gone. Where as for the non-believer you will either see/know nothing or you will see a lake of fire. My odds sound better.

I'm not avoiding your wager. I'm taking it head on. Let's see what you say.

Again I do NOT endorse that view of talking about heaven as if it may not be real.

So you literally just said you don't endorse free thought. Why is free thought a bad thing?

That would be doubt and I don't doubt heaven/hell is real.

Interesting. I'd pursue that line of thought but I don't want to derail the thread.

I just use that "odds" thing as a thing for non-believers so they realize they choices they make are unchangeable after they die. Because believe it or not I wouldn't wish hell on my worst enemy. I may disagree with people on here and even set them to ignore. But I still pray they see the light before they die.

I see your odds and I raise you.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Like I said, I proved it last night.

Which post (so I can look again)?

Again... gumball machine analogy.

More atheist tactics. They have a name for everything so they can feel as if they won.

Aren't we supposed to? Isn't that the whole point of testing ideas?

But what is the point of testing when you only accept results you think you are right? I am expected to accept what you say based on what science says but when I say something based on what the bible says or what I see as legit evidence you dismiss it? Hence I say some here are not here to become saved but to just troll people since they obviously don't care if you had God come down and stand in front of them. They would still dismiss Him and come up with some well-worded phrase to explain it all. One atheist told me once "Even if He stood in front of me and made a bread appear out of thin air, I would still need proof. Anyone could say they are God. Maybe its just an alien. Maybe its a dream. It could be anything!".

So you say that atheists are trolls who argue fallaciously, and then you follow that up with Pascal's Wager?

See my second response. More names!

You know, just in case Jesus would've said the same thing to you as he did to the rich young ruler. If it turns out you didn't have to, what have you really lost? If it turns out you did have to, wouldn't that far outweigh any riches lost in this mortal life?

If I understand your saying if I am wrong then I will lost out on the riches of this mortal life? Thats ok with me. I'm content with God. Don't need money or power or whatever makes some people happy.

I'm not avoiding your wager. I'm taking it head on. Let's see what you say.

Thats great then. Now we just have to wait until we both die of old age. Might take awhile.

So you literally just said you don't endorse free thought. Why is free thought a bad thing?

Well if your a christian and you only believe in God because its a 50/50 thing, then theres not so great news for you when you die. I mean people are free to think like that of course. But its not how being a christian works. You either believe or you don't. No middle ground. Not that we don't have moments of weakness though.

I see your odds and I raise you.

Also I'd want to increase the wage and add 4 tacos. From anywhere you want. And I could really use a vacation. Preferably a tropical island with no one around.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Which post (so I can look again)?


More atheist tactics. They have a name for everything so they can feel as if they won.


But what is the point of testing when you only accept results you think you are right? I am expected to accept what you say based on what science says but when I say something based on what the bible says or what I see as legit evidence you dismiss it? Hence I say some here are not here to become saved but to just troll people since they obviously don't care if you had God come down and stand in front of them. They would still dismiss Him and come up with some well-worded phrase to explain it all. One atheist told me once "Even if He stood in front of me and made a bread appear out of thin air, I would still need proof. Anyone could say they are God. Maybe its just an alien. Maybe its a dream. It could be anything!".


See my second response. More names!


If I understand your saying if I am wrong then I will lost out on the riches of this mortal life? Thats ok with me. I'm content with God. Don't need money or power or whatever makes some people happy.


Thats great then. Now we just have to wait until we both die of old age. Might take awhile.


Well if your a christian and you only believe in God because its a 50/50 thing, then theres not so great news for you when you die. I mean people are free to think like that of course. But its not how being a christian works. You either believe or you don't. No middle ground. Not that we don't have moments of weakness though.


Also I'd want to increase the wage and add 4 tacos. From anywhere you want. And I could really use a vacation. Preferably a tropical island with no one around.

After everything you went on and on about, it's you who veers off topic and spouts nonsense.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Actually, saying something WON'T do something puts you under Burden of Proof. Suppose we have a poisonous mushroom in front of us that will clearly kill you if you eat it. If I tell people it WON'T kill you eating it, the Burden of Proof is on me.

Well you are basically saying that if I want to prove something that is already known to be false, then the burden of proof is on me. Well... yeah. Unfortunately, the first person to eat that mushroom is just going to die because mushrooms are edible and it's not apparent that they can be poisonous until we see the results at least once.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I disagree, and I think the Wikipedia article is much more on point than your own idea.



What matters, as the Wikipedia article points out, is the status quo. In a world where the belief that racing stripes makes a car go faster is pervasive, the person holding that they don't has the burden of proof.

You're just stating the colloquial use again, even after I alerted you of that fact.

If you want to say that atheists are under the burden of proof because most people are theists, then you are not listening. I have no actual claim to prove. I'm not saying that there is no God. I'm simply saying that you have not demonstrated his existence. Are you saying that I must prove that you have not demonstrated his existence?

Negative claims are also claims about reality, namely that reality has the absence of some thing.

And what even is your definition of a negative claim? The claim that racing stripes will not make a car go fast, that there is no God, or that God is not worthy of belief are all claims about reality. I don't see any coherent difference between "negative" and "positive" claims. Both make a claim that reality is one way rather than another, and if you are pushing against the status quo then you have the burden of proof regardless of whether your claim is "positive" or "negative."

Null hypothesis - Wikipedia