Is it wrong to demand evidence?

[Received]

I accept it after questioning it but that doesn't mean I am currently skeptical of it.

Right, but you were, and that's what I'm trying to point out.

 

[RDKirk]

Whether Jesus is God and knew all that the Father knew is a topic for another thread, but ...

Why don't God/Jesus regularly speak to seekers directly, and instead we are required to only "hear him" through others?

I do hear from the Holy Spirit directly. Not even the detailed hierarchy of Catholicism precludes that from happening. What "requirement" are you talking about?

 

[ananda]

I do hear from the Holy Spirit directly. Not even the detailed hierarchy of Catholicism precludes that from happening. What "requirement" are you talking about?

For example, the twelve apostles heard Jesus directly, and Jesus apparently commanded them this: "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet."

The twelve and seventy heard Jesus directly. If he is God, he can surely manage to speak to everyone directly too, right? Why must we hear from the apostles? (That's another question, Jesus commanded men and women to hear the apostles, but no apostle is alive for us to hear).

 

[variant]

Right, but you were, and that's what I'm trying to point out.

Curious skepticism is just an active mind.

I don't see your point that people aren't generally skeptical in this way about the burden of proof as true.

 

[Received]

Curious skepticism is just an active mind.

I don't see your point that people aren't generally skeptical in this way about the burden of proof as true.

How often do you see people in any forums on the Internet questioning the burden of proof as soon as someone puts it down?

 

[variant]

How often do you see people in any forums on the Internet questioning the burden of proof as soon as someone puts it down?

When I debated in GA it was a daily occurrence.

People who have discussions where you might invoke the burden of proof seem to understand it quite well in my experience.

 

[Received]

When I debated in GA it was a daily occurrence.

People who have discussions where you might invoke the burden of proof seem to understand it quite well in my experience.

Sigh, GA, the good old days.

Really? I saw a lot of people thinking the burden of proof didn't apply, but never anyone who was skeptically questioning the validity of the concept of the burden of proof.

 

[variant]

Sigh, GA, the good old days.

Really? I saw a lot of people thinking the burden of proof didn't apply, but never anyone who was skeptically questioning the validity of the concept of the burden of proof.

How I recall events is that whenever someone would invoke the burden of proof on someone who didn't feel feel they had the burden there would be a big fat argument about it that would generally include it's justification.

There are often disagreements about who has the burden and why, which is of course why I looked it up a long time ago.

 

[keith99]

I would define "personally verifiable" as things like direct experiences with God or Jesus. Why were such direct experiences given to people 2,000 years ago, but we are denied the same?

Compared to the total of humanity it was only a handful 2000 years ago in a backwater Provence of the Roman Empire.

 

[TillICollapse]

( I'm actually a PoS person )

By the way, does PoS stand for "Something Something Salvation" ? Like Plan of Salvation or something ? I did a quick Google and nada. "PoS" really only means one thing in my mind, which you probably didn't intend ...

You may want to qualify the context when you say "I'm a PoS person" lol

 

[Received]

How I recall events is that whenever someone would invoke the burden of proof on someone who didn't feel feel they had the burden there would be a big fat argument about it that would generally include it's justification.

There are often disagreements about who has the burden and why, which is of course why I looked it up a long time ago.

Well I can definitely see that.

The ironic thing here is that the people most likely to question the burden of proof are those who most want it to not be applicable, i.e., almost always religious people with grand claims without justification.

 

[variant]

Well I can definitely see that.

The ironic thing here is that the people most likely to question the burden of proof are those who most want it to not be applicable, i.e., almost always religious people with grand claims without justification.

People are indeed more likely to question what works against their desires, that's simple confirmation bias.

I have though over the years seen a lot of arguments that are burden shifting arguments that try to make the person not claiming things disprove the argument, which makes the person not making unjustified claims then defend themselves by correctly applying the burden.

 

[Received]

People are indeed more likely to question what works against their desires, that's simple confirmation bias.

I have though over the years seen a lot of arguments that are burden shifting arguments that try to make the person not claiming things disprove the argument, which makes the person not making unjustified claims then defend themselves by correctly applying the burden.

Well, and this is me being serious but complicated, I think it's necessary that you have some degree of lack of justification when speaking of the burden of proof. Consider this:

Person A: I believe X.
Person B: Provide your justification because the burden of proof is on you.
A: Only if you provide your justification for the burden of proof.
B: Only if you provide your justification for the justification for the burden of proof.
A: Only if you provide your justification for the justification for the justification for the burden of proof.

So the problem stretches to infinity in an attempt to justify how a claim is justified or not by using the burden of proof. So we have to be sane and just assume that things are justified without having to everlastingly justify them (which is what would be required for actual logical justification). Hence all argumentation involves irrationality, lest we never get off the ground.

 

[ananda]

Compared to the total of humanity it was only a handful 2000 years ago in a backwater Provence of the Roman Empire.

I marvel how an ancient middle-eastern sacrificial blood religion (among many others) became the largest world religion.

 

[juvenissun]

What kind of "good enough" viable evidence do you have for your faith?

To me, they are the features which show a perfect match among the nature, the human, and the doctrine.

For example, the Bible says we can live up to 120 years.
And there are many others.

 

[Albion]

I marvel how an ancient middle-eastern sacrificial blood religion (among many others) became the largest world religion.

My understanding is that Judaism is actually not the world's largest religion.

 

[juvenissun]

I marvel how an ancient middle-eastern sacrificial blood religion (among many others) became the largest world religion.

This is another good enough evidence. The Bible says that many many many times.

 

[ananda]

To me, they are the features which show a perfect match among the nature, the human, and the doctrine.

For example, the Bible says we can live up to 120 years.
And there are many others.

Other religions also talk about the span of a human's life.

 

[ananda]

My understanding is that Judaism is actually not the world's largest religion.

Christianity, I mean. After all, doesn't Christianity claim to be the correct fulfillment of the OT texts (and therefore, modern Judaism being an incorrect interpretation of those same texts)?

 

[Albion]

I would define "personally verifiable" as things like direct experiences with God or Jesus.

Do you believe--really believe--that George Washington was the first U.S. president? Did you know him well?