RE: Absence of Evidence
April 17, 2012 at 11:05 am
(This post was last modified: April 17, 2012 at 11:22 am by DeistPaladin.)
(April 17, 2012 at 10:18 am)ChadWooters Wrote: What you describe would apply to scientific forms of evidence. I believe Popper's falsifiablity test would be a good response, as in "What test could confirm your claim?" Even still, philisophical arguments would fall into a separate class? Paley's watch. Anslem ontological arguement, Godel's proof, etc. Demands for evidence are not appropriate against philisophical proposals and some members start to sound like broken records stubbournly failing to see the distinction.
An important thing to be clear about regarding the burden of proof is that the required evidence rises in proportion to the nature of the claims made. Mundane claims require only testimony. Extraordinary claims require hard evidence.
Examples:
"I had lunch with my wife today" Mundane claim, accepted with its own testimony and lack of contrary evidence.
"I had lunch with the President Obama today" Grand claim requiring extensive proof.
"I had lunch with my deceased father today" Extraordinary claim requiring the most extraordinary of evidence to even be taken seriously. Even then, there would be skepticism and suspicion of a hoax.
The claims of Christianity are so extraordinary as to easily fall into the third category. "Blah blah blah, therefore God, (who must of course be the god of the Bible but that goes without saying)" isn't going to cut it. Words, if they are just mental concepts are going to fall short of the burden required by the nature of the claim.
Christians have not produced anything that would be called hard evidence. They can't by faith heal the sick, make the lame walk or cast out demons (as a repeatable test verified under medical peer review). They haven't produced magical relics like Paul's handkerchief that could supposedly heal the sick (again, presenting it for scientific peer review). They can't seem to summon an angel to appear on camera and be interviewed by reporters. This is the kind of evidence that would be compelling given the nature of Christianity's claims.
All the "proofs" for Jesus I've seen are the "blah blah blah, therefore Jesus". Further, most of these same arguments can easily be refitted to suit any other religion (I often hear Muslims making similar arguments for their own god). This falls way short of the evidence required, even if these arguments were sound.
So I'm not misunderstood here, I'm not saying logical arguments have no place in the presentation of a case. I'm saying that philosophical abstractions alone are not sufficient to meet the burden of proof.
If you don't agree, I can come up with logical arguments why you should believe I just had lunch with my deceased father.
(April 17, 2012 at 10:18 am)ChadWooters Wrote: The reply will, "the God of the Bible," as if that were descriptive enough. We both know that theological concepts run the gambit. This Thursday I'm meeting with a group (Theology Pub) to discuss Christology and I'm sure there will be a variety of opinions expressed.
A more intellectually forlorn topic would be hard to imagine.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
