The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Pyrrho]

Not to me. You have to explain the resurrection in some fashion to yourselves.

It's total fucking horseshit.  Check that off the list.

He needs to explain Zeus becoming a swan and fucking a woman.  That needs as much, or more, explanation.

Besides, he has had the explanation.  It was explained in post 2 of this thread.  It is a fucking work of fiction.  Everything since has been pretty much a waste of everyone's time, since that deals with the issue.

Maybe I should start demanding an explanation for Santa Claus delivering presents to children throughout the world.  This involves something actually happening, as children do commonly get presents at Christmas.  This makes it much more real and in need of explanation than his bullshit story of a bunch of savages claiming some nonsense.

[Jenny A]

In the sciences, the burden of proof falls to the one proposing a hypothesis. It doesn’t matter what the hypothesis is. If you want to propose that Particle X exists, the burden of proof falls to you. If you want to propose that Particle X does not exist, the burden again falls to you.

Either way, in science the person proposing a hypothesis needs to provide evidence for it by using the scientific method (i.e., making a prediction based on the hypothesis and then seeing whether the prediction is fulfilled when a test is run). Only by doing this can the hypothesis be scientifically established (to the extent that anything can ever be scientifically established).

Most discussions about the existence of God are not scientific ones. They may involve observations about the universe and things that science studies (e.g., order, design, etc.). However, they also involve premises that cannot be verified scientifically. Many of them involve premises of a philosophical nature, and so the discussion of God’s existence is often regarded as a philosophical matter rather than a scientific one.

Who holds the burden of proof in philosophy? As in science, it’s whoever is making a claim.

So far so good.  But you're about to stumble over your own feet:

It doesn’t matter whether you’re asserting the existence or non-existence of Plato’s Forms, claiming the truth or falsity of a particular view of epistemology, or asserting that moral judgments are just expressions of emotion or something else. The principle remains the same: The burden is on you to argue for your own claims. Philosophy may use a different method than science, but its assignation of the burden of proof is the same.

This is where you fail.  Asserting the existence of Plato's forms is a claim and has the burden of proof.  Not being convinced of the existence of those forms is not a claim and has no burden of proof.  Similarly asserting the existence of god or the resurrection are claims.  Being unconvinced of those claims is not. The reason for this is obvious.  It is not possible to prove a negative, therefore the person asserting the positive claim has the burden of proof.  

It works this way in a court of law.  No one is required to prove they didn't commit a crime, the burden is on the state to show that they did commit a crime. However, the burden shifts when we move from positive to negative claims.  If I sue you for money owed, the burden is on me to show there is a debt.  However, should I prove there is one, and you claim you've paid it, the burden is on you to prove payment.  Like the existence of the debt, payment is a positive claim.

Your suggestion that a person asserting that Plato's forms exist and someone asserting they don't both have the burden of proof is silly.  You have given both sides the burden of proof thus rendering the burden of proof meaningless.

The only time a negative claim is ever given the burden of proof is when that negative claim conflicts with propositions that have previously been established, are almost universally agreed to be accurate, and are generally relied upon.   The sun is not the center of the solar system would be an example of a negative claim holding the burden of proof.  That your particular god exists is not such a claim.

[Randy Carson]

It doesn’t matter whether you’re asserting the existence or non-existence of Plato’s Forms, claiming the truth or falsity of a particular view of epistemology, or asserting that moral judgments are just expressions of emotion or something else. The principle remains the same: The burden is on you to argue for your own claims. Philosophy may use a different method than science, but its assignation of the burden of proof is the same.

This is where you fail.  Asserting the existence of Plato's forms is a claim and has the burden of proof.  Not being convinced of the existence of those forms is not a claim and has no burden of proof.  

Read the part I highlighted in red, Jenny. Someone asserting that Plato's Forms do not exist has the burden of proof.

Similarly asserting the existence of god or the resurrection are claims.  Being unconvinced of those claims is not. The reason for this is obvious.  It is not possible to prove a negative, therefore the person asserting the positive claim has the burden of proof.  

Actually, it can be argued that you can prove a negative (four-sided triangles, for example), but that's not the point. The point is that atheists make a positive claim that God does not exist.

It works this way in a court of law.  No one is required to prove they didn't commit a crime, the burden is on the state to show that they did commit a crime. However, the burden shifts when we move from positive to negative claims.  If I sue you for money owed, the burden is on me to show there is a debt.  However, should I prove there is one, and you claim you've paid it, the burden is on you to prove payment.  Like the existence of the debt, payment is a positive claim.

Agreed.

Your suggestion that a person asserting that Plato's forms exist and someone asserting they don't both have the burden of proof is silly.  You have given both sides the burden of proof thus rendering the burden of proof meaningless.

Yes, I have. And it is up to others to evaluate both arguments. It's no different from the science example which you were okay with:

If you want to propose that Particle X exists, the burden of proof falls to you.
If you want to propose that Particle X does not exist, the burden again falls to you.

If you want to propose that God exists, the burden of proof falls to you.
If you want to propose that God does not exist, the burden of proof again falls to you.

You cannot use science to prove or disprove God. This is why these proofs fall into the domain of philosophy.

[Minimalist]

You cannot use science to prove or disprove God.

Then fuck him.  He's a figment of your imagination.

[Pyrrho]

You cannot use science to prove or disprove God.

Then fuck him.  He's a figment of your imagination.

It is not that science cannot disprove god, it is that he will not accept the proof.

[Jenny A]

This is where you fail.  Asserting the existence of Plato's forms is a claim and has the burden of proof.  Not being convinced of the existence of those forms is not a claim and has no burden of proof.  

Read the part I highlighted in red, Jenny. Someone asserting that Plato's Forms do not exist has the burden of proof.

Wrong.

Similarly asserting the existence of god or the resurrection are claims.  Being unconvinced of those claims is not. The reason for this is obvious.  It is not possible to prove a negative, therefore the person asserting the positive claim has the burden of proof.  

The point is that atheists make a positive claim that God does not exist.

Wrong again. A negative cannot be proven. I don't claim to have proved one. I only claim that no one has demonstrated any even slightly persuasive evidence that he does. Thus I don't believe in god and am an atheist.

Your suggestion that a person asserting that Plato's forms exist and someone asserting they don't both have the burden of proof is silly.  You have given both sides the burden of proof thus rendering the burden of proof meaningless.

Yes, I have. And it is up to others to evaluate both arguments. It's no different from the science example which you were okay with:

If you want to propose that Particle X exists, the burden of proof falls to you.
If you want to propose that Particle X does not exist, the burden again falls to you.

Nope. Wrong again. Proposing that particle X does not exist is a negative claim and cannot be proven. Therefore the burden of proof is on the person proposing the existence of particle X.

If you want to propose that God exists, the burden of proof falls to you.
If you want to propose that God does not exist, the burden of proof again falls to you.

See above. The burden is always on the person making the positive claim.

You cannot use science to prove or disprove God. This is why these proofs fall into the domain of philosophy.

You've already said the burden of proof is the same in philosophy as in science. That burden is on the positive claim. Your burden, your colossal failure.

When you find an atheist who thinks he or she can prove the lack of existence of god, let me know. The vast majority of atheists I know simply state that the god claim is unproven. The burden to prove the god claim rests with you. I'm not losing any sleep over it.

[Whateverist]

When you find an atheist who thinks he or she can prove the lack of existence of god, let me know.  The vast majority of atheists I know simply state that the god claim is unproven.  The burden to prove the god claim rests with you.  I'm not losing any sleep over it.

But by all means he is entitled to shake his fist at the atheists he finds making the positive claim. He can nail them to the wall just the way you did him.

It would be nice if any evidence/argument for believing in gods could be preceded by an adequate god definition.

[Pyrrho]

...

It would be nice if any evidence/argument for believing in gods could be preceded by an adequate god definition.

It would be nice if people were reasonable, but that, too, is just a fantasy.  You are not likely to get more than gibberish for a "god" definition, and if you do, you will find them retreating from it, erasing it into nothingness.  This idea has been discussed by Antony Flew:

Let us begin with a parable. It is a parable developed from a tale told by John Wisdom in his haunting and revolutionary article "Gods." Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Well's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible, to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"

...

http://www.svsu.edu/~koperski/flew.htm

[Ravenshire]

The point is that atheists make a positive claim that God does not exist.

Yet another theist asshole coming here and telling us what we believe and what our claims are.

Let me clarify the predominant atheist position for you Randy. You (theists) claim there is a gawd. We (atheists) say "prove it." Until you can, we have no reason to believe it. Saying you do not believe in something is not a positive claim that said thing does not exist, no matter how many straw men you build.

Very few make the claim "there is no god" (although I'll bet you do in relation to any god claim other than buy-bull gawd). It is sufficient to merely dismiss the idea based on the lack of evidence. Until and unless you present that evidence you have failed to satisfy the burden. That in no way entitles you to shift it to those not making a claim!

[IATIA]

The point is that atheists make a positive claim that God does not exist.

Very few atheists make that claim, however, I am one that does. There absolutely is no god.

Wanna play? Start a thread.