Sauron

You already got your ruling four times now.

You pretend not to understand my answer, so that you can try and hold off being checkmated - you dont want to have to support this list of points, so you stall.

Not original. Not even interesting.

mata leao

i see your game now my friend....take busy Christian professionals who make more in a billable hour than you do in two days and then fight them tooth and nail over a freshman survey question "does it appear likely(i.e. by a simple preponderance) that Ezekile was reasonably well treated as a captive/exile in Babylon?.......and utterly waste their time! okay my friend......shoot and scoot tactics !

bfniii

do you have an example or some criteria i can follow?


first, i don't recall making any such claim. perhaps you could point it out for me. second, i'm trying to find out just exactly what the standards for miracles are because they are different for different people. let's start with your standards. you have advanced 5 already that turned out to be quite flawed. do you have any others?


oh yes. the elementary school website. i pointed out the flaw here already, but i guess i'll have to again.
1. established by whom? the website doesn't address that.
2. why? the website doesn't address that.
3. what makes that website's assertions authoritative?
i have asked these questions at least once before. perhaps you could answer them instead of just repeating yourself.


you did? i looked back through the thread and i don't see where you did. i realize i may be overlooking it, but i'm hoping you will repost your response.


what is your rejection based on?


no you haven't. all you have done is deny it without showing how your denial is true. it's repetition, not substance.


how did you know what the critical details were? how do you know they are critical? you never answered this question.


they were? perhaps you could show where.


what your response here doesn't address is that you wouldn't even know it is poorly reasoned unless you knew a way to make it better reasoned.


but they don't address the point i just mentioned.


no, you still don't.


how honest is it for you to continually repeat yourself without addressing the points raised? why do you suppose anyone should take such tactics seriously? i have asked questions that have gone unanswered, but you claim you have answered them. i ask you to show where you answered them, and you don't. how honest is that? how honest is it for you to remain in a discussion when you have nothing to offer? you refuse to say why someone bears the burden of proof, you just say it is so. you haven't procured the organization who maintains these debate standards you keep referring to. you refuse to say what would be proof to you. you're not even relevant to this discussion. you've offered nothing substantial.


1. how did he know he had met a christian?
2. judging christianity by the actions of alleged christians is illogical.
3. who made gandhi authoritative? why is his judgment of the christian he met valid? maybe gandhi's perspective is less than accuratey.



1. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
a. why?
b. why is that standard authoritative?
c. what do you consider extraordinary evidence? it means different things to different people.

2. the claimant bears the burden of proof
a. why?
b. according to whom? the sites you quote don't state where they got their information.

3. your critique does not originate from alternate ideas, hence claims
a. if that were the case, you would have no critique. you wouldn't even know critique was needed. you even prove my point by claiming you knew the critical errors in the budget. those are claims.

4. there are no flaws in your theories
a. oh yeah? prove it.
b. i've already pointed out several flaws.

there are more, but i will stop there for now.

it sounds like you are scared. if you have the winning hand, why do you care who has the burden? you win regardless. if your case is so strong that it can withstand all debate, you should be all too happy to dispense with this petty approach and demolish weak christian arguments even faster. c'mon, we're the microwave generation.


:huh: why are you even here? you are contributing nothing. you claim you have pointed out flaws in my posts, but can't cite them when asked.


you really can't tell that this response doesn't address my post, can you? i asked you about your ability to see holes.


you wouldn't even know if the evidence is parsimonious or not unless you knew how it could lack parsimony. you affirm this by citing the example of the critical errors in the budget.


no you did not. all you did was state that that was the case. you didn't even show how it was the case. that is my point. prove that you can criticize without having a alternate ideas.


what is your rejection based on? how would you even know that rejection is needed without knowing there is another, more appropriate explanation?


:banghead: how can you not see that you are affirming my point? you wouldn't even have a conception of "proper" or "improper" unless you knew of a standard; something to compare the submitted budget to.


altogether now, "how can your criteria be satisfied until you provide your criteria?"


no, i don't think you understand. in those posts, i showed how you are incorrect, not just that you were so. i provided a succinct and specific reason how. you don't in turn, refute those points. you just claim they didn't do what they actually did do.


:rolling:
since that is a claim, shouldn't you be expected to prove that?


and here is the crux of your profound misunderstanding. THE BIBLICAL CLAIM HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE, IN THE BIBLE. now, please tell us why the the bible is bunk.


i have tried to make this point all along; you don't need to wait until the claim is validated. if your case against the claim is irrefutable, you will invalidate the claim and no validation is possible. any possible validation comes after you have attempted to invalidate the claim. validation can't come prior as you aptly pointed out when stating that science doesn't so much rule things in as it rules things out. the budget analogy affirms my point. the person submitted the budget (analogous to the bible). you dismissed it by using knowledge of how a budget should be conducted (either you had experienced a successful one before or someone else experienced instructed you). if i tried to evaluate the budget, i would listen to their justification and i would have no gun or bullets (standard or frame of reference) with which to refute them (remember the tabula rasa reference?).


how about you accurately represent my position first?


i'm not shifting the burden. i'm asking you to provide what you would consider proof so that the burden can be met. it is possible that you may provide criteria that are unable to be met thus vitiating the text. so far you have made 4 or 5 points, all of which were faulty. i provided specifc reasons how they were and you haven't refuted them, you just claimed no flaw existed.


why is it my job? i realize you think it's because i have made a claim (which i haven't), but you haven't yet explained to everyone WHY. WHY does a particular person bear a burden?

why should the person who is going to prove the case provide the framework from which the case will be proven? isn't that somewhat circular? this is also somewhat hypocritical of you because you complain about christian sources for the very same reason. it seems you wouldn't trust someone else's framework, you would want to provide your own. christians already feel like they have proven their case to themselves. why do they owe you an explanation? they don't unless they want to respond to your as yet, unproduced criticism.


you have shown absolutely zero taint in the bible, despite being repeatedly asked for it. therefore, your conclusion is premature.


YOU claimed that the bible was tainted. that's a claim. by your own faulty reasoning, you should have to support your claim. but, you are engaged in special pleading so your behavior is predictable.


yes i did. perhaps you didn't understand it. i can repeat it if you need it.


this is a strawman. i can quote my post where i said if we have ANY TWO COPIES, we can detect edits. you unecessarily restrict my point to only having the original manuscripts. when i mentioned the originals, i was referring to edits from the originals. my point (which you missed) is that your "internal clues" are valid textual analysis tools, but are not conclusive for copies, edits and fakes.


this is absolutely incorrect. the reason why is because my response to the analogy was that we would need a sample of the water from the time it was alledgedly tainted. your point does not refute the point because it omits the relative nature of the comparison.


i have provided a specific case as to why you are incorrect, which you here don't refute. you just expect us all to take you at your word without you having to actually make your case.

it would seem in order for you to show that this was correct, you would need to refute my points. however, you don't do that. you just resort to a personal insult. you haven't even shown that you are authoritative enough to make such a comment so why should anyone take your critcism seriously?

BTW, since you claim that internal clues show copies, edits and fakes, shouldn't you have to prove your claim by doing something more than just saying so?


sauron, try to follow this; IF ANY TWO COPIES ARE DIFFERENT, THERE HAS BEEN EDITING. one of them being the original is irrelevant. we are looking for evidence of tampering in between ANY TWO COPIES.


it was? what was the post number?


sauron, try to follow this; I DIDN'T DATE THE PROPHECY. i merely quoted another source. i am asking you how you would date the text.


sauron, try to follow this; i have asked you all along how an ancient text COULD POSSIBLY BE DATED. until you provide your criteria, your criteria can't be met. christians are already satisfied with the date listed in 26:1 and most probably don't care about your unsubstantiated criticisms. if you want to convince someone that the said date is in error, let's hear your case. otherwise, you are irrelevant to the discussion. make way for skeptics who are less scared about their criticisms.


you never quoted me.


would you care to show how it is incorrect instead of just stating that it is?


this is a strawman. i didn't say that we couldn't test an ancient text except by comparison. what i said was that the tests you provided, internal clues, are not going to conclusively spot edits and fakes.


this is incorrect because it's a strawman. therefore, it remains that the analogy is potentially irrelevant.


that's what i'm asking you. what is the "other test"? also, do we see a failure of the anachronism test in this specific case? last, the anachronism test isn't completely conclusive as you seem to be trying to make it out to be.


you are saying evidence was left behind. in the specfic case you posit, people witnessed the event. unfortunately, that does not refute that miracles are beyond experimentation by science because the long held skeptical belief is that the people were hallucinating. claiming that ordinary people witnessed the event does not give science anything to work with. therefore, it remains that miracles are not testable by science.


quite incorrect, but what i believe is irrelevant at this point. what is relevant is that the evidence you claim is left behind is not scientifically conclusive.


because i have been asking you how we can use scientific methods to test alleged miracles.


that's not circular sauron. one would have to invoke the other in order for it to be circular as i said. that's the definition of circular. the critique you provide doesn't match the definition of the circular fallacy.


hence the word "supposedly". this brings us back to the question i have been posing all along. what test can we apply to the event to see if it was a naturally occurring, or supernatural, phenomenon?


and these tests would be? since you made the claim, shouldn't you have to support it?


i'm not complaining about the standards. i am asking you which standards you think will prove or disprove a miracle.


but this doesn't answer the questions. first, why is that source authoritative? second, this website doesn't address the point i raised about why someone bears the burden of proof.


AT LAST! i can't believe you finally caved in and answered the question. i wonder how many times i had to ask before you finally responded. i don't have time to count that high. why did it take so long for you to answer? in the future, could you just cut to the chase and answer the first time the question is asked?

"bringing the claim"? ha! bringing it where?

you have a profound misunderstanding of this denouement. making a claim does not mean someone is trying to "change the status quo or convince someone". as i have said several times, a person can make a claim and not care whether boorish, difficult skeptics believe them or not. this is one pertinent aspect you are overlooking. anyone can claim anything at anytime. claimability does not equal burden of proof. furthermore, any person who is aware of the claim can just dismiss the claim altogether which additionally underscores the point.

you then almost get the point right when you note "seeking to change the status quo or convince someone". this is the person who bears the burden. in this case, that is the skeptic. a claim was made by a biblical author. they are not trying to "change" anything or "convince" anyone. they are merely recording their version of events. if you believe otherwise, it is up to you to show it or else your point is irrelevant. the skeptic is the person who is trying to show that either 1) something else indeed happened 2) that author didn't even exist in the first place. the elementary school website doesn't address this due to the limitations of the scope of their assignment. BTW, you still haven't shown why that site is authoritative.

another kudos to you for actually attempting to support one of your claims. the list has grown to 5 attempts.


you citing a source that doesn't completely address the "rules of debate" doesn't mean i am trying to rewrite them.
BTW, you still haven't shown that there is a standard "rules of debate" or who maintains this standard. where are you and the elementary school getting your information from?


to quote you "And again: any attempts to shift the burden of proof will be turned back. It is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof. And I certainly *do* suggest that you start your argument by stating up front your conditions of success: if we don't agree on those conditions, then your entire presentation could be a waste of time."

i am hoping that you will follow your own (flawed) criteria and prove your source is reliable by providing your own framework that supports your proof.


i had a feeling you wouldn't be able to appropriately apply the information.

Whereas in civil proceedings it is generally the plaintiff (that's you sauron) who has the burden of proof for facts supporting a claim, unless this burden has been shifted to the defendant (the bible) through rules or presumptions, in criminal proceedings it is the prosecution (that's you again sauron) that bears the burden of proof for all relevant facts.

This burden depends on the substantive law governing the claim. (now who would this be?)


you don't provide several. you just provide one.

you don't even understand your own case. this might have slipped your attention: "Competitive Debate". we are not involved in that enterprise. in a competition, the participants must often follow a strict set of guidelines in order to meet time constraints or other logistical considerations. these strictures can unnecessarily limit the scope of a debate such as the one we are involved in.

you don't state why this website is authoritative. show who maintains this standard. otherwise, it is in no way a standard.


this doesn't show that "they all have this in common". at most, you have shown that 3 questionable sources have that in common. you haven't even shown that these three don't copy from each other. BTW, since this is a claim on your part, shouldn't you have to prove that they (whoever "they" are) ALL have it in common?

here is another point that you obviously overlooked; this site agrees with you in that whomever asserts is the person trying to convince someone else. the events recorded in the bible aren't assertions because they aren't trying to convince someone. they are merely recording alleged events. they are no more an assertion than a box score from a sporting event. that doesn't mean the statistics are accurate. but, the person trying to show that they are inaccurate is making an assertion and therefore bears the burden. i am not saying they are true by default. i am saying that if someone is going to show they are inaccurate, they need to support their case. a person is certainly free to believe or disbelieve and not bear any burden at all. but if that person is going to convince someone, that is different altogether.


no you didn't. if you think you did, perhaps you could quote it to clear up the confusion.


so you can't specifically show where. that's all you had to say.


there's nothing to read. that's why i asked again. you haven't answered the question.


i am hoping you will quote where i have been evasive and dishonest. otherwise your accusation is meaningless.


here you prove my point about claimants not having to bear the burden of proof for their beliefs. you are saying you don't care whether your beliefs are accepted or not, you still believe them anyway. however, if you expect anyone to agree with them, you would need to show they have merit.


i didn't RELY on the traditional position. i merely reproduced it.
the traditional position is no more a fallacy than your unsupported beliefs that you just mentioned.


so you can't show unanswered questions. that's all you had to say.


i was going to skip over this one but i think it bears repeating. you don't refute the point, all you do is repeat your original assertion. in order to refute the point, you would have to show HOW or WHY my response is incorrect. you haven't done that.


to themselves. like you said, the person making the claim does not necessarily have to rely on their beliefs being accepted.


but doesn't mean they bear the burden nor does it necessarily mean they are trying to convince someone, like you weren't with your beliefs a few lines above.


in this thread? perhaps you could provide a quote. if i did so in another thread, it was in response to specific critiques offered by braver skeptics.


:down: that sucks. this is blatant hypocrisy. you have railed on and on about burden from claims. you challenged me, i pointed out a claim and you won't support it. your credibility is garbage. why do you waste your own time when you aren't even true to yourself? i can understand someone coming here to challenge the beliefs of others, but what you have done here is insult everyone, including the people who are of the same inclination, by wasting time with your petty games.


ah. so now we're talking about relative standards. why should someone accept your standards of ambiguity as authoritative? why is your standard superior?


no, i said it is "clear" in different ways. the prophecy is completely clear to the dispensationalist. it makes perfect sense to them. why should they listen to your interpretation?


my point is, they are already satisfied that the prophecy has met the clarity hurdle. now unless you have a case that is capable of refuting that, then you are irrelevant.


christians are already satisfied that this criteria has been met. unless you have something to add that will affirm or deny the prophecy, you are irrelevant.

furthermore, i have asked you to show (since you provided the criteria) that the criteria itself is valid. check that, all i asked is that you just provide me a template or example and i will attempt to satisfy the criteria. so, even though you were the one who brought it up in the first place, i am willing to do the work. all you have to do is let me know what would convince you. see how that works? i'm not concerned about your petty burden of proof argument. now for the debate to move forward and be productive, you take the next step, as you have done with your 4 other points.


you are incapable of clarifying your response. that's all you had to say.

specific would be "the dead saints walking around jerusalem at the crucifixion isn't mentioned by other historians. therefore, it's unlikely to have happened." see how that works? now that's something we can dig into. but you don't do that. your statement is akin to "we can validate the dead saints incident by studying the milieu." it's too vague to do us any good.


it is part of what it implies. you are unnecessarily narrowing the term.


i'm not talking about the term itself. i'm talking about what it implies, what it refers to.


it seemed to me that you were advancing "advisor to a king" and "an oucast, preaching in the desert" as factors in this particular case. i apologize for the confusion.

what i am trying to get you to understand is that the hypothetical factors
you present are just two of several possible factors under the milieu umbrella. i am trying my darndest to understand which factors you would use to prove the point to you, which ones you consider the most pertinent, how you would go about showing such factors are trustworthy.


you can't even show that the criteria should be used. you just quoted them from someone else. i showed several flaws in them. you didn't refute it. you just repeated them as you are doing again here.


i felt like at this point my refutation was worth repeating.
1. Clarity: The prophecy must not be ambiguous. - ambiguous is subjective. it means different things to different people. therefore, "clarity" is not a qualification. here is an example. the 70 weeks prophecy seems to "clearly" match more than one set of historical events. which one is correct?
2. Prior Announcement: The prediction must clearly be made before the fulfillment. - there is no way to prove such a thing, therefore, the request is unreasonable
4. Likelihood: The prophecy can’t be just a good guess. - this is along the lines of divine inspiration. there is no way to prove such a distinction.
5. No Manipulation: The one fulfilling the prophecy cannot be manipulating the circumstances. - at this time, i know of no way to prove such meddling did or didn't occur. certainly, asking for proof that meddling did not occur is asking for proof of a negative.
note: you haven't refuted ANY of these points. all you did was repeat yourself.


you are absolutely incorrect. you will be correct when you either refute my responses to the criteria, or agree with them. in order for the criteria to be valid, you have to be able to show that they are indeed valid, that they are applicable to the situation. if someone provides reasons why they aren't valid, they can't even be applied to the issue in question.


but you didn't show that they apply to the situation and i did show how they don't.


why would anyone use them when they are flawed?


good for you. why should anyone else listen to you?


so those 5 flawed standards are the best you've got? that sounds like you have no case. now we can move on to other issue having established that you are unable to show the prophecies in question are untrustworthy.


you apparently have missed the responses i provided regarding this issue. perhaps if you read more carefully through my posts, you might pick up on them.


My prediction is you will continue to stall. Let's see if I am right. :rolling:[/quote]
as i have asked multiple times, how can your criteria be met when you won't provide your criteria. all you have done so far is cite 5 flawed examples. i'm ready to work as soon as you tell me what tools i'm supposed to be working with.


but in this analogy, what you haven't shown is that ANY CANDIDATE could possibly meet the standards. what if none could? wouldn't that suggest that the criteria are flawed?


as i have said before, the "paper trail" of the prophecy is irrelevant to whether it's validity. you haven't refuted this yet.


sure it is. we have no such time frame regarding this passage.


which you haven't shown despite being asked multiple times to show.


wrong. anyone is free to believe it if they want and they owe you nothing. however, if you are going to convince anyone, then it's going to take some reasoning on your part. otherwise, your position lacks substance.


i will acknowledge that you are remaining neutral regarding the tyre prophecy. however, if you would like to discuss it, i will be glad to listen to you. to help prevent us from reinventing the wheel, it would be helpful for you to address issues that weren't already dealt with in the other thread.


already done, in that thread. that was the point of me posting my statements the first time. i am sorry you don't understand them.

Sauron

And you still don't get the message. Deliberately. You have introduced nothing new in your latest response, and you continue to duck your burden of proof. Having looked around at several other threads you participated in, I have found out -- not surprisingly -- that this is your common tactic:

As I read this, a feeling of deja vu settled over me; your game plan had become apparent. Realizing that this is your pattern of behavior, there now exists no good reason to hope that you ever actually had an iota of desire for honest debate.

These are the core points of the argument:

1. Identifying flaws in the logical construction of an argument does not presuppose that I have any answers or alternative explanations. I might have such alternatives, or I might not. But there is nothing that requires that I have them, merely to point out flaws in how you support your argument. You have disagreed with this, but not disproven my statement nor my examples;

2. Affirmative side bears burden of proof, whether you like it or not. It is your job to provide the framework by which you will claim that you have met the affirmative burden of proof. If and when you have these standards, let me know. But trying to dispute that the affirmative position bears burden of proof is a dead-end; I an citing not only precedent but rules from various other sources which you deliberately ignore. So you can either abide by the established rules of debate, or you can continue to repeat yourself.

Otherwise and until that time, I'm going to let you stew in your juices. Your move here.

mata leao

LIkewise Sauron, I'm going to let YOU stew in YOUR OWN juices. Atheisim is a weak and popularly despised minority position in western civilization. There is not a single atheist general or flag officer, college president, U.S. Senator or Division I coach. Atheism is the challenger, so penultimately the burden of proof is on you. You should be seeking out debates with Christians, not stalling and using an attrition strategy against their arguments. Time is short, why aren't you attacking ?

Sauron

Or you could just provide proof for your list of 8 claims.

You tried that claim before - several people pointed out the mistakes; shall we do it again?

1. You have not demonstrated this claim -and in fact, there is evidence that you are wrong;

2. It wouldn't matter, even if it were true -- the truth of a position isn't determined by how popular it is

Given these two mistakes, are you sure you were a national debate champ?

Interesting claim. Let's see the proof.

1. Atheism is not the challenger; burden of proof rests on the affirmative claimant (religion).

2. You have a habit of trying to use big words to make your posts sound intelligent. You also have a habit of misusing those words. "Penultimate" means 'right before the end", as in penultimate syllable of a word.

1. There are plenty of christians that debate here -- most do a much better job than you have done;

2. You are the one stalling -- we await proof for your 8 earlier claims.

Why should I attack?

mata leao

because it(your burden) is penultimate! I used the word exactly as I intended it. Its later than you think. so long my friend!

Sauron

1. Well, I have no such burden;
2. "Penultimate" is the wrong word for this context.

bfniii

i don't think you understand what i am asking. what evidence could possibly exist? what would prove it to you?


johnny, yes you did. i provided precisely what you asked for which proves the contradiction. this is not the first time it's happened.


it would be plausible if there were a reason to think so. can you provide such a reason?


i would imagine 26:1


we know what 26:1 says. do we have other, differing information?


any ancient authors


good grief. you and sauron have made a mountain out of a molehill. i quoted the wikipedia article out of convenience. but that's not even the point. the point is that it is safe to say that christian sources are going to give the date in 26:1. now, why are they wrong?



no i don't need to. i cited what christians believe, whether right or wrong. if you're going to agree or disagree and try to convince someone, let's hear what you've got to say.



no, that's not the best way. it is ONE way. but not necessarily the best.



i gave you the answer in the previous post. how can we know when ANYTHING from antiquity was composed?



you just don't get it. i will spell it out for you; there is no way to conclusively date any work from antiquity. there are some clues (vernacular, references, external corroboration, dialect, etc), but they are not irrefutably conclusive. therefore (and here is the pertinence), it does not matter whom we contact. what matters is what i have been asking over and over; what would prove it to you?


this is an incorrect assumption


rational minded people certainly don't have to limit themselves to that excluded middle fallacy. the best way to uncover revisions is to compare various copies against each other. fortunately, this has been done and there are no significant differences between the copies available.



good advice.


i think that this is mostly answered in the tyre thread.



but you didn't answer the question. you just restated the word proof. HOW can someone prove the text predated the events? ditto revisions, the invasion and common knowledge.


this is what is called circumstantial evidence. it proves nothing. it's also quite a reduction. to reduce the gestalt to these few factors is to overlook other factors.


plausible or definite? the point is should the case be built on such unsupported theories?



yes, i've already addressed this in the other thread.



hold right there. what gives you the impression he didn't defeat the mainland. he apparently razed it.


how do we know that nebuchadnezzar didn't reduce the number of forces at tyre once he had gotten the mainland?



i was unaware of any time constraint on the prophecy.



why is it preposterous? is it supposed to be different?


the prophecy predating the event does not necessarily mean tyre knew of it.


you know this for a fact?



is that supposed to invalidate the prophecy?



who are "they"


i take it you are under the impression christianity makes such a correlation?



christians believe that God proves Himself to them every day.


in order to test God, what are we testing Him for (omniscience, goodness, power, eternality, etc)?

bfniii

you are missing the point. the fact that he mentions them opens the possibility that they may indeed have been in the region at that time. it is not unheard of that greek culture may have been present there at that time.