Philadelphia Lawyer

First of all, Johnny asserted that he had a "simple invalidation" of the prophecy. To me, that sounds like an affirmative claim.

I agree that the question of dating presents a "negative" claim, and I know that negative claims are hard to prove. But, if someone makes one, the burden of proving it is still on him, isn't it? If someone were to say to me, "The woman whom you believe to be your mother cannot possibly be your mother," wouldn't I be justified in placing the burden of proof on him? Would it be proper for him to cry "foul" and say that his claim was only a "negative" one, which is hard to support--so I must bear the burden of proof if I disagree with him?

It seems to me that a "challenge" would be worded differently. Rather than claiming the prophecy "cannot possibly be dated accurately," a challenger would say "I dare anyone to show the prophecy can be dated accurately." If someone accepted the challenge, then, obviously, the burden of proof would be on him.

Isn't that an affirmative claim?

Philadelphia Lawyer

But that's not what happened. Johnny claimed the prophesy is invalid. A Christian did not start the thread, claiming that the prophecy is valid. If all Johnny wanted to do was "point out" that nobody had proven the date of the prophesy, he should have said so. He should have challenged any and all comers to prove the date. But he didn't do that. He claimed the prophesy "cannot possibly be dated accurately." Having done so, the burden of proof is on him to show that this is the case.

I don't disagree with this, but it has nothing to do with the point I am making.

I don't see how that matters. First to claim, first to prove. That's what you always say. And that's what the rules of debate that you linked to say. If one chooses to assert the truth of a negative claim, then one should be prepared to prove it.

Currently, there is a debate about the Bible and homosexuality in the formal debate forum. Here is how it's presented:

According to the rules of debate that you linked to, Pervy has the burden of proof, despite the fact that he is attempting "to prove a negative." He affirmed a negative claim, and now he must prove it.

If this were not the case, then anyone could make any preposterous claim, frame it is a negative, and shift the burden of proof. Here's how it might go:

Claimant: The Earth does not revolve around the sun.

Skeptic: Prove it.

Claimant: I don't have to prove anything. Because my claim is negative, the burden of proof is on you.

Sauron

No, he claimed that the prophecy is not yet proven to be valid, even though christians are acting like it is valid. There is a difference.

1. There's a checklist here.
2. One of the checklisted items wasn't finished.
3. So the job isn't done and claims of validity are premature.

The christians with the affirmative claim skipped a step - proving that the prophecy was written before, not after, the event in question. Until that work is done, the prophecy cannot be used as an affirmative proof for the accuracy of the bible.

Johnny is not saying that it is impossible to finish the job - he's merely saying that nobody has done it yet. Perhaps you missed this part of what Johnny said - he's quite ambivalent on the topic:

I did not say that the propehcy was written after the events. All that I said is that I was suspicious. Regardless, even if I did say that the prophecy was written after the events, my current position is that it is plausible that the prophecy was written before the events, and that it is equally plausible that is was written after the events. In addition, my position is that it is plausible that the prophecy was not altered later, and that it is equally plausible that is was altered later. How could I possibly know that the prophecy was written after the events, or that it was altered later? I WASN'T THERE, AND NEITHER WERE YOU?

Johnny has no strong opinion either way. He merely recognizes that in order for the christian's case to hold up, the christian must prove that the writing of the prophecy predates the event. He is pointing out that nobody has done that yet.

Well, yes a christian did. This thread is a spinoff of earlier threads where a christian (lee_merrill) did exactly that, and it's also a spinoff from an analysis of Josh McDowell's similar claim.

Amaleq13

I agree that it sounds like one but a closer examination reveals that the claim is ultimately based on his success in refuting any attempts to establish a date. He asserts the prophecy is invalid because it cannot be reliably dated. It is still founded on a negative and the only way it could be support is by refuting an affirmative attempt to establish a date.

I've been thinking about it and I think you can but only if you require him to both provide and debunk the arguments to establish a date. I think that is the only way you can define his burden given the negative nature of the claim. Of course then he'll run into critics who don't feel he has adequately represented their favored dating effort and he'll still have them accepting the burden of doing a better job.

It is a verbal judo move that is difficult to counter.

To be analogous, you've got to have a "because..." comparable to "...no reliable date can be established". The problem will still be the same, though.

A direct challenge, yes. This one is more subtle.

Yes but one which depends on his ability to refute the affirmative claims of others.

Johnny Skeptic

My comments in this thread were made SUBSEQUENT TO, and IN RESPONSE TO, initial primary assertions that are found in the Bible. If God actually inspired the writing of the Bible, it was he who started all of the debates that have ever taken place between Christians and skeptics.

It seems to me that the Tyre prophecy should be worded differently so that dating would not be questionable. Since you want different wording, here is the revised version of my opening post: Logically, no predictions can be called prophetic unless it can be first be reasonably established that the predictions preceded the events. Christians haven't done that regarding the Tyre prophecy. Of equal importance is that it is up to Christians to reasonably establish that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version. Christians haven't done that either.

Philadelphia Lawyer

Simply incorrect. Here's what he said:

Nothing about the prophecy "not yet proven" to be valid. The prophecy is "invalid" and "not valid," and "cannot be accurately dated."

There was no "claim of validity." The claim was of invalidity and impossibility of dating. You can't rewrite history just because you find it convenient to play the role of the skeptic. According to your oft-stated rule, and the rules of debate you linked to, the first to claim is the first to prove. Johnny Skeptic claimed, therefore, he must prove.

No Christian made a claim. Johnny Skeptic did.

Yes, he is. He said the prophecy "cannot be accurately dated."

I know all about Lee Merrill and his thread. He claimed the prophecy was valid and attempted to prove his claim. You demolished his claim nine ways to Sunday. But that has nothing to do with this thread. Lee Merrill did not start the thread. There is no indication that it was split from the other thread. This is a stand-alone claim by Johnny Skeptic.

If a Christian starts a thread and claims "God exists," there is no doubt that the Christian has the burden of proof. If an atheist starts a second thread and says "God does not exist," there is equally no doubt that the atheist has the burden of proof. Referring back to the previous thread in which the Christian made a claim and had the burden of proof does not serve to relieve the atheist from her burden of proof in the subsequent thread.

Philadelphia Lawyer

I disagree. If someone were to start a thread and claim, "the Constitution of the United States cannot be dated accurately," the burden of proof would be on the thread starter. To meet this burden, she, on her own initiative, would have to review all of the evidence in favor of a definite date for the document, and disprove it. She would have to show that all previous attempts to date it have failed, and that any future attempts to do so would meet the same fate. It would not proper for her to simply make her claim, and then say her case is proven unless and until someone comes forward on the thread and refutes it with "an affirmative attempt to establish a date."

Exactly.

No, he won't. The critics will be in the role of the skeptics. They don't have to prove anything.

I don't think it's so clever. The burden shifting is obvious. That's why we're seeing attempts to rewrite history.

It's not a challenge. And it's not subtle. It's a series of emphatic claims: the prophecy is invalid; the prophecy cannot be dated accurately.

You claim it, you prove it.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Philadelphia Lawyer

The Bible claims that X is true. You claim that X is not true. A priori, an honest seeker of truth has no way to determine which claim is correct. The truth value of X is unknown. It does not advance the search for the truth for you to simply declare that X is not true. If you claim that X is not true, then you must show this to be the case. Similarly, if a supporter of the Bible claims that X is true, then she must show this to be the case. If neither of you supports your claims, then an honest seeker of the truth must continue to regard the truth value of X to be unknown.

The first statement in your revised OP presents a statement of logic that I think no reasonable person would disagree with. But, the second statement, "Christians haven't done that regarding the Tyre prophecy," presents questions of history, archeology, Biblical scholarship, etc. Once again, you are making a claim ("Christians haven't done X"). You bear the burden of proof regarding this claim. You must review the scholarly works which purport to date the prophecy, and the supporting evidence, and demonstrate why they are unpersuasive and/or insufficient.

The same goes for the next two sentences of your revised OP. Once again, you are making claims. You are asserting that "the Christians" haven't demonstrated that the text of the prophecy has not been changed over time. So, once again, the burden of proof is on you, not the Christians. You must review the scholarly works about the origins of the Bible and its transmissions and translations. You must show why the scholars who believe the text has remained the same are mistaken.

You are still making claims. Therefore, you must still bear the burden of proof. In short, if you truly wish to be Johnny "Skeptic" then you should let "the Christians" make the claims.

Amaleq13

Sure they do. They have the burden to support any counter-claims.

If they claim that Johnny has not accurately represented a given argument for dating, they will necessarily assume the burden to establish the truth of the claim.

I agree but you are ignoring the fact that his "claim" is, essentially, that no one can present a credible argument for a reliable date. The claim, itself, shifts the burden to anyone attempting to refute it. As with any judo move, however, a reversal is always possible.

Were I confronted with a negative assertion by a theist that lacked the survey of the standard affirmative efforts, I would just post a link to one and ask the claimant why the conclusion offered cannot be considered reliable. This essentially forces the survey if only on a case-by-case basis.

IMO, you can either ignore the negative assertion as shifting the burden, indicate your interest if and when the claimant does all the groundwork necessary to support the negative assertion, or force the claimant to do the groundwork by posting links to existing arguments.

Philadelphia Lawyer

All you are really saying here is that, if Johnny attempted to meet his burden of proof, then it would be incumbent on the skeptics to rebut him. But that it true in any debate. The ultimate burden of proof would still be on Johnny.

As to Johnny's "representation" of a given argument, that is still another claim which he has the burden of proving. The skeptic does not have to prove that Johnny's representation of the argument is wrong. Rather, Johnny has the burden of showing that his representation of the argument is correct.

From this, it sounds to me like we are in agreement. The theists on this thread have followed the second course of conduct that you recommend. They have asked the claimant (Johnny Skeptic) to do the groundwork necessary to support his negative assertion. But when they did so, they were met with the argument that the burden of proof was on them, and that their request was a product of "laziness."