Quote:
1. Your position is neither misrepresented nor misunderstood - and this has been explained several times, so this (repeated) attempt to claim a misunderstanding borders on evasion;
i am evading nothing.
|
Nothing except supporting your claims.
Quote:
let's look at the progression of events:
1. you state the christian bears the burden of proof regarding the tyre prophecy; the extraordinary events require extraordinary support.
|
This is correct. Christians (or anyone claiming these are fulfilled) do bear the burden of proof. That's what happens when you take an affirmative position for something.
And given the extraordinary nature of the claims, the proof must likewise be extraordinary.
Quote:
|
2. you also provide a couple of theories that your critique stems from, both of which have serious flaws.
|
Wrong for two reasons:
1. My critique stems from the fact that the rules of debate stipulate that he who claims has burden of proof.
2. There were no flaws in my theories.
Quote:
|
3. i point out that in order to critique the account, you necessarily have a preconceived notion from which your critique originates.
|
And that is a mistake, as I told you twice already. The fact that your "proof" does not add up doesn't mean that I have an alternate theory. Nor does it require me to come up with a creative alternative. If you tell me that aliens stole your peanut butter sandwich, I'm not going to believe you. That doesn't mean that I have an idea who actually did steal it.
Quote:
|
this is affirmed by the fact that you advance your two ideas.
|
No, I advanced my two ideas in order to get the required concepts across to you. It was a sign of my patience with your lack of education.
Quote:
|
4. at this point, you don't refute what i have pointed out, you merely repeat your original stance that you have no burden.
|
My original stance is correct - I have no burden.
You haven't pointed out anything, except that you think it happened. Big deal. I am waiting on proof; you have offered none. I have no burden of proof precisely because I have not made any claim.
Quote:
|
this would suggest that you have no refutation for the critic's burden because if you did, you could refute the point without resorting to repetition.
|
No, this suggests that I have a proper understanding of what *causes* burden of proof (an affirmative claim). Critics do not have a burden of proof, especially since the affirmative position has not been supported with anything except lame handwaving.
The fact that I repeat myself would suggest that I am not going to let you rewrite the rules of debate, merely because you are lazy or don't understand them.
Quote:
|
what's ironic is that you should fear no burden since you allegedly can trump any case made by the christian. however, you seem almost combative that you shouldn't bear any burden which is suspicious.
|
1. I am not the one afraid of supporting their argument here; you have been doing all the ducking and hiding.
2. I have no burden of proof, merely because I am unconvinced by your weak claims. Being as I have spotted the flaws in your case, that doesn't obligate me to have an alternative theory of how the events transpired.
Quote:
2. The critics are not presenting a case; they are shooting holes in YOUR case - as such, your asking them to present a "case" makes no sense;
here you affirm what i have been trying to get across to you all along. what are you shooting with? a gun and bullets. where did they come from?
|
From the logical ability to see holes in your explanation. Pointing out how your "proof" (such as it is) doesn't back up your claims.
Quote:
|
they are your preconceived notions about how things really happened.
|
No, the bullets come from being able to spot weaknesses in your argument - and they are many. But just because I have spotted the flaws in your case, that doesn't obligate me to have an alternative theory of how the events transpired.
Quote:
|
if you did not have that, you would have nothing to shoot with.
|
Wrong. See the peanut butter sandwich example. I have no idea who stole your sandwich - but of all the 1000 possible causes, I'm damned sure that hungry aliens are not the right answer. But just because I reject your hungry alien theory, does not mean I have an alternate idea of why your sandwich is missing.
I'm going to try another example, taken from real life, that I posted on a feedback forum. It's unlikely that this will work, however. Your problem is not a lack of comprehension - it's intellectual laziness that you are trying to hide by pretending to not understand. Still, it is worth showing to the audience:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...44#post2671244
During the last month of so we've been knee-deep in budget estimations for the coming year. I was asked to review someone's budget. When I did, I found the following mistakes:
1. they failed to take account for shipping/handling costs, even though S&H form a large part of our company's annual costs;
2. they failed to take account for currency exchange rate fluctuations, and set aside an appropriate reserve amount to handle that - even though our company ships large quantities of product world-wide, especially Germany and Japan;
3. they assumed an annual growth rate of 8% for our company - but when asked where they got that figure from, they could not tell me; when asked how they would justify the figure based on historicals, they were unable to do so
Contrary to your poorly thought out claim, I did not need to show ANY calculations in order to detect that this person's budget was incomplete. I did not know what their department spending was; I didn't know what their inter-departmental obligations were; I didn't know what all the line items on their spreadsheet were. I DIDN'T NEED TO. Why?
Because I knew that EVERY PROPERLY COMPUTED BUDGET must be able to account for these items. And I knew that any budget that failed to properly account for them was an imcomplete and incorrect budget. I don't have to calculate their budget for them, to detect flaws in how they arrived at their numbers. Process flaws can be detected by anyone familiar with the process.
Spotting flaws in your arguments is the same principle: I may not have formed an opinion on the events you are talking about, but I can certainly tell you when your evidence and your conclusions don't support each other.
Quote:
|
what you are trying to do is shoot but say you don't have a gun and bullets, which is absurd. having a gun and bullets implies you have a case to make. i can understand you not wanting to support it though. it's much easier to lazily claim someone else has to do all the work.
|
1. You DO have to do the work.
2. It was YOUR affirmative claim.
3. Since you don't get a default score of "true", then you're going to have to get off your lazy ass and support your assertions. It's a tough world out there; apparently you were not ready for it.
Quote:
|
what does seem great is your need to avoid making any sort of case despite the fact you allegedly have the winning hand.
|
1. I don't need to make a case because I haven't made a claim here.
2. You are just upset because someone is finally making you answerable for your random claims, and being responsible for your words and actions is apparently something you aren't accustomed to.
Quote:
The affirmative case is the only case presented here;
your "gun and bullets" constitutes an "affirmative case" as you put it.
|
No, it does not. It constitutes a knowledge of the flaws in your argument.
Quote:
everything from the skeptic side has been shooting holes in that case.
and these "holes" would be what?
|
Failures to support your case. How many times does it need to be repeated before it finally sinks in?
YOU HAVE PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR AFFIRMATIVE CLAIM. UNTIL YOU DO SO, YOU HAVE NOT EVEN BEGUN TO MEET THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIM.
I can also do the above in different colors and font sizes, if you think that would make it clearer for you.
Quote:
But of course, feel free to prove me wrong: if you think the skeptics presented a case anywhere, then by all means -- point it out.
that's what i have been trying to point out to you for some time now; your gun and bullets that magically don't exist after being fired.
|
No, what you've been trying to do is claim that just because I shot holes in your argument, that must mean that I have an alternate idea of what happened. That is a logical fallacy.
Quote:
Incorrect. He who claims, has the burden to prove said claim.
and i responded showing how this is an incomplete analysis.
You did? Where? I saw no such response.
of course you didn't. posts #21 and 40.
|
Post #21 does not show that the analysis above is incorrect. Post #21 merely repeats your wishful thinking, that no such rule or principle of debate exists. Ditto for #40.
Quote:
What I did see was you pretending that both sides had taken a position. However, that is simply false; being unconvinced of your affirmative position does not equate to making a case.
the condition of being unconvinced means that you believe some other situation occurred.
|
No, it doesn't. It merely means that your explanation sucks, and whatever the real story is wouldn't be as badly argued.
Quote:
It's convenient for you, perhaps, because it's a total strawman
it's not a strawman at all. a strawman would be me misrepresenting your case so that it's easy to tear down.
|
You are doing exactly that.
Quote:
|
what is happening here is that you mistakenly think you can criticize without having a preconceived case.
|
It is not a mistake. I do not have to possess an alternative explanation.
Quote:
that allows you to wring your hands, whine, and pretend to be unfairly picked-on like some kind of internet martyr.
this is not at all what has happened. i have merely pointed out an oversight in the debate.
|
It is not an oversight - it is how debate is conducted. You apparently didn't realize that, and now find yourself without the necessary evidence to support your point. So you discovered you had two choices:
Option A: do lots of unexpected, dreary homework to support your claim; or
Option B: try to force a change in the rules of debate so that you didn't have to support your position
You decided on Option B.
Quote:
|
whenever there has been misrepresentation of the bible or christianity, i have responded without whining or wringing of the hands.
|
Apparently not.
Even now, you continue to try and weasel out of supporting your affirmative position by saying "I'm right, because I say so. If you disagree, you have to prove I am wrong."
You might be used to hanging around gullible, stupid people that would be sucked in by that logical fallacy. But your approach isn't going to work here.
Quote:
In reality, the standard is the same as it has always been: he who claims, has the burden of proof.
actually, that's not what the standard has always been as you mistakenly claim. burden of proof is on believability, not "claimability".
|
Wrong. The standard is precisely as I have stated it.
Quote:
|
second, i forgot you have the magically disappearing gun. how silly of me. of course you don't have to support your claims.
|
That's because I haven't made any claims.
Quote:
Instead, you pretend that both sides have a claim here, and try to shift your workload onto someone else's back.
didn't you say you were the one shooting?
|
Yes - by pointing out the flaws in your argument. That does not create a claim on my part.
Quote:
If you want to retract your claim, feel free to do so. We can settle this here and now by summarizing that bfniii does not take the affirmative position that the Tyre prophecy was fulfilled.
i am trying to get you to use your own methodology which is basically a process of elimination.
|
1. My methodology is not process of elimination; I don't know where you got that strange idea.
Quote:
|
show me what invalidates the tyre prophecy.
|
How can I? You haven't shown what *validates* it yet. In point of fact, you have made zero attempts to support your affirmative claim. Yet you continue to make the affirmative claim. Not only dishonest, but strange as well.
Quote:
you did nothing of the kind. You tried to claim that I did -- but you have "shown" absolutely no such claims on my part.
you actually affirmed my point with the gun analogy. therefore, i did make my point. i'm sorry you don't see that.
|
I did not affirm your point; you still fail to see that pointing out flaws in your evidence and logic does not obligate me to have an alternate explanation. Your point is not made, but your laziness is becoming legendary.
Quote:
1. We have reason to test for this possibility, because other such texts have likewise been altered.
you can test all you want. so far, your results are inconclusive because they are based on nothing more than the appeal to probability.
|
You misunderstand deliberately. The obligation to test is on YOUR back:
a. since we know that such tampering has occurred in the past; and
b. since you are the one with the affirmative claim
And the results are *not* inconclusive - the evidence hasn't been tested yet, because you haven't done the work.
Quote:
|
do you have something else more convincing?
|
If you understood logic, this would be convincing. Since you don't, it probably isn't. I can only hope....
Quote:
2. You have not shown that the appeal to probability is a fallacy. Nor am I going to simply let you assume it into evidence. Would you care to try again?
appeal to probability is by definition a fallacy.
|
1. You're simply repeating your original claim, in a slightly less honest manner. Not impressed.
2. You have not proven the original claim, nor the revised version. Did you realize that?
3. And if you think that it is "by definition" a fallacy, then feel free to demonstrate that with a citation or reference.
Quote:
|
every other book from all time could be altered in that way but it says nothing conclusive about the one in question. what you need to show is evidence in this specific case, not evidence from other cases.
|
Incorrect. If every other book in time were altered, and you tried to tell us that this one book was tamper-free, then the burden of proof would be on your back to show that.
Quote:
The analogy is not flawed, however your understanding of biblical criticism could use some serious improvement,
in what way? dispense with the vague comments. how about some specifics?
|
Specifically, you need to support your affirmative case FIRST, before asking other people for evidence. Nice try, though.
Quote:
as well as your sense of logic.
curious. you start out by misunderstanding the burden of proof.
|
I do not misunderstand it -- and for that matter, neither do you. You *pretend* to misunderstand it, in order to evade the study and research that your claims have saddled you with. The rest is just variations on your evasion and ducking.
Quote:
1. Evidence of tampering comes from the internal clues - types of words, turns of phrase, mismatched styles of writing, verses being strangely out of place;
kudos for providing a rare example of actual support for your cause. every single one of these examples is flawed.
|
Unfortunately, you are wrong. These are the same principles that biblical scholars use to spot edits, fakes, copyist errors, etc. Remember what I said about your skills at biblical criticism needing work? Bingo.
Quote:
2. We don't have the original manuscripts for ANY books of the bible. Yet we know that edits occurred in other books, in spite of that fact. Ergo, you should have concluded that there must be some way to spot edits in the text, even if you don't have the originals laying around.
the original texts are helpful but we could do it with just any two copies.
|
No, we couldn't. If both copies were made from the same parent manuscript, they wouldn't prove anything since they would carry the same tainted text and/or errors in them. Having two photocopies of a flawed document doesnt' do any good.
As I said: you don't know enough about biblical criticism to be discussing this.
Quote:
|
where would these edits be that you are referring to?
|
The burden of proof is upon you, to show that there weren't any -- especially since we know that such editing/mistakes/etc. did, in fact, occur. If you had a pristine bible as your background, where no other books showed any such edits, then you are correct - the request to prove no editing would be unreasonable. But that is not the situation that we find ourselves in.
Quote:
Your two comments are incorrect for the following reasons:
Comment #1 - there is plenty of reason to expect that we can, since we've detected such editions in other books.
editions in other books has absolutely nothing to do with the bible.
|
I meant other books OF the bible - not just the book of Ezekiel.
Quote:
If you think that we can't detect it in Ezekiel, then you're going to have to explain why we could detect it in other books of the bible. You need to make an argument why Ezekiel is different from these other books, where we successfully detected tampering;
and what specific examples do you have of this tampering?
|
The burden of proof is upon you, to show that there weren't any -- especially since we know that such editing/mistakes/etc. did, in fact, occur. If you had a pristine bible as your background, where no other books showed any such edits, then you are correct - the request to prove no editing would be unreasonable. But that is not the situation that we find ourselves in.
Quote:
Comment #2 - this is just a restatement of your original whine, and is shot down with my same response as before: we have reason to test for the possibility of editing and tampering, because other such texts have likewise been altered.
testing and concluding are two different things altogether. now, let's hear your tests.
|
The burden of proof is upon you, to show that there weren't any -- especially since we know that such editing/mistakes/etc. did, in fact, occur. If you had a pristine bible as your background, where no other books showed any such edits, then you are correct - the request to prove no editing would be unreasonable. But that is not the situation that we find ourselves in.
Quote:
However, in this thread we are discussing your affirmative claims for the dating of the Tyre prophecy, and the accuracy of that prophecy in general.
and what are my affirmative claims?
|
1. For the dating of the Tyre prophecy
2. That is was accurate
If I've made a mistake here and you are NOT making such affirmative claims, then we can all close up shop and go home now. As I said earlier:
If you want to retract your claim, feel free to do so. We can settle this here and now by summarizing that bfniii does not take the affirmative position that the Tyre prophecy was fulfilled.
Moving along...
Quote:
It's like dealing with counterfeit money. If 30% of the currency in a particular country is counterfeit, then I'm not going to sell you my car until you prove to me that your money is authentic. I don't need a specific reason to be suspicious of your money. Given the situation in the country, there's simply too much counterfeit money floating around for me to take a chance. The same principle holds here.
first, the analogy is flawed in that you can conclusively test the legitimacy of the money whereas we have no such test for ancient texts except to compare them to other copies of the same work.
|
1. The analogy is not flawed, because the principle holds: in situations of rampant numbers of less-than-perfect items (however you determine it), you need to show that your items are free of imperfection. If I had used something besides money -- such as expensive oil paintings, where authenticity is more subjective -- the end result would be the same. If the country is overrun with fake Renoir paintings, and you want to sell me your Renoir, then you need to prove that it is genuine.
2. You are simply incorrect about tests for ancient texts. Here is an easy test: if we have only ONE copy of a text that allegedly dates from 500 BC, and it just happens to mention "jumbo jetliners", what then? Do we have enough evidence to conclude it is a fake? Of course we do - and we did so, without having a second copy of the same text to compare it against. As I said earlier: your lack of education in biblical criticism shows.
Quote:
|
the other tests you provided are interesting, but hardly conclusive.
|
Says who? You? Please.
Quote:
|
second, there is nothing wrong with testing the veracity of the works. however, how suspicious should we remain when we can't show that the text falls into the counterfeit category?
|
And now we see that besides not understanding biblical criticism, you also do not understand how scientific investigation works. Color me surprised.
Scientific tests rule things
out, they do not rule them in. These tests only act in one direction; they spot a fake, they do not validate something genuine. So if the text passes all the tests, the proper way to announce the results is "there is no evidence that this is a fake; it has passed all the tests." That is somewhat different from saying "the tests prove this is genuine." If you cannot understand the difference between those two statements, then you are going to miss a lot of subtle points in this debate. Here is an analogy that might help you to understand, depending upon your level of willingness to learn.
Carbon-14 dating does not actually date an artifact to a precise date. What is says instead is "C14 dating shows this item is AT LEAST 30,000 years old." That is not the same thing as saying "C14 dating says this item is 30,000 years old."
Quote:
1. You have not asked *me* for proof -- because if you had, I would have pointed out that if knew more about biblical criticism, then you would already know what those tests were;
actually, i have. also, i am asking you to allay your generalities and let's talk specifics.
|
As soon as you report back the results of your testing on Ezekiel, then we can discuss the specifics of the results. Until that time, your claims for Ezekiel being authentic and untampered are merely that -- unsupported claims offered in a vacuum, without proof.
Quote:
2. What conclusion I reach from the test will depend upon the results. When you have those results, let me know and I'll give you my conclusion.
this seems misleading because you have already formed your opinion based on zero facts.
|
I have stated no conclusion on the integrity of the text in Ezekiel. I merely informed you that -- given that so many other books of the bible show tampering -- you would need to run tampering tests on Ezekiel before you would be allowed to claim it was authentic.
Quote:
the events are only extraordinary or unbelievable if they aren't executed by an omnipotent God.
Another entirely circular argument. Asking the skeptic to accept up front the very same conclusion you need to prove -- well, it isn't going to work.
no, you misunderstand. the argument isn't circular because the components of the point are separate.
|
No, they are not. You ask for us to believe (a) in this God, and (b) that the events occurred. Yet you have offered zero proof for (a) or for (b). You want us to assume (a), because that makes (b) easier. But even if (a) is true, it does not prove that (b) happened.
Quote:
|
first, the miracles don't require miraculous evidence because they are beyond the pervue of science
|
Absolutely totally wrong.
1. Miracles do require evidence - and extraordinary evidence at that. You dont' get to wave away the requirement for evidence just because you're having trouble meeting it.
2. Your busted defense above continues to assume your conclusion: you want to assume that miracles even exist in the first place. It's like saying "leprechauns don't require evidence, because they're beyond the realm of science".
3. Miracles are *not* beyond the purview (correct spelling) of science - all the miracles in the bible were observed by ordinary people, and left evidence behind them. When Christ healed the leper, for example, he told him to go and show himself to the priest.
Quote:
|
and second, because they are purportedly executed by an omnipotent God.
|
Your second point is just a repetition of your first circular statement. So even your circular claim has become circular in how you use it. If I hadn't seen it, I would not have believed it possible.
Quote:
i will restate; any person or thing can claim anything. the claim itself does not require support, it's just a claim.
1. And I'll state again: you are wrong. 100%, absolutely, no-question-about-it, wrong.
is that the case merely because you say it is so or do you have some refutation instead of just another repetition? if not, just admit you don't have a case and we'll move on.
|
What I said is correct because that is how debate is conducted. It's fairly well-known, even to young children who have debated:
http://www.pps.k12.or.us/schools-c/p...on/debate.html
Now you begin the Affirmative Construction speech. The burden of proof is on your Affirmative Team so you must present evidence to support your resolution. Remember, the Negative Team is quite happy with the status quo. They are not trying to change anything... YOU are! Your evidence (quoted materials from a nationally published source) is even more important than your use of logic, anecdotal evidence, analysis, reasoning, refutation, and delivery. Be factual!
And again:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html
For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
Quote:
3. You don't get to walk away from the need to support your claim, just because it's a lot of work and you don't feel up to the job. This attempt to re-write the rules of debate just to coddle your intellectual laziness is neither new, nor is it particularly convincing.
wait, you admit you are shooting at the bible but claim i'm the one being lazy?
|
Yes, because you tossed out claims yet won't lift a finger to support them -- and at the height of your laziness, have tried to shift the burden of proof onto the other side.
Quote:
What "many people think" is irrelevant. What they can prove is all that matters.
funny. you are unwilling to "prove" your case
|
1. I have made no case.
2. You have.
3. I do not have a burden of proof.
4. You do.
End of story.
Quote:
1. "quality" and "evidence" are subjective
Not really -- although I am aware that christians try to use that argument to create wiggle room, and reassure themselves that their poor arguments are actually pretty good. In point of fact, the evidence is much less subjective than you want it to be;
more generalities. i am asking you to be specific in pointing out how it is "less subjective" as if there is such a thing. something is either subjective or objective.
|
Still trying to shift the burden of proof? You are the one that claimed quality and evidence are subjective - it is up to you to show how that is the case, if you can.
Quote:
2. what reasons do you have to doubt the case made by biblical proponents?
On what topic? For the moment, we are discussing your affirmative claims for the Tyre prophecy -- accuracy and dating. Now if you want to discuss other mistakes of biblical proponents, state that topic in a new thread and I'll follow you there. But I don't want to derail this thread by bringing in other non-related topics.
interesting. i asked you a question. are you unable to answer it?
|
I gave you an answer: start another thread. State the topic, give the affirmative case for biblical proponents, and I'll answer you there. But in this *particular* thread, the topic is your claims about Tyre.
Quote:
|
since you don't provide an answer, why should anyone take you seriously?
|
1. I did provide an answer - but you didn't like it, because you quickly realized that it would only lead to even more research work for you;
2. Go ahead and call a vote of the audience; let's see who takes me more seriously than they take you.
Quote:
What you have shown, however, is that when you run out of arguments, you are unwilling to step up to the next level: actual research to support your argument.
i have plenty of responses and i have provided them when you made your rare points:
|
I'm not interested in your "responses", only your research and evidence. "Responses" are not research. What - you didn't *know* that already? Imagine my surprise.
Quote:
|
1. the bible must have been edited because other texts from that time were - appeal to probability
|
* I did not say "must have been edited".
* You did not provide any tests showing Ezekiel has not been tampered with, even though tampering occured in many other books of the bible;
Quote:
|
2. "internal clues" - inconclusive
|
Incorrect, since internal clues are used in biblical criticism to spot fakes all the time - an error on your part, which simply exposes your lack of experience in this area;
Quote:
|
3. the tyre prophecy was not divinely inspired - no way to prove that it was or not
|
* I did not take the position of "not divinely inspired". In point of fact, I took no position at all.
* You took the affirmative position that it was inspired, and I informed you that your argument sucked and that you had not met the burden of proof.
Quote:
As I said above: what "many people think" is irrelevant;
does that include you?
|
However, I am not the one relying upon popular voting as a way to determine truth. Only you have made that silly error.
Quote:
All that matters is what can be proven.
let's establish what can be proven. what would constitute as "proof" for you?
|
Ah. Perhaps now we're getting somewhere.
What constitutes as proof? Show me scientific, historical and archaeological evidence that Tyre was destroyed according to the details of Ezekiel's prophecy.
Quote:
In this case, the skeptics are not impressed with the case put forward by bible proponents on the Tyre question.
neither are they impressed with your case.
|
Rather silly of you, since I have not put forth any case. All I have done is point out the mistakes in your affirmative position.
Quote:
incidentally, the reason critics think bible proponents have failed is because the case they make doesn't match what critics think actually happened. what makes the critic's position stronger (the bible was edited and thus not genuine)?
Incidentally, you are wrong about the reason critics think the bible proponents failed. "Think actually happened"? Nonsense. Skeptics say the bible proponents failed because the events did *not* take place as the bible proponents claim.
 i don't understand how you think there is a distinction between what i said and what you said.
|
There is a difference here. Remember those subtle differences that I told you about earlier? Watch; you might learn something. There are two groups of skeptics:
1. Those who are unconvinced by the affirmative claim - they bear no burden of proof, because they have made no claim. They're just unconvinced by the consistently poor case put forward by bible proponents;
2. Those who reject the affirmative claim because they state that the events did not take place like the bible proponents say - they *do* have a burden of proof,
providing that the affirmative case has already presented evidence for its side. The affirmative case always has the burden of proof. And in cases where both sides have claims, then he who claims first has first burden of proof.
To recap this for you:
1. He who claims, has burden of proof.
2. He who claims FIRST, has FIRST burden of proof.
Quote:
No, you tried to rewrite the rules of debate to excuse yourself from doing any support for your claims.
i haven't tried to rewrite the rules. i have tried to point out that you are omitting some of them and mistaking others.
|
1. Yes, you did try to rewrite the rules. You are continuing to do so, even now.
2. I have made no mistakes, nor have I left any rules out. I readily concede that you may be ignorant or unaware of how burden of proof is assigned, but that is not a mistake or omission on my part.
Quote:
Naturally you were unhappy when you found out that wasn't going to work with me.
i am not unhappy at all. you can continue to shoot but pretend you don't have a gun if you like.
|
I have a gun, but the bullets are the mistakes in your own case. It does not obligate me to have a different story or explanation.
Quote:
|
you only delay us getting to your real points like the three i cited.
|
No, what delays us is your stubborn refusal to support your claims. If you would only support your affirmative position, then perhaps we would have something to talk about. As it is, however, all we are doing is watching you try to evade responsibility for your claims. It is a dance that most bible proponents do quite often.
Quote:
|
i don't see why anyone should take you seriously when you continue to act in this manner.
|
People will take me seriously because I am right, and because they -- like me -- are still waiting on you to present evidence for your affirmative claims.
Quote:
1. Poking huge holes in your case is not the same as making a claim.
whatever it is that you are using to poke holes with is what you should have to support.
|
I am using your lack of affirmative evidence -- or any evidence, so far -- to poke holes in the argument.
Quote:
that those who put forth claims must also support them.
does that include the three you made?
|
What claims do you think I made?
Quote:
1. The criteria are clear, and similar to other criteria I have seen from christian and non-christian sources. If you think there are problems with the criteria, then give details. Waving your hands and wishing with all your might simply isn't enough;
ok. since you seem incapable of providing analysis as to what the problems are, i will do the work for you:
1. Clarity: The prophecy must not be ambiguous. - ambiguous is subjective. it means different things to different people. therefore, "clarity" is not a qualification.
|
Handwave. You apparently are getting scared that a requirement for "clarity" will knock out 98% of all prophecies, right from the start. Clarity is still a qualification, no matter how much you are uncomfortable with it.
Quote:
|
here is an example. the 70 weeks prophecy seems to "clearly" match more than one set of historical events. which one is correct?
|
The fact that the 70 weeks prophecy isn't clearly attached to one or the other set of events means that it fails the clarity test already. Thank you for so conveniently proving my point: the 70 weeks prophecy cannot be considered as a good test case of fulfilled prophecy, because it is open to multiple interpretations.
Quote:
|
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
|
Who says that there is no way to prove such a thing? You? Please.
There are ways to prove a prophecy precedes the event -- it's just that the prophetic texts rarely if ever satisfy the tests. That isn't a flaw with the test; it's a shortcoming of the prophecy.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Again - no way to prove such a thing? Don't expect me to take that claim on faith, either. Its' quite clear that if someone is active in royal circles, or has other connections, that any prophecy they state isn't going to satisfy this criterion. But just because the circumstances behind one particular prophecy do not satisfy it, that doesn't prove that the criterion cannot be satisfied as a rule.
Quote:
|
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.
|
See my comment about science ruling things out, not ruling things in.
Quote:
|
certainly, asking for proof that meddling did not occur is asking for proof of a negative.
|
And again: see my comment about science ruling things out, not ruling things in.
[/quote]
Quote:
Historical study of the milieu and time period. Yes, I know that sounds like work -- did you expect otherwise?
not from you. your response is vague.
|
Not at all. You asked for a starting point: I gave it to you.
Quote:
|
since "milieu" is a term that refers to broad conditions,
|
No, it does not. *sigh* Just something else you don't understand:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=milieu
An environment or a setting.
Quote:
|
it would not yield any specific data on whether one alleged prophet in a small country got the information you are referring to.
|
Yes, it would. If you knew the milieu -- the environment or setting -- under which Ezekiel wrote his prophecy, and it turned out that he was an advisor to a king, do you think that is a far different situation than someone who is an oucast, preaching in the desert. You know this already, of course; but you don't like where the answer is leading you.
Quote:
|
we would need something much more specific. again, what methodology can we employ to find out such information?
|
The same as I already gave you: historical study of the milieu and time period. Laziness is not a virtue.
Quote:
Make up your mind. Am I "incorrect" or "correct"?
you are correct in stating that it can't be done but that doesn't mean it isn't genuine prophecy because your point that it can't be considered divinely inspired is based on faulty premises.
|
1. If it can't be done, then you have no evidence that it is genuine prophecy.
2. My premises are correct; they are merely inconvenient for you. Being inconvenient does not make them incorrect.
Quote:
Wrong again. The fact that the evidence cannot be secured does not make the request (criterion 4) faulty.
actually, if the evidence cannot be secured by any means whatsoever, then the request is by default unreasonable.
|
Wrong. If the evidence cannot be secured, then the candidate in question fails the test. The test does not get "dumbed down" in order to meet the candidate's low performance.
Quote:
the inability to satisfy it shows that the prophecy isn't up to the necessary standards.
necessary to who? standard according to who?
|
1. Necessary to meet the standards.
2. Standards according to the five I listed above, from the christian who was trying to quantify prophecy.
Quote:
But the request is fine; the failure is on the prophecy. As usual, you don't seem to understand the subtle points of hte argument: I didn't say that this criterion #4 can NEVER be satisfied for ANY prophecy.
would you be so kind as to provide an example of a prophecy that meets the likelihood criteria?
|
Yes - after you provide evidence supporting your affirmative claim about Tyre. I am not going to let you open up a new can of worms, until you finish the mess you've created here first.
Quote:
My request is the same as saying:
"All candidates for supreme court must be able to show a history of clean financial dealings. We are only looking for good candidates that are examples of financially upright judges."
"But what about Judge Jones? He made $100,000 on a stock deal in 2001."
"Can we show that it was entirely legal?"
"No, the paper trail is incomplete. But we believe it was entirely legal."
"That wasn't what I asked you -- are you able to SHOW that it was legal?"
"No, I'm afraid we can't do that. We just don't have the paperwork we need to prove it."
"Then Judge Jones doesn't satisfy the stated requirement, does he?"
"No, I guess not."
this is a clever analogy but alas, flawed.
|
Not in the least. You seem to substitute "flawed" and "incorrect" when you should use the term "inconvenient."
Quote:
|
in order for the story to be accurately analogous, any documents they could possibly retrieve would be inconclusive.
|
Yes. And since the documents were inconclusive, they would all sit around a conference table to discuss. After many hours, they would sadly conclude that the judge in question simply wasn't a good candidate. Since no clear set of documents could be produced to support the claim that he was financially honest, he did not meet the high standards of conduct needed. But they wouldn't blame the standards; the standards were not too high. And they probably wouldn't blame the judge, either. The problem was that the paper trail wasn't strong enough, the evidence wasnt' conclusive enough. So even though they might personally believe the judge, they would also realize that from an impartial standpoint of evidence, he would not be a strong candidate.
The same is true of the prophecies. You can personally believe in them all you like. But from an impartial standard of evidence, the case is very weak. The problem is not the standard of evidence; the problem is that there is insufficient evidence to support the kinds of claims you are trying to make.
Quote:
Judge Jones and the Tyre prophecy fail for the same reason: they cannot meet the criteria established.
the criteria you mention are flawed.
|
No, they are not - and you have not demonstrated that.
I used the standards suggested by the christian above. Other sets of standards exist as well. if you don't like these, then open another thread and propose a new set of standards, along with reasons why yours are better.
Quote:
1. I do not mistake your position; I understand it perfectly well.
you do? perhaps you could reproduce it.
|
You believe that the standards are unreasonable (but have not proven such). And you believe that despite the failure to show evidence, that you can show fulfillment (despite having failed to do that as well).
Quote:
and you have not presented any evidence to back up that assertion -- and on the contrary, I've shown why the request is very reasonable;
you most certainly have not shown any such thing.
|
yes I have. Without standards to judge prophecy, then we cannot tell the difference between current affairs forecasts and prophecy. We cannot tell forgeries from the real thing; we cannot tell manipulated prophecies, etc.
Quote:
1. "many people" again? I hope we are over that mental and logical fallacy by now;
are you unable to articulate your critique in such a way as to convince the people who believe the bible's prophecies are completely fulfilled?
|
The critique has been successfully articulated;
accepting it, however, rarely has anything to do with evidence or logic. Your comment assumes that those who believe the bible's prophecies are fulfilled are able to see the holes in the affirmative arguments. If you can't see the holes in your own argument, then there is precious little evidence to assume that others of your religious persuasion possess that ability.
Quote:
|
if your case is ineluctable, those people will have no choice but to acquiesce.
|
The evidence from the creationists and ID nuts in Kansas shows what a hollow claim you have made here.
Quote:
Since this is a factual statement about how science operates, your 'agreement' does not matter. I was informing you of a fact, not seeking your agreement.
i wasn't disagreeing with your statement. i was stating that you don't completely represent science in this one sentence.
|
If you think I mispresented how science works, be my guest. However, what I said about science is 100% correct.
Quote:
|
i have asked you to employ this method to disprove that the prophecy is divinely inspired.
|
And again - attempts to shift the burden of proof onto me will not work. You are the one claiming it is divinely inspired; you must prove your affirmative claim. Show that the prophecy in question satisfies all the scientifically framed, negative/disprove tests that I mentioned earlier. The original author of those criteria knew how to correctly word them, according to the scientific method. If you follow what he said, then you'll be doing fine.
Quote:
No, I am informing precisely *how* your affirmative case for the divine inspiration of the Tyre prophecy failed. It was shot down, for failure to satisfy criterion #4:Likelihood: The prophecy can’t be just a good guess. A fact of current events or the nightly news hardly needs divine inspiration.
you negate this response by answering my question in the next sentence. therefore, all this rhetoric is inane banter.
|
1. I do not negate the response.
2. This is not rhetoric - it is a laundry list of what you need to do, in order to prove your affirmative case.
Quote:
what about the prophecy would have been common knowledge to such an extent that anyone could have made the prophecy?
That Nebuchadnezzar was going to invade Tyre.
it was? in showing that this was "nightly news" material, exactly who knew in advance that this was going to happen?
|
Pay attention.
I did not claim that the invasion was well known. I am trying to show you how these criteria work, in practice and real life. You're missing one of those subtle points again.
1. You asked for an example of what would have been common knowledge.
2. I gave you an example.
3. In order for you to prove that your prophecy was divinely inspired, you need to show that Nebuchadnezzar invading Tyre was not commonly known at the time.
4. Why? Because if it was commonly known, then it fails this criterion.
Quote:
1. I have seen no evidence from you that the prophecy was written before the alleged event, and since claims do not get a default "true" rating, you must indeed prove that;
2. I have seen no evidence of divine inspiration - and likewise, ancient texts do not get a default "inspired" rating just because you say they do. You will also need to prove this.
3. Until you do so, you have failed to make your affirmative case. I am merely pointing out your failure.
i did notice that i asked a question and you didn't answer it. are you unable to?
|
I did resposnd. Items 1,2 and 3 above are the response. Until you make your affirmative case, your position is dead in the water.
Quote:
|
you also have yet to show how your requests are reasonble other than just merely stating that they are.
|
The requests are reasonable because they set up and articulate the requirements for divine inspiration. If any of them are violated, then the claim of divine inspiration cannot be maintained, since the candidate example is 'tainted' by the failure.
Quote:
2. You have presented no evidence - historical, archaeological, etc. - to support your claims;
what would constitute proof to you?
|
Asked and answered.
Quote:
2. You have not shown that any "appeal to probability" is wrong,
it is wrong by definition. most any list of logical fallacies will include this one.
|
It is not wrong by definition, and you have provided no list of logical fallacies to support your claim.
Quote:
1. The critique is targeted at whatever fragile claims that the bible proponent brings forth and tries to defend. So if that textual scenario is misrepresented, then the fault is with the bible proponent, not the skeptic that is tearing the claim apart;
as i said, the problem is in the interpretation of what the bible says regarding the prophecy.
|
No, the problem is with the poor quality of the argument and the evidence offered.
Quote:
|
in showing that any particular prophecy is untrue, it remains true that you have possibly misunderstood the prophecy. regarding the tyre prophecy specifically, i have referred you to the other thread to clarify your misperceptions. if there is something there you disagree with, bring it up here and we can go over it again.
|
I have read the thread in question. You have not sufficiently answered the critics who have already posted in that thread.
Quote:
Which amounted to an attempt to rewrite the rules of debate, so as to avoid having to support your claims. Which is precisely what I said in bold, above: you tried to duck the burden of proof.
no, i'm asking you to back up your accusation that it was an intelligent guess or ancient news reporting.
|
You are confused again. See above; I answered this already.
Quote:
And in fact, I can only think of one source you've ever given for your many claims; the Wikipedia link to Ezekiel.
the article wasn't the source. wikipedia cited other sources.
|
Yes, which have been summarily thrashed - and your argument is still in need of support. Do you plan to support it, or are you abandoning ship and hoping nobody notices?
Quote:
|
again, i have asked you what would constitute evidence of prior composition to you.
|
And again, I have already answered this above: show me historical, scientific and archaeological evidence that the Tyre prophecy took place according to the details in Ezekiel.
Quote:
In the same thread where your doomed "explanations" were first posted.
perhaps you could be a bit more specific.
|
Oh, please. I was as specific as you were, in claiming that you had refuted the points in question. If you want to talk about specifics, then you need to show the specifics of your rebuttals. Waving your hands doesn't work.
11-05-2005, 07:14 PM
