Mageth

I think the above points to the belief in belief. The theologians believe in belief.

Plantinga and Swinburne, and likeminded theologians, present arguments that actually are in defense of belief in God, and not in defense of the existence of God.

juergen

The burden of proof definitely is on the side of the person making a claim. The more unbelievable the claim is, the better of a clear and well-supported explanation is necessary. If not, how could you ever convince others of an unbelievable idea?

Without a clear explanation of an unbelievable claim, it's just words flying in the wind that don't make sense to anyone who hasn't already agreed on them for any given reason.

There's also something to be said about different attitudes on the receiving end when a clear and well-supported explanation is given.

Dogfish

You could say that what the gnostic stated and the minimalist claim are true despite the the witnesses and the passage "Word became flesh and dwelt amoung us".

Same difference. To believe one over the other just means that one feels better to you emotionally. It's like arguing over whether a particular song is "good" or "bad". And you don't really have an argument from JC, do you? Just a claim of an argument, if you can't prove he actually existed. The burden is still in the believer's court.

Dogfish

How is that rational? Because a lot of people believe, it's rational to believe? If more people don't, is it then rational not to believe? I don't feel the rationality of a stand depends on how many people agree.

WVIncagold

It lies with the theist as you can never prove a negative. Theist Achilles heal is the very book they use to try and prove with. the bible is fallible and contradictory. If they would go and say i believe created the universe in the beginning in some way we cannot fathom and early man put words in that early man could understand ignoring genesis as nothing but an allegory they would be accepted by more skeptics. If they instead of trying to prove prophecy instead tried to say they are parables we should take a message from there is little the skeptics would have to grasp on. instead they assert god exists because the bible says it and i can prove it by A) prophecy or B)because the bible says so.
Skeppies would accept evidence if theist could back up their claims. And most can't and they cant recognize their weakness.

chrisengland

Are you shore??

mountainman

See particularly the bolded section (1) in consequences below.
Here we have a definition of the burden of proof articulated
by use of the term (by historians) of not proven.




ON PAGANS, JEWS, and CHRISTIANS
--- Arnaldo Momigliano, 1987

Chapter 1: Biblical Studies and Classical Studies
Simple Reflections upon Historical Method


p.3

Principles of Historical research need not be different
from criteria of common sense. And common sense teaches
us that outsiders must not tell insiders what they should
do. I shall therefore not discuss directly what biblical
scholars are doing. They are the insiders.

What I can perhaps do usefully is to emphasise as briefly
as possible three closely interrelated points of my
experience as a classicial scholar who is on speaking terms
with biblical scholars.

1) our common experience in historical research;

2) the serious problems we all have to face because of the
current devaluation of the notion of evidence and of the
corresponding overappreciation of rhetoric and idealogy
as instruments for the analysis of the literary sources;

3) what seems to me the most fruitful field of collaboration
between classical and biblical scholars.

Let me admit from the start that I am rather impervious to
any claim that sacred history poses problems which are not
those of profane history.

p.7

One is almost embarrassed to have to say
that any statement a historian makes must
be supported by evidence which, according
to ordinary criteria of human judgement,
is adequate to prove the reality of the
statement itself. This has three
consequences:


1) Historians must be prepared to admit
in any given case that they are unable
to reach safe conclusions because the
evidence is insufficient; like judges,
historians must be ready to say 'not proven'.



2) The methods used to ascertain the value
of the evidence must continually be scrutinised
and perfected, because they are essential to
historical research.

3) The historians themselves must be judged
according to their ability to establish facts.


The form of exposition they choosenfor their presentation
of the facts is a secondary consideration. I have of course
nothing to object in principle to the present multiplication
in methods of rhetorical analysis of historical texts.

You may have as much rhetorical analysis as you consider
necessary, provided it leads to the establishment of the
truth - or to the admission that truth is regretfully
out of reach in a given case.

But it must be clear once for all that Judges and Acts,
Heroditus and Tacitus are historical texts to be examined
with the purpose of recovering the truth of the past.

Hence the interesting conclusion that the notion of forgery
has a different meaning in historiography than it has in
other branches of literature or of art. A creative writer
or artist perpetuates a forgery every time he intends
to mislead his public about the date and authorship
of his own work.

But only a historian can be guilty of forging evidence
or of knowingly used forged evidence in order to
support his own historical discourse. One is never
simple-minded enough about the condemnation of
forgeries. Pious frauds are frauds, for which one
must show no piety - and no pity.

paarsurrey

Hi

There you are right; it is reasonable.

Thanks

Headache

That is not going to fly at all!

Let's use a different example to illustrate why not.

Let's say I venture into an astrophysical forum and make a claim "There are no planets with any form of life in the Andromeda galaxy!" and according to you, the burden of proof is on me. It's impossible to do. Now, had I claimed the opposite, that there are planets with life in Andromeda, I would have to present evidence to support that claim and it's possible to do so. Not so the other way around!

So, when it comes to evidence for ANYTHING related to the christian religion, the burden of proof HAS to rest squarely with those who posit the religion and it's content and not on anyone else.

Doug Shaver

Yes, I'm saying you have the burden of proof.

You mean, it's impossible to prove that there are no planets with any form of life in the Andromeda galaxy? Well, yes. At this stage of our technological development, nobody can prove that assertion. A few centuries from now, or maybe even a few decades, who knows?

But so what? Are you claiming that where proof is contingently impossible, there is no burden?

Oh, it is? I'd like to see you do it.