Doug Shaver

Simple. If you claim that X is a fact, you prove that X is true. Then you can use it as evidence. Your merely calling it a fact doesn't make it one.

Of course, if your interlocutors agree that X is a fact, then the burden of proof may be waived for that discussion. But otherwise, you're just begging the question that X is supposed to settle.

rhutchin

OK. Do you make it your practice to prove everything that you claim as fact and thereby determine that it is true?

Juststeve

As a practical matter we do not prove everything we call a fact. That does not mean however that when you used a supposed fact to support an argument your opponent is not entitled to ask you to adduce evidence that the supposed fact really is a fact. For example, if I were to say that Jesus faked the resurrection because he was seen being smuggled out of Jerusalem the day before the crucifixion in a burlap bag, you might ask me to prove that fact.

Christian apologist frequently base there arguments on supposed facts without giving good reasons to think them true. If the factual basis of an argument fails so does the argument.

Steve

Johnny Skeptic

How many people believed Paul's claims? Perhaps very few.

Any methods that offer more evidence than Christians have would be an improvement.

An excellent improvement would be eyewitness testimonies from Jesus' critics who saw him perform miracles, but there aren't any. All evidence that Jesus performed miracles is from biased sources who were promoting religous progaganda.

The book of John is not of any value to Christians since it was written in the second century. It is well-known that Matthew and Luke borrowed a good deal from Mark. No one knows where Mark's sources got their information from. Mark does not claim to be an eyewitness, and neither does Matthew or Luke.

Regarding the global flood, I propose that people who are experts in geology, which is less than 1% of the people in the world, evaluate the evidence based upon what they know about geology. The vast majority of geologists, including a lot of Christian geologists, have concluded that a global flood did not occur. Regarding people who are not experts in geology, I suggest that they accept the opinions of the vast majority of geologists unless they have good reasons for accepting the opinions of very small minority of geologists who believe that a global flood occured, most or all of whom are inerrantists. There are not any good reasons for anyone to be an inerrantist.

According to an article at http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm, over 99% of American scientists who deal with the earth and its lifeforms accept naturalistic or theistic evolution, and some of the most likely people to accept creationism are female, do not have a high school diploma, and make less than $20,000 a year.

As far as supernatural events are concerned, the ballgame changes since more evidence is required for supernatural events than for natural events. What methods do you use to evaluate ancient claims of supernatural events?

Doug Shaver

Everything? No. I don't have time to prove everything.

But . . . if I'm debating with someone and I'm trying to prove some proposition P, and if I say, "F is a fact, and F is good evidence for P, therefore P is true," and then my interlocutor says, "No, F is not a fact," then I think I'm obliged to do one of two things: (1) Offer whatever evidence I think I have for thinking F is so; or (2) concede that I have failed to provide good evidence for P.