bfniii

that's funny. i don't see where i took the position that the bible is true. it looks to me like i asked someone why they disagree with it, which is, of course, completely different. as i said before, i am open to using a process of elimination regarding biblical criticisms and objections. let's stack them up and see which ones are true. if they aren't true, we discard them and keep going.

how honest is it for you to create blatant strawmen?

Sauron

Nope.
No presentation of affirmative claim.
No evaluative framework offered.

Repeat:

Since this is my last response (unless you decide to act maturely and properly present your argument) I'll provide you with an abbreviated example. I really shouldn't have to do this - Johnny Skeptic has provided several examples of how a statement should be framed, and there is no doubt you understand the obligation. However, just to remove all excuses and fig leafs from bfniii - your statement might go something like this:

"I take the affirmative position that XYZ is true. Using evidence from sources such as A, B and C, I will demonstrate my position. I propose that the evidence must be [characteristic], it cannot be [characteristic], and must be [characteristic]. The debate will follow the customary rules of presentation. If I succeed in this, will you agree that I have met my burden?"


Then we discuss the details and see if we have room for agreement or not. That's how these things work.

bfniii

i understand. i will move forward with that in mind.



i have two responses:
1. what do you mean by "know"?
2. we do know some things from antiquity. how do we know them?



i have asked you before, why is that proof? first, it's an appeal to numbers. the majority is not always right. second, how do you know the ones that accept it aren't biased? third, what makes the group authoritative?



even if He did show up, how would you know it was Him?



i take it you mean that you are requesting that God fulfill a prediction of your choosing. what kind of action would you request of God? there is a reason why i am asking this question.



yes, the apocyrpha is a different discussion. it's not part of the bible.



they didn't add to scripture. the apocyrpha isn't scripture. that's why it's called apocryphal, not biblical.



so what? there's lots of parts of the bible i don't like.



that's not entirely true. he wasn't convinced by it at the time, but did include it in the bible.



i'm not sure what this has to do with anything. so what if they did?



it's not the word tampering that needs to be addressed. this passage warns against false prophecy or altering the apocalyse as was understood by the early church fathers. you seem to be overlooking "this book" which doesn't directly refer to the bible, but to revelation.

bfniii

i'm not here to convince anyone.



why not?



my position is that Jesus healed people. do you know of some reason why i should think otherwise?



is the source authoritative? does the source have personal meaning for me? are there any irrefutible objections that contradict the claim?



i have made plenty of assertions in these forums. my main purpose here is to learn objections to christianity. when i questions skeptics about their beliefs, i usually get personal insults. in each discussion, i am trying to get to fundamental beliefs, or worldview, because they are the authority from which people draw their conclusions about available data.



my first question is, who is God? i know i am repeating the tactic you just mentioned, but it's an important step for us to answer the question you ask. do you even believe in a God? i am trying to create a frame of reference so that we can discuss the issue.

Sauron

Can everyone say "attempt to reverse the burden of proof"?

Good; I knew you could.:thumbs:

bfniii

i don't know if i would say something attracted me to the bible, but i do find it fascinating.



ok. how would a person go about finding out if an ancient work was trustworthy?



i have studied the bible and objections to the bible for countless hours. i can't find any objections that convince me the bible is not trustworthy.



this really falls under evangelization and that's not what this thread is about. i hope that's not too curt, but the question is off-topic.



certainly not at first. but that all depends on how open-minded you are.



hmm. is your case that weak?



but that's what this thread is about; biblical criticism, not why christians think the bible is true. however, in the spirit of detente, the criticisms of the bible that i have seen in these forums are usually based on a misunderstanding of the bible. you can see this in the tyre thread or the daniel thread. when the misconceptions about the bible are straightened out, the bible is a most impressive book.

why are you trying to influence a certain group of people? what do you hope to gain from that?

Philadelphia Lawyer

Given Johnny Skeptic's claim, isn't the burden of proof on him? If I say that I have a "simple invalidation" of X, then the burden of proof is on me to show that X is invalid. And, for purposes of assigning the burden of proof, it makes no difference whether X is widely accepted or controversial. X could be the official version of 9/11, or it could be the theory that the moon is made of cheese. In either case, a person contesting the claim has no burden of showing that X is valid.

Furthermore, Johnny Skeptic goes on to affirmatively assert that the prophecy cannot be accurately dated. Once again, this means that the burden of proof is on him. He must prove that the prophecy cannot be accurately dated. There is no burden of proving that the propecy can be accurately dated on the person contesting his claim.

In other words, we can't have our cake and eat it too. If a Christian came here and said she had a simple validation of the Tyre prophecy, she would be besieged (rightfully) by skeptics demanding that she satisfy the burden of proof regarding the validity of the prophecy. Similarly, if the same Christian said that the Tyre prophecy can be accurately dated, the skeptics would (again, rightfully) demand that the burden of proof be placed on the Christian to show that this is true.

It's great to be in the position of the skeptic, but you can't make affirmative claims and be in the position of the skeptic at the same time.

Johnny Skeptic

I have stated my position, so what is your position?

Regarding item 1, let me put it this way: I do not know any credible criteria for dating the Tyre prophecy, and I do not know of any credible criteria for drawing a reliable conclusion one way of the other regarding possible later revisions. Do you?

Regarding item 2, the issues of WHAT happened in antiquity and WHEN writings about what happened in antiquity are two completely different issues. Any competent and honest historian will tell you this. Virtually all historians agree that Ezekiel and Nebuchadnezzar once lived, but not anywhere near virtually all historians agree that the Tyre prophecy was written before the events, and that later revisions were not made.

Christians are most certainly as biased as anyone else is. Certainly the majority of historians do not have to be right on a given issue, but we are talking about history here, are we not? Did you not cite a historical article in Wikipedia as evidence? Do you have any evidence who the writer was and whether or not he was biased? If the majority of historians are not always right, then maybe their claim that Ezekiel existed is false, right? If you wish to throw the opinions of the majority of historians right out of the window in the case of Tyre prophecy, then in order to be honest and consistent, you cannot ever refer the opinions of the majority of historians regarding any topic.

How would you know that it was him? How would you know that he was not a powerful alien imposter? There could never be absolute proof regarding who is who in the universe, but my point is that if a being showed up who has abilities are beyond those of humans, and explained to my satisfaction a lot of God’s actions and allowances, that would certainly be a very good start. How do you know that the risen Jesus was not an imposter?

I would ask God to predict what I would be doing at a specific time. Whatever he predicted, I would do something different if I were able to.

[quote=JS] Aside from the issue of the Resurrection, the undecided crowd are uncertain what Jesus did, so you most certainly cannot tell them to read the Bible and tell you what they disagree with.�

[quote=bfniii] Why not?

Because some of them do not agree or disagree. They are undecided, and they will ask you for instance why you believe that Jesus healed people other than “the Bible says so.�

No, but do you know of any reason that I should believe that Jesus healed people? The Bible asserts that Jesus healed people, but I have never asserted that Jesus did not heal people. Surely you must have had some reasons for believing the claim. What are they? Any follower of any religion could say “why should I believe otherwise� when questioned about his religion. Can you see how ridiculous your question is? You will never get anywhere with anyone if you use that approach.

What makes a source authoritative?

The Koran has personal meanings to Muslims.

I am not aware that any claim is irrefutable. Can you please give me an example? Instead of what you said, I would say “are there any irrefutable reasons for ACCEPTING the claim,� of course, assuming that stating an irrefutable claim is possible. All contradictions are made SUBSEQUENT to initial, primary assertions, but one need not contradict an assertion in order to credibly question it. All that one has to do is to ask why an assertion should be trusted.

But that is exactly my position as well. What I have been trying to do is to get you to state why you trust the Bible, but your frequent response is “why shouldn’t I trust the Bible�? Please tell us why you trust the Bible. I am willing to say that there is insufficient evidence at this time to trust or distrust the Bible. How about you?

I am an agnostic. That is why I frequently state arguments that both sides make arguments that are equally plausible. You believe in a God, but why do you specifically believe in the God of the Bible, and what tangible things has he ever done for you that caused you to follow him?

If a college student told you that he was shopping for a worldview, and many are, and asked you which worldview you would suggest that he follow and why, what would you tell him? Please assume that the young man is already familiar with the Bible, the books of other major world religions, and Deism.

Amaleq13

I understand what you are saying but the problem is Johnny didn't actually make an affirmative claim. He asserted a negative and those are inherently logically problematic when it comes to supporting them.

In actuality, it really isn't a claim as much as it is a challenge to anyone who believes they can make a convincing case for a particular date.

IOW, it is less a shifting of the burden than an attempt to challenge someone to accept the burden. I guess the claim being made would be an implied assertion of ability to defeat any attempt.

Sauron

No, the burden is not on him.

One of the requirements of prophecy (to be valid) is that it be written before the event in question. All Johnny is doing is pointing out that nobody has yet proven that to be the case. In the christians' healong rush to claim this as a valid prophecy, they have skipped a step in their proof -- all Johnny is doing is bringing that to their attention.

1. The theist could be in a "great position" as well, if they put half as much energy into proving their beliefs as they do making claims about them.
2. Johnny's claim was a negative claim.