Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf I contended that Muhammad went up a mountain and spoke to an angel and that is the reason why his writings are divinely inspired, the burden of proof would be on me to demonstrate that this was true. Your lack of belief in my claim would not create a burden of proof for you.
Instead they seek to shift the burden of proof onto those who claim that it is inspired.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour gleeful and deliberate use of logical fallacy says a great deal about your opinion of those to whom you address this post.
So there you have it folks those who claim that the Bible is uninspired have offered nothing more than some airy sentiments that they feel intuitively that its uninspired, Their claims that it was written for political purposes or to control people are also unsubstantiated. Instead they seek to shift the burden of proof onto those who claim that it is inspired. How dastardly!
Originally posted by sonshipFulfilled prophesies don't evidence the 'divinely inspired' nature of the bible. Take for example Jesus being born in Bethlehem, merely as a means to strengthen the parallels between Jesus and King David.
Evidence also indicates that the writing bears the hallmarks of a mind that transcends time. Fulfilled prophecy furnishes us with this realization.
While you're concerned for circular reasoning?
Explain to us how your reasoning can arrive at truth without presupposition that it can.
Do so without circularity.
IE. What reasoning do you have th ...[text shortened]... able edifice" with presupposition as a foundation that your reasoning can be trusted. Don't we?
"Why would a Roman/local regulation have mandated people to go back to their birthplaces for counting, instead of simply counting everyone in place with their birth details, as we do?...No credible article I've ever read showed a plausible advantage for the Romans to making people go back to their ancestral home."
(http://ask.metafilter.com/121168/Why-Did-Mary-And-Joseph-Have-To-Go-To-Bethlehem).
Facts manipulated, to fulfil prophecies, evidence very little.
3 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI resent that. I have been both respectful and objective. Its not logically fallacious to make a claim and then be asked to provide a burden of proof for that claim, its absurd to think otherwise. If you do not find the evidence compelling then fine but if you are going to make claims then you should be called to provide a burden of proof for that claim whether in this instance its for the inspiration of the Bible or contrary. Its both childish and unfair to expect other people to provide the burden of proof for their claims while you will not for yours being merely content to shift the onus to them.
Your gleeful and deliberate use of logical fallacy says a great deal about your opinion of those to whom you address this post.
You claimed that the Bible is uninspired, you claimed that it was written solely by men not under inspiration and you claimed that they did so to control others. I repeat it is not logically fallacious to ask you to provide a burden of proof for these claims the same as it is not logically fallacious to ask those who say the Bible is inspired to provide a burden of proof for their claims either and to turn it into some kind of vehicle for moralizing over me I find says more about you than it does about me.
1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeNo my perspective was to merely examine those who were saying that the Bible was uninspired. I really thought they might have some valid reasons, but as far as I can discern their arguments are pretty flimsy.
Is that because it is an argument you know you can't win?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYes of course. But I have not made the claim that Muhammad is uninspired. What i have actually done is to state that your evidence is not compelling, There is a difference. If I claim that Mo is uninspired then I need to provide some kind of burden of proof for its a truth claim. If I claim that your evidence is not compelling then I don't.
If I contended that Muhammad went up a mountain and spoke to an angel and that is the reason why his writings are divinely inspired, the burden of proof would be on me to demonstrate that this was true. Your lack of belief in my claim would not create a burden of proof for you.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAgain you play to an audience with an argument that you know full well is pure bunkum.
I resent that vile insinuation. I have been both respectful and objective. Its not logically fallacious to make a claim and then be asked to provide a burden of proof for that claim, its absurd to think otherwise. If you do not find the evidence compelling then fine but if you are going to make claims then you should be called to provide a burden o ...[text shortened]... to some kind of vehicle for moralizing over me I find says more about you than it does about me.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI doubt anyone disputes that the texts were written by men, and there is ample evidence that religious beliefs and religious laws (regardless of which religion) are instrumental to control and order within societies; again, I doubt anyone disputes this. The claim that these texts were inspired by a supernatural being is your claim, robbie, and so the burden of proof lies with you. Alas, as you yourself said, you are not interested in debating this.
you claimed that it was written solely by men not under inspiration and you claimed that they did so to control others.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo you don't. The burden of proof would be entirely on me to demonstrate he was divinely inspired. Until then, there is absolutely no onus on you to either believe he was inspired or to prove that he wasn't.
If I claim that [Muhammad] is uninspired then I need to provide some kind of burden of proof for its a truth claim.
3 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatIs there or is there not a difference between making truth claims and finding no compelling evidence in the proof of others? Yes there is!
Again you play to an audience with an argument that you know full well is pure bunkum.
In Scots law for example we have a verdict of not proven. What does this mean? It means that the prosecution has not been able to provide compelling evidence of the defendants guilt. Does that mean they they are guilty or innocent? Neither! It means that the case has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We cannot therefore go away and make the claim that they are guilty or innocent. Its exactly the same position that you and these other people who have stated that the Bible is uninspired find yourselves in but simply don't realize it or refuse to realize it. You have given the case for inspiration a not proven verdict and then proceed to go away and make claims that it is uninspired. This is simply not the case and you cannot make that claim. All you can say with any certainty is that it has not be proven to be inspired.
Bunkum? more like absolutely unassailable sound logic.
Originally posted by FMFAll you can say with any certainty is that the case has not be proven that Mo is inspired, You cannot make any claims beyond that and you certainly cannot claim that he is uninspired and when you do you will be called to provide a burden of proof for the claims is a truth claim.
No you don't. The burden of proof would be entirely on me to demonstrate he was divinely inspired. Until then, there is absolutely no onus on you to either believe he was inspired or to prove that he wasn't.
Please see my admirable text above as it relates to Scots law and the verdict of not proven which illustrates your position brilliantly.