====================================
No, I understand him no better at all. All this gives me is a fifteenth hand account of an event that may or may not have happened.
==========================================
Now you are jumping to another subject of textural criticism of the document of the New Testament. Some skeptics change subject matter so many times in a minute. You just reach down into your handy bag of 1001 suspicions and objections and meaningful dialogue is assured to never take place.
Its not a problem with the NT documents that keeps you from undersanding. I think its more that fact that you're simply not interested in understanding.
==================================
If it did actually occur as written - which is doubtful - it's likely that the son was not actually dead at all. There are many syndromes that mimic death, especially for those who are not familiar with them or medically trained.
==================================
Luke was a physician. Nice try.
==================================
Now I'm not after any other anecdotes about Jesus and his magical powers or heavenly love or whatever. I know you'll be able to astound me with many.
====================================
I found equally astounding the moral power of a unmiraculous man.
I find Jesus amazing when He is only speaking and teaching or even sleeping (in a boat during a storm).
Jesus the "Magic Man" is your invention. In fact some of the rather astounding occurences are when He COULD have performed a miracle but DID NOT. Those occurences are also impressive to many of us.
For 30 years He blended in with the people of His home city Nazareth and made no particular miraculous stir. Concidering that He taught He was God incarnate, this is amazing. I mean to simply blend in with the local folks as a carpenter for 30 years!
His normality is as impressive as the instances in which He did call on His Father to transcend the typical laws of nature to demonstrate divine authority.
===================================
And I'm sure that this Jesus guy was a hell of a nice person.
But our proof of this?
==============================
====================================
The claims of religious people that stuff written about him after his death is truth. And stuff, I might add, written by his supporters ... who of course would never be biased would they?
======================================
This is not a valid argument to me. The writers included TOO MANY things which were potentially embaressing or self defeating to their cause. The honesty about their own failures and the details about the life of Jesus contain to many candid aspects not typical of those making up false propoganda.
Why would they write that His own brothers did not believe in Him?
Why would they write that He was called a drunkard?
Why would they write that He was thought to be insane?
Why would they write that He said "My God, my God, Why have you forsaken Me?"
Why would they show that WOMEN, whose testimonies were not acceptable in a law court in those times, were the first to witness His resurrection?
Why would the portray themselves as to scared to bury thier Master?
Why would they portray themselves as all forsaking Him in His arrest and trial?
Why would they portray that some did not believe even after His resurrection?
There are too many candid details that do not display the characteristics of false propoganda. False propogandist would not have included so many potentially self defeating details about thier own characters and the rumors spread about Jesus.
They would conceal these kinds of things. They would conceal that He was called demon posessed, that He was called a wine bibber, that He was thought to be insane, and that even His own brothers had a hard tume believing in Him, that He was hung on a tree as a curse which would have disquaified Him from being a Messiah, and that He being God, said "My God, Why have you forsaken Me?"
Of course if you simply don't read the document, you may resort to the bliss of ignorants.
===================================
If you're going to convince me (or any atheist) of the divinity of some human or other,you've got to do better than the rantings of that human's supporters, decades after his or her death.
======================================
Tell me all about how 500 or more people all experienced the same hullucination simultaneously of a resurrected Man.
When Paul wrote his letter to Corinth he refered to 500 witnesses to the resurrection, most of whom were alive at the time of his writing. They could have easily come forward to refute any rising from the dead as proclaimed by Paul.
Do you have the documents of such objections? If not how are your conspiracy theories that those bad disciples destroyed all such contrary testimonials? Where's your proof of that having taken place.
Read it:
For I delivered to you, first of all, that which also I received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
And that he was buried, and that HE has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures;
And that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve;
Then He appeared to over five hundred brothers at one time, OF WHOM THE MAJORITY REMAIN UNTIL NOW, but some have fallen asleep.
Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
And last of all He appeared to me also, as one born prematurely. For I am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."
(1 Corinthians 15:3-9 )
Do you have the record of any one of these 500 living contemporaries of Paul and his First Corinthian letter or other protesting that Paul was lying?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhat if I claim something obvious like “The President of the USA is a man”? Is the burden of proof on me to establish the existence of a president of the USA?
[b]“…What is the criteria for deciding the burden of proof?…”
Simple: in this context the relevant criterion is that the burden of proof must rest on the person that claims something does exist as opposed to the person that claims that same something does not exist.
Let me give justification for that criterion:
Lets assume that that cr ...[text shortened]... e theists that claim that god exists and not on the atheists that claim that god does not exist.[/b]
And what about claims that do not have existential import, such as “All mammals are warm-blooded” or “All aliens must rely on water”? These statements are not committed to the existence of mammals or aliens; their internal structure is conditional (such as, for all x, if x is a mammal, x is warm-blooded.) The statement is trivially true if there are no mammals in our universe. I should think, however, that some burden of proof should also apply to these statements. So why restrict the burden of proof to only existential statements?
Furthermore, there are lots of instances in which we make claims about non-existent things. Consider the statement “The Grinch hates Christmas.” If I claim this is true, is the burden of proof really on me to locate someone in this world who is the Grinch and hates Christmas? No; yet we can still dispute whether this non-existent Grinch really hates Christmas. So if someone says “The Grinch loves Christmas”, I will reject that as false because I already have some pre-conceived ideal of the Grinch. So who has the burden of proof, given that the existence of the Grinch is irrelevant to the truth valuation of the statement “The Grinch loves Christmas”?
Originally posted by jaywillWhy would supporters of this great man be inclined to disagree with an account that only highlighted his greatness?
[b]====================================
No, I understand him no better at all. All this gives me is a fifteenth hand account of an event that may or may not have happened.
==========================================
Now you are jumping to another subject of textural criticism of the document of the New Testament. Some skeptics change subject m ...[text shortened]... ul[/b] and his First Corinthian letter or other protesting that Paul was lying?[/b]
If any of these 500 were actually aware of the contents of Paul's letters to the Corinthians, whey would they dispute them, if they were themselves supporters of Jesus?
It's not my desire here to dissuade you - or anyone else - of your beliefs in this matter. Nor is it my desire to critically analyse the life of Jesus as reported in the Gospels or any other part of the NT.
My starting point for any position on an account of the past is the assumption that miracles do not occur. If they do, you'd better do better than 'so and so said it happened that way, therefore it happened that way.'
I assume that miracles do not occur and therefore I look for explanations that might suit the situation.
My little scenario of the great religious prophet whose life is amplified and exaggerated after his death seems to me to be the most suitable and simplest explanation. We have after all, seen it happen before Jesus and since.
Turning water into wine, raising the dead, virgin birth, resurrection, healing the lame and blind, and so on would have to be classified as miracles. I don't believe they occur - ever.
Now, I may be wrong, but you'll need to demonstrate theis.
Originally posted by amannionJohn20:29b
Why would supporters of this great man be inclined to disagree with an account that only highlighted his greatness?
If any of these 500 were actually aware of the contents of Paul's letters to the Corinthians, whey would they dispute them, if they were themselves supporters of Jesus?
It's not my desire here to dissuade you - or anyone else - of your b ...[text shortened]... 't believe they occur - ever.
Now, I may be wrong, but you'll need to demonstrate theis.
...blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
I don't believe miracles are being performed in this day and age. So you'll never see that proof.
I think that all of creation is here as a result of the miraculous. So by extension one can see all the evidence one needs to believe.
Originally posted by josephwYes, but that is evidence only if you already believe.
John20:29b
...blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
I don't believe miracles are being performed in this day and age. So you'll never see that proof.
I think that all of creation is here as a result of the miraculous. So by extension one can see all the evidence one needs to believe.
This kind of evidence after the fact is clearly useless to someone like me who doesn't believe in miracles.
The response that miracles only happened way back when and not now is of course useless too. It's tantamount to me telling you that bI have an invisible dragon in my garage - but you won't be able to see it since it only appears to those people called Bill with green eyes and a mole on their left butt cheek.
Originally posted by jaywillNow you have tied yourself up in such ridiculous logic that you can even see how stupid it makes you look.
Do you have the record of any one of these 500 living [b]contemporaries of Paul and his First Corinthian letter or other protesting that Paul was lying?[/b]
I have 500 witnesses that say that I can perform miracles. Find one of those 500 witnesses who disputes my claim and I will give you US$1000.
Do you see the flaw in your logic? How can a non-existent witness dispute a claim? If the witness exists, then the claim is not false.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Miracles are not about performing 'superhuman' deeds. In all honesty, the miracles of Jesus recounted in the NT are for the most part quite underwhelming. The nature of miracles is not in that the laws of nature and physics can be thwarted to perform magic tricks and the reader of 2,000 years ago would understand things in that context. I turn to a Hindu story for illumination:
Once upon a time, in a holy forest, there lived a sage called Mankanaka, who ate nothing but grass and the leaves of plants. For many years, he lived on this pure and austere diet, and his spiritual potency became very intense.
One day, as Mankanaka sat in front of his hut weaving a grass mat, he happened to cut himself on a sharp blade of grass. He saw that green sap, not blood, oozed from the cut! His amazement knew no bounds. "Finally, I have gone beyond the human state, and I have become as sacred and blameless as a plant," he thought.
A frenzy of joy overtook Mankanaka, and he began to laugh and dance. His laughter shook all corners of the world like cosmic thunder, and the power of his dance frove first the forest and then the whole world to laugh and dance with him. As if enchanted, animals and trees, stones and rivers, lakes and mountains fell into the rhythms of the sage's wild dance.
The gods looked down and saw the danger that the earth was in. Oceans were overflowing, and dust was rising from the earth as smoke rises from a forest fire, darkening the skies. The gods ran to Shiva and asked him to rescue the earth from annihilation.
Shiva took the form of a hermit. He went to Mankanaka, and stood still beside him. Mankanaka calmed down enough to look at the silent, motionless hermit. He recognized who the hermit really was from the secret signs visable to seers, and he wondered why the Great God, the Lord of Dancers, wasn't joining him in his dance.
"Why are you so happy?" Shiva asked. Mankanaka pointed to his wound, which was still oozing vegetable sap, and said, "O Lord of Gods, don't you see that I have become so sacred that I have no blood at all? I am superhuman! I am celebrating my miracle!"
Shiva smiled, and then pressed a fingernail into his own thumb. While Mankanaka looked on, ashes, as white as snow and fine and luminescent as moonlight, flowed out from the thumb of the Great God, Shiva Mahadeva. Their radiance bathed the forest and beyond in a healing mist.
The sight of Shiva's vibhooti, his sacred ashes, purer than green sap and everything else in the world, brought a sobering calmness to Mankanaka. He prostrated himself at Shiva's feet, and the whole world came to a standstill.
The point of this story is that miracles in and of themselves have no meaning. The importance of miracles, any miracle, is in its reflection of God. Only as an expression of the divine does a miracle come into form. Mankanaka sees his miracle as evidence of his greatness and ignores the choas it produces. Shiva's miracle is a healing expression of the divine. Shiva's is the true miracle.
Originally posted by Conrau K“What if I claim something obvious like “The President of the USA is a man”? Is the burden of proof on me to establish the existence of a president of the USA? …”
What if I claim something obvious like “The President of the USA is a man”? Is the burden of proof on me to establish the existence of a president of the USA?
And what about claims that do not have existential import, such as “All mammals are warm-blooded” or “All aliens must rely on water”? These statements are not committed to the existence of mammals ...[text shortened]... f the Grinch is irrelevant to the truth valuation of the statement “The Grinch loves Christmas”?
If there was no evidence nor reason nor premise for believing “the existence of a president of the USA” then, yes, the burden of proof would be on you to prove he exists. But, given the fact there is already strong evidence that he exists (from witnesses to his existence and the fact you and others saw him giving speeches on TV etc), obviously providing the proof has already inadvertently been done for so the is no rational requirement to prove that he exists!
“…. So why restrict the burden of proof to only existential statements? …"
I did not say that absurdity nor imply it! The criterion I gave was just one of many. So, obviously, I wouldn’t “restrict the burden of proof to only existential statements”.
“…Furthermore, there are lots of instances in which we make claims about non-existent things. Consider the statement “The Grinch hates Christmas.” If I claim this is true, is the burden of proof really on me to locate someone in this world who is the Grinch and hates Christmas? No; …”
Obviously the criterion of “restrict the burden of proof to only existential statements” , for the reasons you pointed out, is not supposed to be applied to things that we all agree don't exist.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIf there was no evidence nor reason nor premise for believing “the existence of a president of the USA” then, yes, the burden of proof would be on you to prove he exists.
[b]“What if I claim something obvious like “The President of the USA is a man”? Is the burden of proof on me to establish the existence of a president of the USA? …”
If there was no evidence nor reason nor premise for believing “the existence of a president of the USA” then, yes, the burden of proof would be on you to prove he exists. But, giv easons you pointed out, is not supposed to be applied to things that we all agree don't exist.[/b]
This a much more complicated formulation of the burden of proof. Originally you claimed that the burden of proof rests on the person who makes the existential claim (there is a god; there is an invisible elephant in the sky.) Now the burden of proof only rests on the person who makes an existential claim in which there is already a paucity of evidence.
I hope you will see how ridiculous this makes the burden of proof. To decide whether a claimant has the burden of proof, you must a priori decide whether there is evidence for his claim. So already, before you place the burden of proof on someone, you must construct a counter-argument (that there is no evidence; or perhaps, that the claim is so illogical or incoherent, it requires explication.) Why even discuss the burden of proof if you develop a proof against the claim?*
I did not say that absurdity nor imply it! The criterion I gave was just one of many.
I did ask you to give a criteria for deciding the burden of proof. Are you saying that your criteria is inadequate?
Obviously the criterion of “restrict the burden of proof to only existential statements” , for the reasons you pointed out, is not supposed to be applied to things that we all agree don't exist.
Which is a claim many people dispute. If someone says, "Santa Clause is skinny", I would definitely demand the person to defend that claim - essentially to put the burden of proof on them*. Even though I know Santa does not exist, there does seem to be more false about claiming he is skinny. Most people do not imagine Santa as skinny (but as jolly and fat), so they will expect a person to justify their claim that Santa is skinny.
Essentially, I think your criteria of burden of proof fails many people's intuitions: 1. most people will say that the burden of proof falls on a person who denies the existence of the President of the USA (the affirmation of it, as you even admit, will be seen as trivial); 2. We often make claims that do not entail existence (like universal statements); 3. existence often has no relevance to something's truth, like when we talk about the Grinch or Santa.
* I do think, however, that the "burden of proof" can give a framework for debate. If someone denies that the angles of a triangle add to 180 degrees, I will expect them to give an argument. That said, however, I do not think that a burden of proof is the right term - I already have counter-arguments to the claim, and I should use them to refute that claim. On this forum, however, burden of proof has become a substitute for debate - since the burden of proof is on the theist, I can say God does not exist without needing to examine my belief; if the burden of proof is on the atheist, then I can say God does exists without needing to examine my belief (i.e. because the burden of proof is on the other person.)
So, while burden of proof is useful for a debate, it does not mean I can claim the contrary without justificaton as you did (in fact, as I alluded before, it is impossible because to demand a burden of proof because it presupposes that I already have a counter-argument. So, there is no longer a burden.)
Originally posted by Conrau K“…I hope you will see how ridiculous this makes the burden of proof. To decide whether a claimant has the burden of proof, you must a priori decide whether there is evidence for his claim…”
[b]If there was no evidence nor reason nor premise for believing “the existence of a president of the USA” then, yes, the burden of proof would be on you to prove he exists.
This a much more complicated formulation of the burden of proof. Originally you claimed that the burden of proof rests on the person who makes the existential claim (there is a it presupposes that I already have a counter-argument. So, there is no longer a burden.)[/b]
Maybe I have missed something here but why “prior”? first you listen to what the claim of the claimant says and then, if you do not know of any evidence to back up his claim and he isn’t somebody you just simply trust to have such evidence to back up his claim, then, before you can decide whether a claimant has the burden of proof, you just have to ask him what is the premise for his claim. Only when you have this information can you decide whether a claimant has the burden of proof (and failed to give proof).
“…I did ask you to give a criteria for deciding the burden of proof. Are you saying that your criteria is inadequate? …”
No. The criterion is inadequate if it was uses on its own but, obviously, it is not uses on its own but in conjunction with many other criterions which collectively make up a perfectly adequate criteria.
“…Which is a claim many people dispute?…”
You misinterpretation what I meant by “is not supposed to be applied to things that we all agree don't exist.”
My fault! what I should have said to ovoid this misinterpretation is “The criterion is not supposed to be applied to things that are supposed to be factious (such as fairy tails etc)” because that is what I meant.🙂
Originally posted by Conrau KI think that the burden of proof lies on whoever wishes to persuade another of his opinion.
Essentially, I think your criteria of burden of proof fails many people's intuitions: 1. most people will say that the burden of proof falls on a person who denies the existence of the President of the USA (the affirmation of it, as you even admit, will be seen as trivial); 2. We often make claims that do not entail existence (like universal statements); 3. ...[text shortened]... nce often has no relevance to something's truth, like when we talk about the Grinch or Santa.
I also think that you are getting confused between non existent entities and peoples ideas or concepts about those non-existent entities. The statement 'Santa is thin' is not in fact a claim about a non-existent entity, but rather a claim about an existent concept. To make a claim about a non-existent entity is meaningless.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell put. And I think you have just given me an idea on how to more simply explain the flaw in his reasoning:
I think that the burden of proof lies on whoever wishes to persuade another of his opinion.
I also think that you are getting confused between non existent entities and peoples ideas or concepts about those non-existent entities. The statement 'Santa is thin' is not in fact a claim about a non-existent entity, but rather a claim about an existent concept. To make a claim about a non-existent entity is meaningless.
“Originally posted by Conrau K …
…If someone says, "Santa Clause is skinny", I would definitely demand the person to defend that claim - essentially to put the burden of proof on them*. Even though I know Santa does not exist, there does seem to be more false about claiming he is skinny. Most people do not imagine Santa as skinny (but as jolly and fat), so they will expect a person to justify their claim that Santa is skinny. …”
When you say "Santa Clause is skinny" are you claiming that Santa exists?
Since no claim is being made here that Santa exists, my criterion does not apply because my criterion only applies to existential statements.
=======================================
Why would supporters of this great man be inclined to disagree with an account that only highlighted his greatness?
======================================
There are elements which have the potential of damaging the reputation of:
1.) Jesus
2.) His followers.
If John wants to portray that Jesus was the Word Who was God and became flesh, there is a potential danger that recording that He asked God "Why have you forsaken Me?" would contradict John's premise.
It would be better for him to conceal that Jesus (Who John purports to be God Himself) feels forsaken BY God.
It certainly is potentially discrediting that His own family doubted His claims. As also it wuld be that His family said that He was beside Himself as crazy.
If the disciples want to pass on to the world that Jesus really did rise from the dead, they should have excluded the embasessing fact that women (who were considered not reliable court witnesses) were the ones to first notice that He was not in the tomb. Where were the MEN? They were in bed sleeping for sorrow.
The evangelists include difficult sayings. The evangelists include potentially embaressing statements. And they do not paint themselves always as terribly brave or reliable disciples of this Person.
Matthew includes an account where Jesus refered to Peter, the leading disciple, as Satan in Matthew 18. This is the leader of the disciples. A false propogandist mght rather be expected to conceal the fact that Jesus rebuked the leading disciple as Satan.
They might also conceal the fact that they were not even brave enough to ask for the body of Jesus to be buried.
The candidness of these aspects of their testimony do not portray he characteristics of a hoax.
========================================
If any of these 500 were actually aware of the contents of Paul's letters to the Corinthians, whey would they dispute them, if they were themselves supporters of Jesus?
==========================================
Why would you consider that they were eager to be perpetrators of a hoax which was very likely to get them killed? Others had been killed for testifying that Jesus was Son of God.
Why would you assume that "supporters" were eager to go along with a known untruth? Is it only you who are concerned with the validity of historical FACTS? Do you think enthusiastic people about messages Jesus gave could not be skeptical about going "too far" with this thing?
If some were followers of Jesus, that is no reason to assume that they would cooperate in the propogation of a rresurrection hoax if they knew that it was not true.
Admires of Kennedy today might also come forward and say that they do not believe that he was killed by a Communist plot or is hidden away somewhere still alive. First century people could also discern reality from conspiracy theories or urban legends.
Anyone of them could have written "Yes we really like what Jesus taught. But we do not go along with this matter of Him rising from the dead."
=========================================
It's not my desire here to dissuade you - or anyone else - of your beliefs in this matter. Nor is it my desire to critically analyse the life of Jesus as reported in the Gospels or any other part of the NT.
======================================
I respect that. And I also demonstrate that one can be skeptical about the unbelief of critics of the Gospel. Count me as skeptical of skepticism concerning the Gospel of Christ.
========================================
My starting point for any position on an account of the past is the assumption that miracles do not occur. If they do, you'd better do better than 'so and so said it happened that way, therefore it happened that way.'
====================================
I am limited on time today. But we perhaps can take up this objection latter.
Thoughtful Christian investigate the evidence for miracles. You are legislating a prior that no miracles can occur. So you pre-conclude that you will not investigate evidence for a miracle.
A highly unusual event may be called a miracle. An event for which no natural explanation exists may be called a miracle. A miracle should be compatible with a theistic God.
God might perform a highly unusual act to confirm His will. Whether or not a miracle has occured or not cannot be settled by philosophy alone. It is also a matter of history.
=========================================
I assume that miracles do not occur and therefore I look for explanations that might suit the situation.
===================================
Then you are precluding that you will not consider evidence for a possible miracle.
And chances are that you may have naturalistic beliefs in Evolution, for example, which amount to believing miracles. For example, you ,may believe that material acted upon randomly by energe produced ecentually THINKING MINDS.
If may not occur to you that you aks people to believe in miracles when you want them to attribute Natural Selection on material things produced thinking, imagining, arguing, enquirying MINDS.
Rather I believe that a MIND preceeded creation of the universe. I find it less a leap of faith to imagine an eternal uncreated God than I do that random interaction of energy on material tumbled out of the mix thinking minds.
Evolutionists ask people to believe a lot of miracles.
Have to discontinue for the moment.
==============================
My little scenario of the great religious prophet whose life is amplified and exaggerated after his death seems to me to be the most suitable and simplest explanation. We have after all, seen it happen before Jesus and since.
==============================
The body of Jesus could very well have been paraded around Jerusalem and Judea either by Romans or by Jews to demonstrate that the Man died and did not rise from the dead.
We are puzzled that if this exageration was getting so out of hand why didn't they simply take the body of Jesus from the tomb to quiet any false notion of His resurrection?
The fact that it was not done may not be considered PROOF of a resurrection. But are you seriously considering the evidence for the miracle of resurrection having occured?
The various conspiracy theories are inadaquate to explain what turned these timid and hiding disciples into men willing to be killed for testifying that Jesus had been raised.
==============================
Turning water into wine, raising the dead, virgin birth, resurrection, healing the lame and blind, and so on would have to be classified as miracles. I don't believe they occur - ever.
====================================
I think you should try examining evidence for the most important miracles mentioned first.
The resurrection is stressed many more times in the New Testament than either the turning of water to wine or the virgin birth.
If the resurrection of Jesus did not occur the New Testament totally collapses and the Christian belief is useless. Paul made that very clear.
So I will debate some on the resurrection. I will not follow you hoping around from miracle to miracle.
Besides in the Greek the word "signs" is used in JOhn's Gospel. The rurning of water to wine signified probably the turning of death into life. John establishes it as the first sign that Jesus did. And throughout the rest of the Gospel of John we have nine cases. They all testify one thing. Jesus was able to turn death into spiritual life. He was eventualy able to turn death of Lazarus into physical life. And the climax was He rose from the dead Himself.
So I think you should distinguish between the most important signs or miracles.
And secondly, if you are an evolutionists I consider strongly that you are asking people already to believe in miracles of your faith in "Natural Selection".
IE. Arriving at the sexual reproductive system of living things by random activity plus natural selection without the aid of Intelligent Know How., Forthought, Design, or Look Ahead directional planning.
=================================
The various conspiracy theories are inadaquate to explain what turned these timid and hiding disciples into men willing to be killed for testifying that Jesus had been raised.
========================================
Expected response: "Terrorist are also willing to die!"
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonMaybe I have missed something here but why “prior”? first you listen to what the claim of the claimant says and then, if you do not know of any evidence to back up his claim and he isn’t somebody you just simply trust to have such evidence to back up his claim, then, before you can decide whether a claimant has the burden of proof, you just have to ask him what is the premise for his claim. Only when you have this information can you decide whether a claimant has the burden of proof (and failed to give proof).
[b]“…I hope you will see how ridiculous this makes the burden of proof. To decide whether a claimant has the burden of proof, you must a priori decide whether there is evidence for his claim…”
Maybe I have missed something here but why “prior”? first you listen to what the claim of the claimant says and then, if you do not know of any evidence ngs that are supposed to be factious (such as fairy tails etc)” because that is what I meant.🙂[/b]
If you are asking for the premise for his claim, then you are putting a burden of proof on him; you are saying that the original claim is insufficient to persuade you and that further explication is needed. The problem is that before you demand this "premise", you must judge whether a premise is needed (whether there is no evidence. I should also add that the burden of proof rests on people who assert illogical statements, such that the person must give justifying arguments.) So, once you have done that, you will already have several arguments against the claim (that it has no evidence; it is illogical or incoherent.) Why even impose the burden of proof when you could just voice your counter-arguments?
No. The criterion is inadequate if it was uses on its own but, obviously, it is not uses on its own but in conjunction with many other criterions which collectively make up a perfectly adequate criteria.
No; your criterion is irrelevant. As I have demonstrated, people will impose the burden of proof when: there is an existential claim without sufficient evidence; there is a denial of an existential claim without sufficient evidence (there is no president of the USA); there is no existential proposition in the claim at all but the claim may have no evidence (All mammals are warm blooded). From these three criterions, you can simply deduce that existential claims have nothing to do with the burden of proof. You should now explain why the burden of proof falls on the theist, simply because he makes an existential claim.