Discussion in 'Community' started by I Are The Internets, Apr 15, 2014.
How did Saul die?
"O.K., screw the starship. I want a breakfast crunchwrap."
So, ASR, if heliocentrism is a lie from satan, why hasn't God done something about it? Surely God is much more powerful, so how could satan plant all of this false evidence? And if heliocentrism is just a test from god, what's the point? God is omniscient, isn't he? He knows what the result of such a test would be.
Isn't it possible that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of cultural myths, written by primitive men who knew very little about the size and scope of the universe? That makes much more sense than a god trolling all of us just for ****s and giggles.
The burden of proof always lies on the one making the assertion, and applies to the claim being made. Rogue_Ten said Todd Burpo and/or his son is lying about the contents of the book; therefore, the burden of proof rests on him regarding that specific claim. My burden would apply in regard to the opposite stance.
ROFL, you still don't understand the concept of burden of proof.
By writing the book, Burpo is making a claim. The burden of proof rests on him, and him alone. He needs to prove he is telling the truth. Those who reject his claim do not need to prove anything.
If I tell you I caught a leprechaun and keep him in a cage in my room and he grants me a new wish every day, the burden of proof is on me. That's how this works. The burden of proof applies only to positive claims.
I respectfully disagree.
So the burden of proof is on you to prove I don't have a leprechaun in my room.
Proving a negative
When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility or mere evidence of absence If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood, as the position "I do not believe that X is true" is different to the explicit denial "I believe that X is false".
Who has to prove what is not the real problem. See, there's an issue cropping up here:
No such claim was made. To provide proper context, the original claim was this:
To which "the account as relayed by the author was fabricated" was presented as a valid alternative scenario. However, this was interpreted as a positive insinuation of the author lying, which led to this:
In other words - repeated conflation of the assertion "The author could be lying" with the assertion "The author is lying" for the purposes of reframing the debate.
That said, MF2K4 is technically correct in that the burden would be on someone asserting definitively that "The author is lying" to prove the author knowingly fabricated his story - incidentally, that would be asserting a positive, so proving a negative is not relevant. But the claim that would require proof was never made to begin with, and consequently, if the debate were actually being framed in the context in which Rogue_Ten's original assertion would actually require it to be framed, the burden of proof would rest with MF2K4 to demonstrate the possibility of the story in the book.
So what I'm saying is **** this whole argument.
Edit: Gaaaaah, I can't resist:
This assumes a law of noncontradiction which may not be valid in all logical systems and consequently may not hold in general depending on your acceptance of multivalued truth calculi! It is entirely possible we live in a universe wherein positive proof of anything is only valid within contextual frames of reference! Furthermore I am not sure that all philosophers of science would accept this as a possible argumentative construct and they would therefore agree with timmo! Exclamation marks denote the fact that I really like thinking about these problems!
Hey keep it up Ramza and we'll give you to the liberal arts.
Christian Heaven would be like North Korea, only worse.
dont polymath shame
They should have a play date.
And in response to the Backstreet Boys video...I've always thought that if heaven exists, it would feature boy band music. It just...it just feels right, it feels heavenly.
So I think This Is The End portrayed heaven's music very accurately...but then again I know nothing of what Scripture says of music in heaven.
@Anakin Solo Revanchist you seem to have knowledge of the subject, what music is played in heaven? Do the Backstreet Boys perform live in heaven? This is very important to me, I'd very much like to know. If heaven does not feature live performances by the Backstreet Boys, I would be very dispirited.
Essentially that, but produced by Kirk Cameron... yikes.
For some bizarre reason this is playing in a week or so on camp herebut grand budapest isn't. Perhaps I can persuade some friends to join me in seeing it.
Be gracious; he smoked you like a blunt there.
dont provoke a fort hood
Let us not leave out that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
"God talked to a 3 year old" requires far more powerful evidence than "This story is made up".
Guys, if the universe is infinite, then every point could be considered "the center", including the Earth. Ha!
Where's my Infinite Improbability Drive?
Ask that petunia. Err, whale.
It's holding at a 50% on RT right now. That's certainly much higher than God is Not Dead at this point.
i first thougth you were talking about me, and then i thought you were talking about russia today before finally realizing rt stands for rotten tomatoes. i guess that shows you where my head is at