The Burden of Proof

[McCulloch]

Certain atheists claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is anything other than a collection of myths and tales.

Certain Christians claim that there is no proof that the Bible is in error about anything that it contains.

The question for debate: Where does the burden of proof lie? Is it the responsibility of the doubters to disprove the Bible? Is it the responsibility of the believers to show that it is true, or is it enough for them to rely on the lack of any disproof?

[Zzyzx]

.

Do you deliberately overlook "continued by following councils and gatherings of the Catholic Church"?

What difference would that make? Your claim that the "document known as the bible ORIGINATED with the Council of Nicaea convened in 325" is patently false. The Council of Nicea had nothing to with the origin of the Bible.

Okay, I will rephrase my statement to read: The Catholic Church PRODUCED, edited, transcribed, translated, revised and rewrote the document that is known as the bible.

Do you disagree?

You seem to have overlooked a couple questions I asked in this regard

The codex Sinaiticus and codex Vaticuanus were produced by WHAT organization?

The Synod of Hippo was conducted by WHAT organization?

I can understand that you would hesitate to answer the questions because the answers are contrary to your apparent position.

I do NOT state that the bible IS mythology and/or fiction – but that either is POSSIBLE.

Of course it's possible. Anything is possible.

Is it possible that the Christian "god" is a fraud? Is it possible that Quetzaquotal is "the one true god"?

You throw in the word "possible" to excuse yourself from having to prove your claim.

Correction: I make NO claim about the mythology and/or fiction of the bible when I clearly state that either is POSSIBLE.

Is it annoying to have people qualify what they write when they do not wish to make an absolute statement?

Some people do not limit themselves to thinking in "black and white" terms (or absolutes). That may be difficult to comprehend if a person tends to think in absolutes – such as "I know the truth because I read the bible – and the bible can't be wrong".

This is a debate forum.

Are you willing to debate ISSUES rather than methods?

What is your objective in this thread? Is it to debate an ISSUE related to Christianity and Apologetics? If so, what issue are you debating?

I observe that those who cannot debate issues based upon evidence attempt to debate the PERSON (or the person's style of debate) rather than issues.

Your personal opinions about what is possible is an assertion and therefore subject to rule 5

Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

That is YOUR interpretation of the rules – but is NOT forum policy.

HOWEVER, are you willing to debate with a strict rule that opinion cannot be expressed – that every statement must be factually supported?

If you do not wish to prove your assertions then do us all a favour and restrict your personal opinion blogging about what is possible to the A-room or General Chat.

Does the same suggestion apply to assertions concerning bible "miracle" tales that cannot be supported with anything other than opinion, conjecture, hearsay, rumor and unverified tales by ancient storytellers and religion promoters?

Remember that quotations from the bible are not, in this sub-forum, regarded as any more authoritative than quotations from any other book (including the koran and Peter Pan).

Leave the apologetics sub-forum to the big boys/girls capable of presenting an actual argument and defending it with evidence.

Properly reported.

I have started a thread entitled "Biblical fiction?" in which the topic can be explored more fully. Thank you for the inspiration.

Will you finally unveil your objective method for determining what is and is not fiction in that thread? I doubt it.

Try to understand that I make no claim to be able to determine with certainty what is fiction and what is not fiction, what is truth and what is not truth.

I ask those who CLAIM to KNOW truth do demonstrate to readers that they can verify what they say. They do NOT do so, but ask me how to distinguish truth from non-truth in their promotional literature.

What is fact and what is fiction in the Bible?

Excellent question. However, I am not the person to provide such information. Bible promoters and believers should have the ability and the means to identify which parts of the bible are "fact" and which parts are "fiction".

They evidently do not. Many appear to consider (and even attempt to defend in debate) the bible as unerringly accurate, factual information.

What a crock.

Why do you ask me "what is fact and what is fiction in the bible"?

If you have a means to distinguish between biblical truth and biblical non-truth, you don't need advice and coaching from me.

I ask that you display the "method to distinguish between biblical truth and biblical non-truth" for all to examine and evaluate.

I've offered methods to evaluate the claims in the Bible. I've even acknowledged that claims which do not pass such methods, if continued to be believed as true, are done so on less than reasonable historical evidence.

Are you referring to your prior mention of "multiple attestations" (taken from the same book) and "principle of embarrassment" as HISTORICAL EVIDENCE?

I do not recall you identifying the truthful and untruthful parts of the bible. Can you supply a URL to your post that does so?

I've repeatedly asked you for an objective historical method if you don't like mine.

I suggest that your "objective historical method" is just fine FOR YOU.

Present what you have to say and READERS will evaluate its merits.

You have no legitimate demand to know what method anyone will use to evaluate what you present. Present an "argument" and see if it is challenged.

But you simply do not wish to engage at this level. In light of this your continual cat-calls for Bible believers to provide "a means to identify truthful vs. non-truthful parts (or literally true vs. not literally true parts) [of the Bible]" are nothing more than rhetoric.

Yes, "cat calls" to those who cannot provide an objective system that can be applied by anyone to achieve correct and consistent results to identify the truth they claim exists.

Stated more simply – tell readers exactly how ANYONE can determine what parts of the bible are truthful and what parts are not truthful – and come to the same conclusions as anyone else using the same method.

Many people consider the bible to be a fairytale – and note that its incredible unverifiable stories about invisible supernatural beings, magical tricks and "afterlife" are silly. They may even think that the bible is a joke and that anyone who believes the tales is a fool or at least is naïve and gullible.

I feel no need to take that position. Instead, I point out flaws in the claims being made by bible promoters and supporters – and show reason to doubt that they speak truth.

I take it you agree that the Bible is not a fairytale then.

I definitely do NOT "agree that the bible is not a fairytale".

I have seen no evidence to prove that its supernatural claims are anything more than imagination. However, I make no claim that the bible is a fairytale – and feel no need to state a position to fill your needs or desires.

There is no need for me to declare the bible false – all I need do is ask questions that cause bible promoters to demonstrate that they cannot and will not answer openly and honestly.

And you've been asked repeatedly by what historical method (or standard for that matter) you wish those questions to be answered.

I have absolutely no "wishes" regarding how the questions are answered – other than that the answers be honest and open. Evidently that position befuddles those who have no evidence to support their contentions.

Also, I have repeatedly and clearly stated that it is not my obligation to supply a method to assist in evaluation – which also seems to befuddle those who have no evidence.

You then accuse us of dodging and declare things like:

I do not pretend to know how others should formulate their answers or their arguments.

and

If a person cannot debate without my assistance, they cannot debate at all.

Thus I conclude you aren't really interested in the answers to your questions but only interested in asking the questions.

I am confident that discerning readers realize that my statements that you quote are in no way an indication that I am not interested in the answers.

You may conclude whatever you wish. I will debate however I wish (within Forum Rules and Guidelines) and ask that you do the same.

I point out to readers that those who CANNOT or Will NOT provide answers to questions or challenges to their claims can be regarded as less than forthright and less than credible.

It is none of your business how they or I will evaluate any answers you might supply.

In the larger picture, it appears as though bible believers are very hesitant to consider (or admit considering) that the ONLY reason to believe biblical tales is desire to believe – since there is no extra-biblical indication that the "resurrection" tales (or "divinity" claims) are truthful.

Another crock.

Is someone being "eaten up inside" and becoming emotional?

Give me an objective historical method for determining that the evidence found in the Bible for Christ's resurrection is not enough to have a rational belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Provide your method or retract your claim.

Is that "eating you up inside?" (as you seem prone to suggest).

NOTICE that my statement includes "it appears as though" – which clearly indicates that what follows is an OBSERVATION that I make. Do you dispute that I have made that observation?

That said, notice that I do not indicate that the bible is a fairytale. If you conclude that from reading what I write, you have read your own meanings into what others say – and have made another error.

OK. That confirms it. Zzyzx does not believe the Bible is a fairytale. If you acknowledge this then I retract my claim that you secretly desire to proclaim the Bible is a fairytale, but can't and are eaten up inside about it.

If anyone seems "eaten up inside" about this issue (highly emotional) it is not me.

I take no position regarding the "bible as fairytale". It may be, or it may not be. I ask anyone who promotes the bible as truthful and accurate (not fairytale) to produce EVIDENCE that they speak truth – evidence; not conjecture, opinion, hearsay, rumor, or unsupported tales.

VERY few people (none to my knowledge) insist that the bible contains absolutely NO valid historical information. However, containing some valid historical information does NOT make a work history. As I point out ad nausea, Gone with the Wind contains some valid historical information – but the story itself is NOT history but fiction.

Fiction may contain reference to real people, places and events. That mention does NOT make the work anything other than fiction.

Are you implying the Bible is fiction? If so, please provide your method for establishing this.

I am willing to STATE that the bible CONTAINS fiction. Would you care to dispute that statement? If so, there is a thread in which you can attempt to do so.

I am, quite clearly, saying that fiction may contain reference to real people, places and events.

Since fiction CAN contain such reference, their presence in a story does NOT indicate that the story is true.

Claims that the bible is "not fiction" because it contains mention of SOME real people, places and events is an invalid claim.

Just as mention of Lincoln, Atlanta and various real battles does not make the STORY Gone with the Wind "historically accurate", mention of Herod or Jericho or Troy does NOT make the STORIES of the bible "historically accurate".

What would make the Bible historically accurate then?

I have no idea what "would make the bible historically accurate". You evidently do not understand that I make no claims to be an historian.

If I, personally, was attempting to establish historical accuracy of the bible, I might consider starting by verifying the supernatural claims and tales using sources OTHER than the bible as a start.

If I discovered that could not be done, I would NOT make any claim of historicity (historical actuality). I am not suggesting that path for anyone – and mention it only hypothetically for myself (since, as a Non-Theist, it is unlikely that I would make an attempt to prove historical accuracy of the bible).

What historical method would you suggest we use? Shall we use mine?

You are welcome to use whatever "historical method" you wish. However, I am not obligated to agree with you or to discuss how I will evaluate what (if anything) you attempt to present.

I make no claim to be able to determine with certainty what is truthful or historical in a book and what is not. I often cite what is generally accepted as historically accurate based upon convergence of evidence from wide and divergent sources that confirm that the event or person as existing or occurring – in general terms – and generally accepted.

If I remember you said with "no doubt" that King Tut existed. Did King Tut Exist?

What convergent sources confirm King Tut's existence. That might give us a base line standard upon which to build.

You have polluted a number of threads with "arguments" involving King Tut and/or Caesar crossing the Rubicon – and have not managed to show that either is related to the claimed "miracle tales" of the bible.

If you wish to debate issues related to King Tut or Caesar, it would be appropriate to do so at www.debatinghistory.com.

Saying the Bible is strictly speaking not a history book and making claims about the historicity of the Bible are two different concepts.

If the bible is considered, even by the Roman Catholic Church, as being LESS than historically accurate, HOW is the statement "the bible is not a history book" in any way invalid?

Statement 1) The Bible is LESS than historically accurate

Statement 2) The bible is not a history book

Are you seriously implying these are the same statements with the same intended meanings?

You have already conceded that the bible is not "strictly speaking" a history book. Why are you bringing up the topic again?

But I will grant that you found someone that states the Bible is not a history book.

Correction: I found someone AND the Catholic Church that indicate that the bible is not to be considered history.

So for the sake of argument I'll give that one to you.

You have not given me anything. I have verified my statement. Your objection is invalid.

Let's say that strictly speaking the Bible is not a history book.

Thank you. That should have been obvious from first mention.

It's not really an issue as most history from ancient times isn't taken from history books either.

It IS an issue whenever anyone claims that the bible is a book of history – or challenges a statement that correctly states that the bible is not a history book.

That is from post #85 of this thread.

Your smuggled fallacy here is that because the Bible is not strictly speaking a history book that it doesn't report history. Are you saying something different?

Kindly define "smuggled fallacy" AND show that it is not another false charge.

OK, I'll assume from your response that you agree you are trying to say because the Bible is not strictly speaking a history book that it doesn't report history. You had your chance to disagree.

That is a FALSE statement of what you propose for my position. I am not "trying to say" anything of the sort.

I am CLEARLY saying that the presence of SOME truth in the bible (or Gone with the Wind) does not indicate that the book itself or stories contained are historically accurate.

You have not defined "smuggled fallacy" (in addition to misrepresenting my position).

Zzyzx's argument would run something like this Modus Ponens:

You are NOT entitled to pontificate about what Zzyzx's argument would be. If you are brave enough to put forth what you think is evidence in support of bible tales you will LEARN what counter argument will be presented. You are not entitled to know in advance.

If bravery is insufficient, all you can do is speculate (and offer an OPINION – which you argue against in "Opinion Posts" of "Comments, suggestions and questions" sub-forum. Is that a form of hypocrisy?)

Because a writing is not strictly speaking a history book it does not logically follow that the work does not report history. I can cite many works that are not a history book but report history. Songs, newspapers, journals, biographies and so on.

I AGREE that various books (including novels) and songs, newspapers, etc CAN report history.

What I do NOT agree with is any claim that because one part of what is reported is historically accurate (by whatever measure) that other parts are historically accurate OR that inclusion of truthful information MAKES the work a history book.

Because the bible contains mention of what are generally accepted as real people (kings), places (cities), events (battles), does NOT validate other claims made in the bible – such as:

Dead bodies coming back to life
A star "going before them and stopping"
Donkeys and snakes conversing with humans
A person walking on water or calming seas with a command
The Earth being flooded "to the tops of mountains"
Presence of a "high mountain from which all kingdoms of the world can be seen"
The Earth's rotation stopping ("sun stood still")

Those are claims from the bible that are regarded as "supernatural". Can any of them be verified by sources other than the stories themselves?

No amount of excuse making changes the situation. Evidence has NOT been presented to verify any of the "miracle tales" of the bible.

Therefore you wish to smuggle in a fallacy.

The fallacy is in the claim that the tales are true when they cannot be DEMONSTRATED to be true – using something other than opinion, conjecture, hearsay, legends and unverified tales by ancient storytellers and promoters of religions.

HOWEVER, I question WHICH parts of both books are truthful or historical and which parts are not – AND ask promoters to furnish a means to distinguish between truthful / historical and non-truthful / non-historical.

I have. Repeatedly.

Can you suggest any alternative methods?

I ask that you use your "method" to demonstrate to readers that the following are literally true:

Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

Where is there such a mountain from which all "kingdoms" on a spherical planet can be seen? How does your "method" demonstrate truth of that tale?

Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Kindly use your "method" to explain the physics that applied "long ago and far away" to allow the Earth to stop rotating (or is it that the sun stopped revolving around the Earth?).

Since you cannot or will not defend a challenged claim, you are ethically bound to withdraw the claim.

I could say the same about your claim that the Bible is "possibly mythology and/or fiction."

You would have a valid point IF I claimed that the bible IS mythology and/or fiction. However, I made no such claim.

As any rational person realizes, to state that something is POSSIBLE is merely an acknowledgement that it is not impossible – NOT that it is true.

Would you care to take the opposing position – that it is IMPOSSIBLE that the bible is mythology or fiction?

If not, you agree with me.

Read more carefully. I said "pronounced dead" – which implies that a trained person has made a judgment concerning death. I realize that humans are not infallible – and that a judgment concerning death may be in error. Errors do occur among humans. I do NOT make any statement about whether the person was actually dead or not – only "pronounced dead".

If they were pronounced dead by qualified medical professionals there is no reason (barring direct evidence that there was a mistake made) to think they were not dead unless one has already accepted it is impossible for a person to return from the dead.

Are you saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a mistake to be made by qualified medical professionals? Didn't you say above "anything is possible"?

Are you now claiming that EVERY pronouncement of death by "qualified medical professionals" has been 100% accurate (barring direct evidence of a mistake) – that a mistake has NEVER been made?

[Goose]

I definitely do NOT "agree that the bible is not a fairytale".

Then you would definitely agree with the statement "the Bible is a fairytale."

I take no position regarding the "bible as fairytale".

Yes you do. You just said, "I definitely do NOT 'agree that the bible is not a fairytale'". That's taking a position on the "bible as fairytale."

The Bible is a fairytale or the Bible is not a fairy tale. Which is it?

[BASBennett]

Hello:

Please see http://sunnyokanagan.com/joshua/index.html for proof that the sun stood still for Joshua and that the Bible is true.

Andrew Bennett

[bernee51]

Hello:

Please see http://sunnyokanagan.com/joshua/index.html for proof that the sun stood still for Joshua and that the Bible is true.

Andrew Bennett

Hello Andrew - welcome to the forum.

Referring others to websites is not really the way debate is handled around here.

Referring others to websites that are reflecting what has been shown to be urban legend refelcts very badly on your credibility.

Have you actually investigated the claims you referred us to?

It is a very old urban legend that has been circulating since the 1936 and was based on a book from the 1890's.

The 'NASA' angle is a later addition.

The 'truth' is out there...

[BASBennett]

Hello:

Please see http://sunnyokanagan.com/joshua/index.html for proof that the sun stood still for Joshua and that the Bible is true.

Andrew Bennett

Hello Andrew - welcome to the forum.

Referring others to websites is not really the way debate is handled around here.

Referring others to websites that are reflecting what has been shown to be urban legend refelcts very badly on your credibility.

Have you actually investigated the claims you referred us to?

It is a very old urban legend that has been circulating since the 1936 and was based on a book from the 1890's.

The 'NASA' angle is a later addition.

The 'truth' is out there...

I can answer that. I have spent the last twelve years researching this subject 24X7. I know what I am talking about. The Missing Day Story was rewritten from Totten's book because the numbers seemed similar and it made a better story. However, the original NASA event had nothing to do with Totten's account. Please read the website! http://sunnyokanagan.com/joshua/index.html Beyond the NASA Missing Day there is plenty of other evidence on the website.

Andrew Bennett

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

Leave the apologetics sub-forum to the big boys/girls capable of presenting an actual argument and defending it with evidence.

This, as well as the general tone of your post, is crossing the line into uncivil. Make your arguments, and, if you feel that there is a rule being violated, report it or PM a moderator. Don't attack the personal character or intelligence of other debaters.

[mattigol]

Certain atheists claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is anything other than a collection of myths and tales.

Certain Christians claim that there is no proof that the Bible is in error about anything that it contains.

The question for debate: Where does the burden of proof lie? Is it the responsibility of the doubters to disprove the Bible? Is it the responsibility of the believers to show that it is true, or is it enough for them to rely on the lack of any disproof?

I see no reason that Christians should spend all of their time with the burden of proving they are right if there is no proof that they are wrong. I know the logic of it. I also know the logic that if there is no evidence in the contrary then that still leaves the chance that it is correct. Science puts out a hypothesis and then tests it. Let's say the Bible is a hypothesis, when has it been tested to be incorrect?

[Goat]

Certain atheists claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is anything other than a collection of myths and tales.

Certain Christians claim that there is no proof that the Bible is in error about anything that it contains.

The question for debate: Where does the burden of proof lie? Is it the responsibility of the doubters to disprove the Bible? Is it the responsibility of the believers to show that it is true, or is it enough for them to rely on the lack of any disproof?

I see no reason that Christians should spend all of their time with the burden of proving they are right if there is no proof that they are wrong. I know the logic of it. I also know the logic that if there is no evidence in the contrary then that still leaves the chance that it is correct. Science puts out a hypothesis and then tests it. Let's say the Bible is a hypothesis, when has it been tested to be incorrect?

From a literal point of view??

It has been tested to be incorrect when it says there was a 6 day creation/
It has been tested to be incorrect when it says that the sun stood still.
IT has been tested to be incorrect when it says there was a world wide flood.
It has been tested to be incorrect when it says someone was raised from the dead.

It has been tested to be incorrect when it claims a virgin gave birth.
It has been tested to be incorrect when there are mutually exclusive accounts that
get stuck together.

[Carico]

Certain atheists claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is anything other than a collection of myths and tales.

Certain Christians claim that there is no proof that the Bible is in error about anything that it contains.

The question for debate: Where does the burden of proof lie? Is it the responsibility of the doubters to disprove the Bible? Is it the responsibility of the believers to show that it is true, or is it enough for them to rely on the lack of any disproof?

The burden of proof is always on the accuser, not the accused. Jesus has made his case. So he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. So claiming he is lying or that the authors of the bible are lying when they say they witnessed his life, words and deeds, then they need proof for their claims or their claims are called are called slander. So let's see their proof that the bible is a lie. If they cannot present it, then the bible stands as true and their claims are slander.

[Jester]

From a literal point of view??

Why insist on this?

It has been tested to be incorrect when it says there was a 6 day creation/

I don't see a good reason to believe that it claims this, in spite of what the fundamentalists argue.

It has been tested to be incorrect when it says that the sun stood still.

I don't know how we tested that one - or, frankly, even how I'd interpret that. I haven't read that passage for a long time.

IT has been tested to be incorrect when it says there was a world wide flood.

Again, there are some serious interpretive issues here.

It has been tested to be incorrect when it says someone was raised from the dead.

How did we test this?

It has been tested to be incorrect when it claims a virgin gave birth.

How did we test this?

It has been tested to be incorrect when there are mutually exclusive accounts that get stuck together.

I don't claim that the Bible is 100% infallible, but would say that most of the matter of mutual exclusion depend on specific interpretations that are not themselves established as correct understanding.