Doubt, Courts and Debates

[liamconnor]

Not seldom does a person make a claim only to be met with, "I doubt it; prove it." If asked, "On what grounds do you doubt this claim," the quick reply is, "It is YOUR job to convince me of your claim."

To me this is odd behavior; as if doubt by itself were the rational position and were a conclusive argument.



Question for debate:

Is this kind of inveterate response permissible in court? For instance, if a witness (let's say someone in forensics) were called to testify, and the defense attorney presented the defendants testimony (she fell off the balcony!) is it enough for the witness to say, "I doubt that?" And if asked, "Why?" Is it legitimate for the forensics to answer, "It is YOUR responsibility to convince me the lady fell." Or is it at least expected that the forensics give a ground for his or her doubt, i.e., "The position and trajectory of the victim suggests she was pushed"?

If in court Doubt requires reason, should the same be true in Debates? Why or why not?

[Zzyzx]

.

If in court Doubt requires reason, should the same be true in Debates? Why or why not?

1) Rules that apply in civil or criminal court do NOT apply in debate.

2) Even if court rules did apply to debate, it would FIRST have to be established, in the example cited, that someone came down from a balcony. UNTIL that has been established, the cause of coming down need not be addressed.

3) In court one cannot present 'Someone said that she came down from the balcony' (or 'Someone said that a dead body came back to life').

This does NOT work in favor of Aplogetics -- since it has NOT been established that any gods appeared on Earth or performed magical feats (such as being 'resurrected').

[liamconnor]

1) Rules that apply in civil or criminal court do NOT apply in debate.

So you agree that it is a legitimate response to any claim/assertion.....including the claim you just made about court and debate rules. That is, I can say to the above assertion, "I doubt that, prove it" and that would be a legitimate response?

2) Even if court rules did apply to debate, it would FIRST have to be established, in the example cited, that someone came down from a balcony. UNTIL that has been established, the cause of coming down need not be addressed.

In the analogy, that is a given.

3) In court one cannot present 'Someone said that she came down from the balcony'

Well, in the analogy (a courtroom) this would be the case.

I am not sure where you are going with this?

(or 'Someone said that a dead body came back to life').

In the analogy, the victim did NOT come back to life. The question is whether it is reasonable to doubt for the sake of doubt and whether a debater need not give his or her reason for doubt. In your first response, you seem to assume this. This of course means that any one can say "I doubt this" and not give his or her reason. Is that what you hold?

(I have been told It is dishonorable to debate the Person writing the tread--in this case, reading into his or her thread other posts or correspondences. It is better to address the actual thread; which in this case has nothing to do with people coming back to life.)

This does NOT work in favor of Aplogetics -- since it has NOT been established that any gods appeared on Earth or performed magical feats (such as being 'resurrected').

What a strange addition...? Where in the OP was it mentioned about 'gods'? The OP was about whether inveterate doubt was a rational position.

Would you agree that it is important and honorable to read an OP and address the OP, and not some other topic which a person might see behind the OP?

[alexxcJRO]

Not seldom does a person make a claim only to be met with, "I doubt it; prove it." If asked, "On what grounds do you doubt this claim," the quick reply is, "It is YOUR job to convince me of your claim."

To me this is odd behavior; as if doubt by itself were the rational position and were a conclusive argument.

Q: If someone sincerely tells you that he/she saw Sathya Say Baba healing himself in front of the thousands of people gathered in Prashanthi Nilayam who were then praying for his recovery; would you believe him/her or be skeptical about it and demand some evidence?

Q: If someone sincerely tells you he/she had a vivid encounter with a Ghost; would you believe him/her or be skeptical about it and demand some evidence?

Q: If someone sincerely tells you he/she had a vivid encounter with The Greys(aliens), that was abducted; would you believe him/her or be skeptical about it and demand some evidence?

Q: If someone sincerely tells you he/she had a vivid encounter with The Yeti; would you believe him/her or be skeptical about it and demand some evidence?

Q: If someone sincerely tells you he/she had a vivid encounter with The Lock Nest Monster; would you believe him/her or be skeptical about it and demand some evidence?

Q: If someone sincerely tells you he/she had a vivid encounter with a leprechaun, fairy, elf; would you believe him/her or be skeptical about it and demand some evidence?

Q: If a Hindu child sincerely tells you about his previous life; would you believe him/her or be skeptical about it and demand some evidence?

Q: If someone sincerely tells you he/she sees purple auras around dying patients; would you believe him/her or be skeptical about it and demand some evidence?

Q: If someone sincerely tells you he/she saw a levitating Hindu guru; would you believe him/her or be skeptical about it and demand some evidence?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 4 by alexxcJRO]

Irrelevant to the OP.


The OP had nothing to do with miracles; it had to do with inveterate skepticism. Not a single miracle was mentioned in the OP.

People who consistently do not read OPs and answer them appropriately run the risk of being ignored and/or discredited as debaters.


Q for You: is there such a thing as Unreasonable Doubt? That is a Yes or No question.

[Divine Insight]

To me this is odd behavior; as if doubt by itself were the rational position and were a conclusive argument.

If I were to tell you that there is an invisible boogieman living in my closet and if you don't believe in HIM and live your life precisely as "I tell you what he expects from you", then he will come out of my closet and beat you to a pulp and continue beating you to a pulp for the rest of eternity, and all my friends will agree that you deserve to be beaten to a pulp for not believing in my invisible boogieman and doing precisely as "I tell you the Boogieman expects you to do".

Would you have reason to doubt the existence of my invisible boogieman?

Or would you just mindlessly cower down and follow my instructions on how to live your life because I claim to be speaking on behalf of this invisible boogieman?

~~~~~

How in the world can you even remotely think that a religion like Christianity should be treated like everyday mundane courts?

Not only that, but in your scenario if someone claimed that someone fell from a as opposed to being "pushed off", I think I would like to know precisely why they believe that was the case. How do they know whether she fell or was pushed? This is why courts have juries. Every claim has to convince 12 jurors. So yes, the claims better be backed up by some pretty convincing evidence.

I don't see where your scenario even makes any sense. Anyone who is going to judge a legal case actually has a RESPONSIBILITY to question everything! If they aren't doing that, then they aren't fulfilling their purpose for being there.

Besides in a court of law, if the defensive lawyers are trying to make a case that the victim "fell" then surely the prosecutors are going to be trying to make a case that the victim was "pushed". Otherwise what are we doing in court in the first place?

So I don't see where your OP even makes any sense.

In a court of law it absolutely is the responsibility of the prosecutor to convince the jury of the claims being made beyond a reasonable doubt. And if they fail to do that, then the person they are prosecuting is supposed to be found "Not Guilty".

I don't see where Christian theists have made a convincing argument for the existence of their God that qualifies as being "beyond a reasonable doubt". As far as I'm concerned there are many good reasons to doubt Christianity. And I haven't met a Christian theist yet who can change that fact.

So actually if Christianity was put through a court of law it should fail to convince any decent jury. Especially if they have been instructed that they must be convinced of it, "Beyond a reasonable doubt".

If I was a member of the jury you'd never convince me of Christianity "Beyond a reasonable doubt".

So as far as I'm concerned, Christianity would fail to be convincing in a court of law anyway.

Theists have to believe in Christianity on pure faith in spite of the fact that no argument can be made for it that could be said to be "beyond a reasonable doubt".

There would be no such thing as "non-Christians" if Christianity could be argued for "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Unless you believe that every non-Christian on planet earth is an unreasonable person. But keep in mind that you would even need to also believe that many Christians are unreasonable people too since they don't all agree on what to even believe.

Any religion that requires that everyone who doesn't believe in it is "unreasonable" is already in big trouble.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to post 4 by alexxcJRO]

Irrelevant to the OP.


The OP had nothing to do with miracles; it had to do with inveterate skepticism. Not a single miracle was mentioned in the OP.

People who consistently do not read OPs and answer them appropriately run the risk of being ignored and/or discredited as debaters.


Q for You: is there such a thing as Unreasonable Doubt? That is a Yes or No question.

You are debating on the Apologetics forum concerning Christianity. Atheists here are usually skeptical about extraordinary claims like “God exists�, “God speaks to me�, “God is me and I am God�, “Jesus(God) will destroy the creation in the near future�, “Jesus was resurrected by Yahweh� and so one.

Q: You were not referring to atheists here when you said the this: “Not seldom does a person make a claim only to be met with, "I doubt it; prove it." If asked, "On what grounds do you doubt this claim," the quick reply is, "It is YOUR job to convince me of your claim." ?

It's like this:
Positive claims require positive evidence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 7 by alexxcJRO]



Alexx,

this response is not addressed to you but others...

It's like this:
Positive claims require positive evidence.

Can a person hearing any claim say, "I doubt that" and be considered a legitimate debater? Suppose the return question comes, "Why? On what grounds?" Is it legitimate to say, "I don't have to give my reasons for doubt; it is your reason to convince me and right now I am not convinced"?

Is that legit? (Addressed to Everyone).


Now, to Alexx,


I remember in another OP you made the positive claim that Jesus survived his crucifixion.

In your opinion, to combat that, I need only have said, "I doubt this; prove it"? And that would have been a legitimate, intelligent, and powerful response?

Had you asked, "Why do you doubt this?" I need only say, "Not my obligation to tell you why, you made the claim, I doubt it, now convince me" and this would be a legitimate, intelligent and powerful response?


Suppose you gave information from the internet about crucifixions and pain-killers from the time period; I need merely have said, "I doubt all of that; prove it" and that would have been considered a legitimate and powerful counterargument?

Suppose you countered by giving links to MD's online discussing the crucifixion and the possibility of Jesus surviving a crucifixion...

...would it have been a legitimate and decisive argument from me to say, "I doubt those are real MD's;" would that have been a legitimate and decisive counterargument?

Suppose you researched their names online and provided links to their education; would it be a legitimate and decisive counterargument to say, "those websites could easily have been manufactured. Clearly they have an agenda since they are talking about Jesus; prove that they are legit doctors."


Would you say that all of this person's counterarguments are powerful, legit, and respectable?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

If I were to tell you that there is an invisible boogieman living in my closet

An invisible boogeyman?

This OP says nothing about this.

This OP is about what kinds of Doubt are respectable in debate.

It is strange to me that everyone has jumped well past the OP in question.

Let me ask you this, is there such a thing as unreasonable doubt? Can you give an example of such?

[liamconnor]

Not seldom does a person make a claim only to be met with, "I doubt it; prove it." If asked, "On what grounds do you doubt this claim," the quick reply is, "It is YOUR job to convince me of your claim."

To me this is odd behavior; as if doubt by itself were the rational position and were a conclusive argument.



Question for debate:

Is this kind of inveterate response permissible in court? For instance, if a witness (let's say someone in forensics) were called to testify, and the defense attorney presented the defendants testimony (she fell off the balcony!) is it enough for the witness to say, "I doubt that?" And if asked, "Why?" Is it legitimate for the forensics to answer, "It is YOUR responsibility to convince me the lady fell." Or is it at least expected that the forensics give a ground for his or her doubt, i.e., "The position and trajectory of the victim suggests she was pushed"?

If in court Doubt requires reason, should the same be true in Debates? Why or why not?

I've reprinted the OP because everyone has deviated from it.

I will rephrase the question: should a person give reasonable grounds for his or her doubt about a claim, or is it enough to say, "I doubt that: prove it"?