|
|
Who's burden of proof is it?In a discussion with a Christian friend about the validity of The Bible, I made the claim that the bible has not met the burden of proof. This was his response... "You just made the claim that the Bible has not met the burden of proof, so prove your claim since you're allegedly about following the truth as you say.. Can you prove that absolute negative claim yes or no?" So who's burden of proof is it? |
| asked on Tuesday, May 24, 2022 12:09:54 AM by Jad | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.
This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book.
|
|
I think you made the wrong statement. Rephrase it to "I don't believe [insert issue] because I have not seen sufficient evidence of its validity." Then your discussion partner bears the burden of proof to convince you. However, phrased the way you have it, you did make a claim and now you have to go through all the reasons you think the bible did not meet its burden of proof. The fallacy of trying to prove a negative. When you do not believe something and the other person does, I found it is a better discussion technique to ask the person where you missed the point and let them try to convince you. My experience is that if they are in error, they see the error of their ways or suffer cognitive dissonance. If they are correct, then you have learned something.
|
| answered on Tuesday, May 24, 2022 10:22:55 AM by Dr. Richard | |
Dr. Richard Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
Your friend asked you to prove that the Bible has not met the burden of proof, right? Well the proof is this: If your friend question that argument tell him that believing that the Bible is adequate proof for the existence of god would result in taking Spiderman #1 as adequate proof for the existence of Spiderman. (that's reductio ad absurdum by the way) So with that argument you have proven that Bible has not met the burden of proof. And now you should demand that THEY prove that the Bible has met the burden of proof. |
| answered on Tuesday, May 24, 2022 04:37:17 PM by Kostas Oikonomou | |
Kostas Oikonomou Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
This example brings up a lot of issues but two pertinent fallacies in the book (Dr Bo’s) are: proving non-existence and shifting of the burden of proof I don’t think claims about the Bible can be proven logically. People talk about having “faith”, which seems to be a way of saying—something may be true (and is true) even though it can’t be proven logically. And if it can’t be proven logically then logical fallacies don’t apply. Whether this is the ultimate truth, or a way of winning by saying the rules (of logic) do not apply, everyone will have to make up their own minds. |
|||
| answered on Tuesday, May 24, 2022 09:39:09 AM by Ed F | ||||
Ed F Suggested These Categories |
||||
Comments |
||||
| ||||
