H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
This is awesome. I can't begin to fathom what you think I'm trying to tell you, but it's apparently really weird.
Amazing. Carry on.
Can one disprove Jesus' resurrection?
- Thread starter rakovsky
- Start date
This is awesome. I can't begin to fathom what you think I'm trying to tell you, but it's apparently really weird.
Amazing. Carry on.
Last edited:
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
Wow, okay.
Belief in X cannot coincide with ¬X and vice versa?
I.e. you are of the opinion that it is impossible to hold an incorrect belief. Awesome. I look forward to your evidence for this claim. My opposing case will rest on someone who believes it's impossible to believe something that isn't true.
And here you say it's impossible not to hold a belief about something.Leumas the fixer said:
Did Claudius Ceasar shave on the third of June of 23 AD? It's impossible not to know for certain that he did or didn't!
I think I'm done here.
True!
So if someone lacks belief that the earth orbits the sun he is entirely justified?
All RATIONAL thoughts require a justification in reason and logic.... unless one is an illogical person.
Reason and logic state that lack of belief is justified if the claim is not proven.
If the claim is proven then lack of belief is not only unjustified it is also STUPID.
So as you see lack of belief DOES require justification... it cannot be a gastrointestinal movement that goes up to the brain.... well it can if the person doing that is an illogical person... but if one wants to be a logical rational person then BELIEF AND LACK OF BELIEF REQUIRE JUSTIFICATION.
Last edited:
Pup
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 6,679
If an atheist lacks belief in gods, does he have to justify his lack of belief? Does he have to do it with each individual god, from Zeus to Quetzalcoatl? I thought the general concensus here was that an atheist could just lack belief without having to prove anything.
Last edited:
The onus of proof is on the claimant.
If the claimant does not prove his claim then lack of belief in his claim is ENTIRELY LOGICAL and JUSTIFIED by reason and rationality and logic.
The PROOF is the claimant's inability to provide a proof for his claim.
Also in supernatural matters since they already are in violation of all epistemology based on reason and logic and rationality and PRACTICAL REASONING then any supernatural claim is already proven false unless it is proven otherwise.
Guilty/False until proven innocent/true is entirely logical and justified in the case of supernatural claims and other claims of the type that go against rational epistemology.
Last edited:
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
What? How would that work? How does my lack of belief know when to become a belief, depending on the truth of the thing I lack a belief about? What does that even mean? What if I do the impossible and reserve judgment?
**ETA: I see you edited that out after I started replying. Treat my response accordingly.
...in terms of a burden of proof, yes. This is what we were talking about, remember?
There is no burden of proof to claiming you're unconvinced, other than perhaps stressing that you're being honest about it.
Of course, if someone just presented you with a logical argument either way, you'll need to argue why it didn't convince you, but you will never need to prove that it didn't convince you if it didn't.
And, beside that: the earth orbiting the sun is a bad example, actually.
Funny thing about relativity: It works on orbits too.
What orbits what is relative, and depends only on your frame of reference and how much you like your calculus.
Last edited:
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
You'll need to be more specific, Leumas.
Which statement did I misunderstand and misrepresent, and in what way?
I Am The Scum
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,807
You're making a basic logical error. The simplest way to compare a dichotomy is to phrase it thus:
It is the case that... Jesus rose from the dead.
- OR -
It is not the case that... Jesus rose from the dead.
One or the other must be true. Do the exact same thing with claims of belief.
It is the case that... Mr. Smith believes Jesus rose from the dead.
- OR -
It is not the case that... Mr. Smith believes Jesus rose from the dead.
Again, one or the other must be true. If Mr. Smith does not believe, it does not necessitate that he has any other belief (believing the resurrection is false, for example). Maybe Mr. Smith is unsure. Maybe he's never heard of Jesus. Maybe Mr. Smith is dead, and not currently holding any beliefs.
Mr. Smith is entirely immaterial however in the case of the resurrection of Jesus.
If he is not able to formulate logical thoughts out of being dead or not even knowing what Jesus is or cannot decide then he is immaterial to the discussion.
However, Mr. Smith is not just leaving it at not being sure.... no Mr. Smith comes along and starts claiming that the burden of proof lies upon the people who deny that Jesus resurrected and does not accept their claim of proof as the lack of proof of it.
Mr. Smith is claiming that claiming Jesus was resurrected is equally valid as denying it and both the claimants and the deniers have to prove their cases and does not accept that the claimant only has the burden of proof and that the deniers only have to cite the lack of proof for the claim as a valid proof for its falsity.
Imagine if the OP were
Can one disprove that Leprechauns stash pots of gold at the ends of rainbows?
Would the answer of Mr. Smith be that we still need to disprove it if we deny it is true despite the OP having failed to prove it?
Would Mr. Smith be so adamantly and vehemently and determinately claiming that disproving stashes of gold under rainbows is a logically attainable quest and thus we have the onus of proof otherwise we remain equally unjustified as the OP who has not proven it?
In other words Mr. Smith is claiming that the lack of proof for hoards of gold under rainbows is not sufficient disproof of it. And he requires a separate disproof other than the lack of proof of it.
Would Mr. Smith be doing this had he not so dearly cherished his beliefs in Leprechauns whom he nevertheless claims not being sure about?
Last edited:
Nihilianth
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2011
- Messages
- 3,838
And at the same time we signed that contract in Australia with me, up in a cave in the arctic circle, I witnessed the contract he signed with YOU, stating that he owes you 15,789.53 euros! Yeah! Because we used a Delorian to keep going back in time to the same time period, just different locations!
And if they try to prove there are no caves in the Arctic, I will make it into an ice cave we carved out them buried!
Now, all H'ethetheth would have to say is:
"No, I don't owe you money."
Burden of proof would STILL be on us.
If you look at our court system, we have in place the idea of: "Innocent until proven guilty."
If someone makes the claim that you murdered someone, you can do one of two things:
1. Plead the 5th. Which is saying neither "yes," nor "no." Problem with this, it tends to MAKE you look guilty among uneducated jurors of your peers.
2. Deny that you murdered someone.
In case of your denial, it is NOT up to you to prove that you didn't murder anyone! It is up to your accusers to prove that you did! Now, you may still produce evidence, such as an alibi, that makes a murder less likely. But that isn't PROOF that you didn't do it.
There is a reason why the court systems are set up this way. It's called "formal logic."
Last edited:
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
And rightly so. There are lots of things that are (yet) unprovable, improbable, and nonetheless possibly true, and under serious consideration.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, not proof of absence. And in the case of the OP, there is actually documentary evidence. It's horribly bad evidence, but it is evidence.
What if the OP were:
Can one disprove that the universe is flat?
or
Can one disprove that Claudius Ceasar had a shave on the third of June of 23 AD?
Would the answer of Mr. Smith be that we still need to disprove it if we deny it is true despite the OP having failed to prove it?
Yes it would.
Mr. Smith believes in precise logical arguments and epistemological consistency, but his cries go unheard over the screeching voices of the witchhunters.
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
You're agreeing with Leumas here, actually, if stated like this.
What I'm talking about would be more like a civil court case, like, I don't know, a border dispute where both parties claim the fence is on their property. In that case, there is no guilt to be established, just the truth. The judge would ask both to prove their case, as both are making a positive claim.
Nihilianth
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2011
- Messages
- 3,838
Pup is exactly correct.
Let's use the famous flying spaghetti monster example. (This is now famous across the internet, because people just do not understand logic. This is a great example to pound it into someone's head.)
If someone were to claim that a Flying Spaghetti Monster exists out in space, it is reasonable and logical to presume there is no such thing. THE LAWS OF PHYSICS DO NOT ALLOW FOR IT! (Incidentally, same with a resurrection!)
I can sit here all day and say "No, FSM does not exist!" and not have any burden of proof. For one, laws of physics already proves it doesn't. For another, I am claiming a negative. I can say to my accusers: "No, I did not murder Suzy." I am claiming a negative. It is up to my accusers, who are claiming a positive, to prove their claim.
Back to FSM. Obviously, we cannot conclusively PROVE that such a creature does not exist. Space is big. It's really, really big. I mean, it is the biggest thing in the entire universe. And there are lots and lots of hiding places. I mean, LOTS AND LOTS of hiding place. This galaxy alone has about 400 BILLION stars. Most with multiple planets and asteroids. And there are more GALAXIES in the universe than stars in our own galaxy! Which means there are more STARS in existence, than there are GRAINS OF SAND on Earth!
So no, it is unpossible for us to see every single nook and cranny in every single asteroid in the entire universe to CONCLUSIVELY prove that FSM does not exist.
Those claiming that he does, however, all they have to do is find him!
Last edited:
Do you mean that if I claim that Jesus could not have risen from the dead, then the burden of "proof" is upon me to show the evidence of why people don't or cannot come back to life after being genuinely dead and buried in the ground for three days?
OK, well afaik the evidence for that is provided by everything that has been discovered by medical science. That is - all evidence from medical science shows why it's not possible for a real human Jesus (or anyone else) who has been truly dead and rotting in the ground for three days, to return to life through a supernatural miracle (after which iirc the risen Jesus spoke to people & showed them his wounds, and also appeared hovering in skies etc.).
The "proof" of why that is not possible is that it would break all known laws and theories of medical science, physics, chemistry etc.
And the reason why we think that science is correct is that it has been able to show that it's theories and laws are correct literally billions of times in literally millions of different situations, without fail, and precisely as predicted by it's theories.
Whilst against that, the claim that Jesus truly rose from the dead, which of course has never actually had any evidence to show it was true, has a much simpler and vastly more obvious explanation ... which is that 1st century religious fanatics told untrue stories.
So I think that leaves what's called "the burden of proof", firmly and squarely with those who made the initial claim of saying Jesus rose from the dead.
Last edited:
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2014
- Messages
- 4,950
It has little to do with logic. The burden is on the claimant to provide evidence, whether the claim is a positive or a negative one. Whether or not the claim is supernatural, strange, or ludicrous does not change that.
In most real world cases, a perfect logical proof is not needed. A lack of evidence where evidence would be expected is also evidence, and pointing out that a bodily resurrection and complete and instantaneous healing of grievous trauma runs counter to everything we know about how the body works and that such an occurrence has never been reliably documented in all of medical history should be sufficient to substantiate the claim that there was no resurrection, absent more compelling evidence for the positive claim.
By the way, I'd say it is possible to prove that leprechauns do not hide gold at the end of the rainbow: there is no end of the rainbow. It's an optical illusion, not a physical object.
Nihilianth
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2011
- Messages
- 3,838
That is EXACTLY correct! Both are making a POSITIVE claim. Therefore, both would have to prove their case. I am not arguing about that.
If I were to say that "Jesus did NOT rise from the dead," that would be a NEGATIVE claim. I cannot prove a negative. Only positives can be proven.
However, and it gets more complicated than that;
NEGATIVES can be proven through lots and lots of proven POSITIVES. We know, for a fact, that a resurrection of a dead person is not possible, because of the multitudes of scientific knowledge of our modern world.
In the case of a murder trial, the accused may furnish an alibi (which is a positive claim, and is good EVIDENCE that he/she is not a murderer, but does not constitute PROOF.) The onus is still always on the accusers. Even if the accused did have an alibi, they do not need to furnish it. However, the accusers DO need to furnish all of their evidence.
In fact, science is the same way. If you were to claim that jumping into "hyperspace" is possible, you must prove that it is possible. Scientists everywhere can just sit back and say "no." It is up to you to prove that going into "hyperspace" is possible. Prove it!
Last edited:
I Am The Scum
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,807
This is a really good point.
In truth, I don't think the standard view of burden of proof is really that useful. It leads to pointless bickering, like we see in this thread. Instead, I look at it like this:
First, ignore the person making the claim, whether it's "positive" or "negative"... Set all of it aside.
For any given belief, is it rational or is it not?
If the belief is rational, what is its rational basis?
That's it.
I believe that Jesus did not raise from the dead. This is a rational belief because, as Porpoise said, it would be contrary to our substantial understanding of human physiology, injury, death, etc. Why do I need to concern myself with who said what?