Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[Sheldon]

questfortruth said: ↑
The modern atheists have no such brain-power as the Emmanuel Kant had. He has debunked all 5 ways of Thomas. But some researches still disagree with this debunkment. Hence, the modern atheists cannot give something new in addition to Kant achievement.

I'm sorry. Did you genuinely think that was a response to my points?

Think? Has anything he's posted suggested he thinks about the posts of others? He just posts endless religious rhetoric, he's not looking for debate, a pulpit or a revival tent would suit his proselytising nonsense more than a debate forum.

Though to be fair, the hilarity of the new word @questfortruth invented there, did make me laugh.

 

[questfortruth]

his proselytising nonsense

I am mathematically extremely talented:
Evaluation of the Gauss integral

 

[questfortruth]

You repeat that dishonest tactic over and over again

1 you made a random assertion

2 I asked for evidence

3 you lie and say that the evidenced has been provided……….. that is pathetic from your part…………

Bravo. You are logical and helpful like Mr. Putin tries to be.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I am mathematically extremely talented:
Evaluation of the Gauss integral

If you are that good as you claim to be, why are you not world famous and leading the mathematical science?

And please do not accuss that it is other peoples falts you are not known outside researchgate...

 

[questfortruth]

If you are that good as you claim to be, why are you not world famous and leading the mathematical science?

And please do not accuss that it is other peoples falts you are not known outside researchgate...

I was published in co-authorship with Dr. Tammelo prior to 2011 AD. Then I took a well sponsored break. Now I am back. With help of Dr. Groote I have published in top moderated elite arXiv.org and we are looking for most suitable journal now.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I was published in co-authorship with Dr. Tammelo prior to 2011 AD. Then I took a well sponsored break. Now I am back. With help of Dr. Groote I have published in top moderated elite arXiv.org and we are looking for most suitable journal now.

Does scientists use arXiv.org as a main publisher place?

 

[Valjean]

The bible is not “a book” the bible is a bunch of independent documents each stands or falls by their own merits.

Historians use the new testament (gospels Paul, acts ..) as sources for real history.

But the four Gospels are of unknown authorship. Noöne knows where they came from. Moreover, there are other gospels that early church leaders decided didn't paint the picture they wanted to promote, so they just omitted them.

 

[questfortruth]

Does scientists use arXiv.org as a main publisher place?

Majority of them - yes, because journals are very happy, if paper was previously checked by arXiv.org moderation.

 

[questfortruth]

But the Gospels are of unknown authorship.

Holy Spirit, brother.

 

[Valjean]

Any proof is valid until it is shown as a debunked proof.

Proof?
The burden is on the authors of "any proofs," not on others.
As far as I know the Chronicles of Narnia hasn't been debunked. Should we accept the story as fact?

 

[questfortruth]

The burden is on the authors of "any proofs,"

No. If the proof is published, it is proof forever.

 

[Valjean]

Again, impossible to know, because nobody knows what you mean by evidence.


The NT proves with high degree of certainty that:

1 Jesus died on the cross

2 was buried

3 the tomb as found empty

4 early Christians saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection.

5 Paul and James became christian after the crusifixtion

Whether if you what to label this as evidence for the resurrection or not depends on your own personal and subjective understanding of the word “evidence”

These assertions are poorly evidenced. 1 and 2 are hearsay. 3 is reported differently in different gospels. 4: People interpret things as supernatural events all the time. In this case we have an interpretation of hearsay, passed around as gossip for who knows how long, embellished, edited, and eventually written down. Do you seriously find "a high degree of certainty" in such evidence? 5: Who were Paul and James, and what do we really know about them?

 

[Valjean]

Holy Spirit, brother.

Huh?

No. If the proof is published, it is proof forever.

The Chronicles of Narnia is published, does that make it proof, or even evidence?
Folklore repeated, written and published over two thousand years is hardly reliable, historical evidence.

 

[Valjean]

I am mathematically extremely talented:
Evaluation of the Gauss integral

A "very stable genius," indeed.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I am free to do it. OK, I cannot, but I am free.

Not really. You are a slave to your religious beliefs just as so many are. No true scientist would ever be so, even if they did have some particular religious belief. Such would never interfere in their science.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Not really. You are a slave to your religious beliefs just as so many are. No true scientist would ever be so, even if they did have some particular religious belief. Such would never interfere in their science.

Most religious scientists are good at not mixing religion and science (as far as i know)
So fully agree with you

 

[questfortruth]

The Chronicles of Narnia is published, does that make it proof, or even evidence?

The 5 ways of Dr. Thomas were recognized as proofs of God prior to XX century.

 

[questfortruth]

scientists are good at not mixing religion and science

They are bad, not good. Because Science and Religion are two names of God.

 

[Spirit of Light]

They are bad, not good. Because Science and Religion are two names of God.

Huh?

That sound incorrect,

Religion = belief and worship of a superhuman controlling power (God or gods)

Science = The study of the physical world.

 

[KWED]

And the stegosaurus fossil in the museum was not labeled by a witness ether. Somebody told him that it is an authentic fossil and he label it as such ………..so by your definition claiming that the fossil is authentic is hearsay too.

*sigh*
You must be doing this deliberately. No one is that dense...

The stegosaurus information is verifiable. It can be and has been independently checked. If you doubt its veracity, you can go over the information yourself.

The point is that Paul knew multiple witnesses, so he was in a position to know that happened. He had access to first hand sources...

Did he? Who were they?
That still leaves his account as hearsay because he heard about it from someone else and that original account cannot be checked and verified.

If you what to arbitrary label all second hand sources as hearsay feel free to do it, but that doesn’t change anything.

It is not an arbitrary label. It is an established definition that applies to Paul's account of the resurrection. He did not witness it. He was told about it by someone else. That original account cannot be checked. Therefore "hearsay, by definition. QED.

So unless you what to proclaim a big massive conspiracy / it can be established that early Christians saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection. (which is what scholars say)

When you say "early Christians", who do you mean? The vast majority of "early Christians" did not see anything. They were told about it by others. Those accounts may or may not have been fabricated. We simply don't know, so you can't make any claim of certainty.

Paul is quoting a source from that date. ,,, but what is your point? Why isn’t this good enough?

What source?

Mine is that first generation Christians where already proclaiming the resurrection. (do you affirm otherwise?)

So what? Thousands of people were proclaiming the election was stolen days after the event. By your argument, this is evidence that it was stolen. Surely you can see the fatal flaw in your claim?