Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[Sheldon]

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

OK, so do not example any answers from me, until you address those points with clear and unambiguous answers.

I did, and just to expose your rank dishonesty here they are again, with a link. What you hope to gain from such dishonesty is beyond me.

1. No it doesn't, what we have a second and third hand hearsay from largely unknown authors written decades after the fact. Nothing about the crucifixion is established with a "high degree of certainty", that is ludicrous hyperbole. Though most scholars accept it happened.
2. So what?
3. There is no objective evidence for this, only unsubstantiated hearsay, but again so what?
4. We have no objective evidence for this, let alone a high degree of certainty, however they could have attended with independent witnesses and video cameras, and I would still need more than an unexplained event, to believe something supernatural had occurred.
5. So what?

 

[Sheldon]

Maybe but still hearsay (according to the definition provided) according to the definition any information provided by someone else is hearsay
Regardless if it´s well supported or not.

Rubbish, you are being relentlessly dishonest here again:

Hearsay
noun

1. information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.

The authenticity of the fossils are well substantiated, as has been amply shown, by citing both the scientific methods used, and the expert palaeontologists that the Natural History Museum employ from universities across the UK, to authenticate fossils, and peer review the authentication of fossils by others, why you think you can still misrepresent this this is baffling.

 

[Sheldon]

Maybe, but all YOU have are testimonies, you have the testimonies of the scientist

Still not remotely true.

 

[leroy]

Non-believers are not rejecting historical facts; we reject that those claims are facts at all.

With “WE” you most “mean fanatic internet artist “ because most scholars (including non-believers accept those facts

 

[leroy]

Rubbish, you are being relentlessly dishonest here again:

Hearsay
noun

1. information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.

The authenticity of the fossils are well substantiated, as has been amply shown, by citing both the scientific methods used, and the expert palaeontologists that the Natural History Museum employ from universities across the UK, to authenticate fossils, and peer review the authentication of fossils by others, why you think you can still misrepresent this this is baffling.

which cannot be substantiated

My original question was if ” Hearsay = receiving information form others?”

But anyway as I told you before you are begging the question, you are assuming (without justification) that the claims made in the documents in the NT can not be substantiated

 

[Sheldon]

With “WE” you most “mean fanatic internet artist “ because most scholars (including non-believers accept those facts

Well you'd have to be more specific, since you seem to have a habit of going from things there is a scholarly consensus on, to claims there are not, as if they have the same merit. For instance you cited a single website as dating texts describing the crucifixion as just 3 years after the fact, when there is a scholarly consensus that the earliest written record is two to three decades after the crucifixion.

 

[Sheldon]

My original question was if ” Hearsay = receiving information form others?”

Don't waste my time, you have had the meaning of hearsay explained numerous times, I even quoted it twice tonight and you still made your dishonest claim, and you can use Google one assumes to find the definition for yourself in just seconds. So your claim that fossil authentication is based solely on hearsay is dishonest nonsense.

 

[leroy]

I did, and just to expose your rank dishonesty here they are again, with a link. What you hope to gain from such dishonesty is beyond me.

again

"1. No it doesn't, what we have a second and third hand hearsay from largely unknown authors written decades after the fact. Nothing about the crucifixion is established with a "high degree of certainty", that is ludicrous hyperbole. Though most scholars accept it happened.
2. So what?
3. There is no objective evidence for this, only unsubstantiated hearsay, but again so what?
4. We have no objective evidence for this, let alone a high degree of certainty, however they could have attended with independent witnesses and video cameras, and I would still need more than an unexplained event, to believe something supernatural had occurred.
5. So what?"

Again those responses don’t indicate if you reject or accept any of those facts / an obvious a dishonest tactic because by keeping your answers vague and ambiguous you can hide and avoid being cornered.

...

1 If you reject those facts, you would have to deal with all the evidence that shows that those facts are likely to be true, and you would have to explain why are scholars wrong

2 if you accept those facts, you will have to provide a naturalistic explanation for those facts and explain why is it better than the resurrection.

Both cases represent a burden proof that you simply cant carry.

 

[leroy]

Well you'd have to be more specific, since you seem to have a habit of going from things there is a scholarly consensus on, to claims there are not, as they have the same merit. For instance you cited a single website as dating texts describing the crucifixion as just 3 after the fact, when there is a scholarly consensus that the earliest written record is two to three decades after the crucifixion.

The scholarly consensus is that Paul wrote his letters 25 years or so after the crucifixion and that he is using sources (creeds) that can be dated within 2 or 3 years after the crucifixion.

You don’t have to accept the consensus, but at least you have to provide an argument explaining why the consensus is wrong.

 

[Sheldon]

as I told you before you are begging the question, you are assuming (without justification) that the claims made in the documents in the NT can not be substantiated

Which claims are claiming can be substantiated, and how? I assume nothing.

 

[Sheldon]

1 If you reject those facts, you would have to deal with all the evidence that shows that those facts are likely to be true, and you would have to explain why are scholars wrong

2 if you accept those facts, you will have to provide a naturalistic explanation for those facts and explain why is it better than the resurrection.

1. What facts?
2. Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, again, and any natural explanation is more probable than an unevidenced supernatural one, obviously, since we know natural phenomena are possible, and have no objective evidence that supernatural phenomena are possible, as has been explained to you multiple times already.

Both cases represent a burden proof that you simply cant carry.

No they don't, since I was responding to claims you made, here are those responses again, and I note you made 5 claims, and I answered them all, and now you ignore 4 of them.

1. No it doesn't, what we have a second and third hand hearsay from largely unknown authors written decades after the fact. Nothing about the crucifixion is established with a "high degree of certainty", that is ludicrous hyperbole. Though most scholars accept it happened.

What part of that do you dispute?

2. So what?

How does that response carry a burden of proof exactly, it's a question?

Here are your 5 assertions again:
1 Jesus died on the cross (so what?)
2 was buried (so what?)
3 the tomb as found empty (second or third hand hearsay-and again so what?)
4 early Christians saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection.(second or third hand hearsay-and again so what?)
5 Paul and James became christian after the crusifixtion (so what?)

 

[Valjean]

Maybe, but all YOU have are testimonies, you have the testimonies of the scientist , you have seen the fossil (let alone study and analyze it)

Testimonies?! What does science have to do with testimony? Any 'testimony' not backed up with facts and testable evidence is not science.

 

[Valjean]

Non-believers are not rejecting historical facts; we reject that those claims are facts at all.

And your rejection is faith based, not based on observation, facts or testing.
The Greeks could have made the same claim about Apollo.

 

[Valjean]

My original question was if ” Hearsay = receiving information form others?”

No, hearsay is receiving unsupported or unevidenced information; receiving gossip.

But anyway as I told you before you are begging the question, you are assuming (without justification) that the claims made in the documents in the NT can not be substantiated

But how would you substantiate them? They're of unknown authorship, report fantastical miracles, and are full of contradictions. No eyewitnesses can be consulted, and nothing can be reproduced.

 

[Valjean]

Maybe but still hearsay (according to the definition provided) according to the definition any information provided by someone else is hearsay
Regardless if it´s well supported or not.

If it's evidenced and well supported it's not hearsay. If it's just word-of-mouth, it is.

 

[leroy]

Which claims are claiming can be substantiated, and how? I assume nothing.

The 5 claims that you fail to accept or reject are well substantiated .

If you deny any of these facts please let me know so that i can provide evidence

 

[leroy]

1. What facts?
2. Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, again, and any natural explanation is more probable than an unevidenced supernatural one


obviously, since we know natural phenomena are possible, , ]

Just clarify
If "A" is possible an" B" has not been proven to be possible "A" will always be a better explanation.

Is that what you are saying ?

and have no objective evidence that supernatural phenomena are possible

Who knows given that you haven't explained what would you accept as evidence

1. No it doesn't, what we have a second and third hand hearsay from largely unknown authors written decades after the fact. Nothing about the crucifixion is established with a "high degree of certainty", that is ludicrous hyperbole. Though most scholars accept it happened.

What part of that do you dispute?

You havent stablish if you reject or accept the crucifixion as a historical event. Your reply is vague, from your reply one cant tell if you accept the crucifixion as a historical fact or not.

2. So what?

How does that response carry a burden of proof exactly, it's a question?

It doesn't carry any burden proof, that is my point.

You design your answers deliberately so that you are not explicitly accepting nor rejecting anything. But rather keeping your possition vague so that you can avoid any burden proof.

If you answer :
1 yes I accept those facts (they are likelly to be true) you would have to provide a naturalistic explanation for those facts and explain why is it better than the resurrection. (A burden proof that you can carry)

2 if you answer No, I dont accept those facts (these facts are likelly to be wrong wrong) you would have to deal with all the evidence for those facts, (a burden proof that you can't carry)

3 but if you answer "so what" the you dont have to do anything because that answer is vague and doesn't commit you to accept nor deny anything.

 

[leroy]

No, hearsay is receiving unsupported or unevidenced information; receiving gossip.
But how would you substantiate them? They're of unknown authorship, report fantastical miracles, and are full of contradictions. No eyewitnesses can be consulted, and nothing can be reproduced.

But how would you substantiate them?

The same way you would substantiate anything from ancient history.

How do you know that Alexander Grate was born in Macedonia?
No eyewitnesses can be consulted, and nothing can be reproduced.........but still you learn that stuff in school as if it where a fact.


So ether
1 everything in history is a lie (or unsupported gossip as you call it)

2 or there are ways to support historical claims .


Which one do you think is more likely to be true?

 

[Valjean]

The 5 claims that you fail to accept or reject are well substantiated .

If you deny any of these facts please let me know so that i can provide evidence

They are not! You have an awful strange idea of well substantiated.
How are they substantiated at all?

 

[Sheldon]

The 5 claims that you fail to accept or reject are well substantiated .

Still not true, here was one of the many answer I gave

Here are your 5 assertions again:
1 Jesus died on the cross (so what?)
2 was buried (so what?)
3 the tomb as found empty (second or third hand hearsay-and again so what?)
4 early Christians saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection. (second or third hand hearsay-and again so what?)
5 Paul and James became christian after the crusifixtion (so what?)

So clearly I have answered more than once, so which answers are you struggling to understand and why?