Burden of proof for god's existence in a legal setting?

Post Reply New Topic

Well sure, but have you ever personally seen any of the founding documents of any country, city, or government, But we willingly accept their existence and legitimacy.

I'm just pointing out that your stated reason for rejection would put half of technology on the "we never tried to build it because someone had doubts" heap. At least be open that such documentation would weigh greatly in the favor of Jesus being exactly who he claims to be.

Hi Shrox,

There are great big libraries that have the documents you referred to. The photographs of them do come in handy at times. I was reading a book from a famous & somewhat conservative right-wing publisher about a U.S. founding father not among the top ten, and I had just read another book that cited the same guy's written document that was "different" from the famous publisher's book. The photograph of the particular document at issue matched what the famous publisher's book claimed was at the top of the document, but what the book implied was on the bottom half of the document was contradicted by the very same complete page of the document.

There is considerable difference between a couple hundred years and a couple thousand years, but you seem not to be aware of any elements of a nearly ten-fold difference.

Using the standards of your historical reasonings, indeed, Jesus had at least 18 different foreskins, and therefore, Jesus had at least 18 penises. That is why Jesus must have been a Divine Coca de Mer Tree, which the male trees frequently have that many penises with foreskins, which explains the historical evidence.

Some of the foreskins from Jesus are well documented in history as being used as wedding rings for royalty, though this history is so important, that since 1954, a harsher degree of excommunication has threatened to be imposed on anyone writing or speaking of the subject. So those parts of Holy Books better be read with blinkers on.

"If you don't believe this, you must reject the notion that the Earth orbits the sun too!! !"

You should read more books about "Critical Thinking", than just pulp-pseudo-logic books by self-verified "Christian" --"Apologists" that are cashing-in on pyramid schemes of gullibility.

Tadzio

Not at all, to be able to view them would allow people to see them for themselves. If a majority of the documents describe similar events, that's something to conciser.

Heck, police officers at the same incident can file reports that don't match up precisely either.

If there are 18 penises reported rampaging through downtown Jerusalem, and..wait, I forgot where I was going with this...

Shrox, do you have any idea how freakin' silly an argument like that makes you look? I believe in the existence of the Dead Sea Scrolls because the evidence for them is pretty significant. I will not believe that scribes followed a historical Jesus around - scribes never before mentioned anywere, whose supposed doccuments have never before been seen - until the evidence for such a thing is way more significant that one guy on the internet claiming that it happened.

Also, for the record: yes, I have personally seen some of the doccuments you describe. National Archives? Smithsonian? Hello?

Yes, I've been looking more online for mention of the scribes writings. I can't remember the book I was reading about them in, it was a long time ago. The scribes are mentioned repeatedly in the bible.

From: http://www.learnthebible.org/what-is-a-scribe.html

"The root meaning of the name "scribe" is "one who writes" (compare to "scribble" or "inscribe"). The original occupation of a scribe was to make copies of official documents in the age before printing. They would also write letters, decrees and other documents. Jeremiah 8:8 speaks of "the pen of the scribes." In Esther 8:9, the king's scribes were called and "it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded unto the Jews." Because the scribe could write, he could also keep financial records and he would sometimes be used in that area (2Kings 12:10 ). Since the scribes often worked closely with the king, some scribes gained authority beyond that of simply copying documents. In 2Kings 25:19, "the principal scribe of the host" actually "mustered the people of the land" and prepared them for battle. The scribes were often considered to be wise by reason of their learning. An uncle of king David named Jonathan was "a counsellor, a wise man, and a scribe."

However, these uses for scribe are mostly found in the Old Testament. The New Testament scribes are a special group among the Jewish religious leaders. Their primary duties were to study the law of Moses, teach it to the people, and even to help settle disputes involving the questions of the law. The New Testament scribes traced their origin back to Ezra who is variously called "a ready scribe in the law of Moses" (Ezra 7:6), "a scribe of the words of the commandments of the LORD, and of his statutes to Israel" (Ezra 7:11), and "the scribe of the law of the God of heaven" (Ezra 7:21). Ezra received these titles because he "had prepared his heart to seek the law of the LORD, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments" (Ezra 7:10). Ezra was therefore the ideal type for the New Testament scribe.

Unfortunately, the scribes we see in the New Testament did not approach unto this standard. Though the scribes were highly regarded by the people, Jesus saw the harm they were doing and often reproved them. In their study of the law, the scribes got caught in the intricate web of arguments over technical details that kills the spirit of God. The Jewish people found the teachings of Jesus so refreshing because "he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes" (Matthew 7:29). In the passage in Matthew 23 where Jesus vehemently condemned the Jewish religious leaders, the scribes are specifically mentioned by name eight times. However, toward the end of the chapter (Matthew 23:34), Jesus tells the people that scribes had been sent by the Lord to encourage them to repent but only received persecution. It was not the position of the scribe that was evil, but rather their misuse of that position.

Jesus warned the people of the scribes who through their love of recognition and pretense brought upon themselves "greater damnation" (Mark 12:38-40). Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the scribes were involved in the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. They had an honorable position and worked with the highest of subjects--the word of God. Yet, through pettiness and pride they led others to destruction and brought damnation on themselves. These scribes should ever be a warning to us while the ready scribe, Ezra, should ever be an example to follow."


I doubt all these rules where followed when trying to quickly write down what someone said that was of interest, or in a busy jostling market place. I also realize they did not have reams of copy paper at their disposal. The writing of the scribes was certainly used to convict Jesus.



Excellent, most people have not, including myself. I only have copies, suitable for framing even.

Darling, the existence of scribes in the past does not prove the existence of scribes following Jesus around and writing down everything he said, much less Roman scribes on Roman business.

Furthermore, surely even you recognize the problems with using the Bible to prove the authenticity of the Bible?

The book I discussed was the book that bought him to faith; while what you are saying is certainly true of his later efforts I am told his first work stands apart from this criticism.



Most intellectual Christians would do the same. People like John C Wright, Alistair McGrath, Anthony Flew and Paul Davies (who became a deists) all put forward good arguments that the evidence runs towards their respective position.



Sure, people lose faith and are convinced by different things. Many of the atheists I have met, from professors on down, made their choice because they prefer the atheistic world-view. May of the people I have interacted with over time would support the view of Thomas Nagel:

"I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and naturally, hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that."

One could make the argument. Given that atheism has an unusual degree of intellectual authority despite a rather small number of people born into it, I don't think the case for Deism would look so strong if we take something like that as a consideration. I wouldn't count Anthony Flew too highly as there was that dispute on whether he had lost his mind. Honestly, I do think Deism is more likely the result of some slippery thinking involving a tendency towards anthropomorphizing the cosmos. (Note: If it is true that we have a natural and non-truth tracking impulse towards anthropomorphization, then non-standard anthropomorphizing answers should be distrusted on grounds of the perception of a bias in the matter. For instance, if a person is known as being on the pay of big tobacco, although their testimony wouldn't be meaningless, we are justified on being more distrusting towards it because of the defects of the source and how they can contaminate good epistemic processes)


I think a Christian who does not desire God would suffer an intellectual tension, but atheists have often shown more conflict, and atheist deconversion is more likely to be traumatic(reflecting the switch as a horrible truth, rather than an actualization of something desired) than uplifting.

One could but one would be making a bad argument. Communism in the early twentieth century would fit the same description, but would you argue on those grounds that it is more likely to be right? Just about any position held by the intelligentsia would fit your description. Further, your argument would not be able to reconcile itself with the revolution in theistic philosophy that has occurred in the last few decades.



Most of your atheistic leaders would disagree. People like Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens all describe atheism in the same general terms as do most liberation theologians. It also stands apart from C.S. Lewis's description as his conversion;

'You must picture me alone in that room in Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England.'

Basically I think you are peddling stereotypes.

@ 91: That's one of the better responses I've read to the 'atheists are smarter' arguments; however, AG used the term 'more likely,' which mean that he was aware that there were exceptions to his description. He was only saying that the majority of conversions/deconversions fit that stereotype, not that all of them do, and I think that most of us will admit that he is correct.

I get the feeling you're interpreting what I said in a bizarre and idiosyncratic manner to make it look bad. If I lived in the early 20th century and I found out that intellectuals tended to favor position X disproportionately to the population, I would take that as evidence that proposition X is more likely to be true than I originally thought. Position X in this case is communism. Cool. Communism ended up being a failure? Well, that sucks for it, but it has nothing to do with evidence, probability, or anything else related to the situation. I mean, to be quite frank, for large parts of the 20th century, I'd actually guess that the proper conclusion was that Communism/communist friendly theories was/were more likely to be right on the grounds of the evidence we had.


Ok? I know.


Are you seriously this foolish? The "theistic revolution" is simply that theism is no longer just dismissed as literal nonsense, so philosophy of religion has a place at departments again. That's not much of a revolution. Even if we look at the current population statistics, the numbers aren't pretty.

http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
God: theism or atheism?

Accept or lean toward: atheism 678 / 931 (72.8%)
Accept or lean toward: theism 136 / 931 (14.6%)
Other 117 / 931 (12.5%)


They're not my leaders. I don't bow to them. I don't actually care what they said one way or the other in a number of cases. None of them are from a significant deconversion background. At best, they're going to look at this from a long-run retrospective, and yeah, most atheists will come to the conclusion that they like where they are at. However, LOTS of atheist testimony exists on the difficulties of deconversion.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... story.html
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYaZTEuaFWE

Even further, talking about me as intellectually dishonest is at best a joke. I am not "peddling stereotypes". After all, the notion of scars from intellectual engagement harming one's faith is well-known, in fact, there is even a published paper on it:
"The 'died-again Christian' syndrome : its etiology as manifested among fundamentalist students of the Old Testament in South Africa" Dutch Reformed Theological Journal, Volume 47.
(I believe the article has been reproduced here as well: http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2009/ ... -pretoria/ )

I think I will save this quote from you up for a later date.



From Commonsenseathism: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=538

Christian philosophy has experienced a renaissance, and has contributed to genuine progress in philosophy. The first half of 20th century philosophy was dominated by Russell and Ayer. Religion was considered nonsense, and had almost no intellectual defense. By 1966, Time asked “Is God Dead?” The very next year, Plantinga published God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God. Since then, Swinburne, Alston, Craig, MacIntyre, and others joined Plantinga in leading a renaissance of serious Christian thought. Atheist philosopher Quentin Smith says naturalists have been resting on their laurels in the face of so many “intelligent and talented theists entering academia today.” Moreover, these philosophers have not just revived dead arguments, but actually contributed to the progress of philosophy.

It doesn't matter. I usually hold to it. Why do you think I tend towards scientific consensuses and standards almost religiously?


Either you don't follow the blog, or you selectively quote(and I sincerely suspect the latter because I am pretty sure you'd be aware of the other post given the similar ages).

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6448

"Has there been a renaissance of Christian philosophy?

First, has there been a “renaissance of Christian philosophy” since the 1960s?

Yes.

However, this is not as impressive as it may sound at first. This “renaissance” did not take Christian philosophy from an average position of respectability to unquestioned influence in broader philosophy. Rather, it took Christian thought from a position of complete banishment from philosophical discourse to, at least, active development. So the starting point was lower than you might have thought."

So, am I denying that Christian philosophers exist, that they are doing work, and that this is a massive growth compared to the past? No. I am denying that this actually significantly changes the overall view we ought to have on the matter, and being dismissive to the "renaissance" on grounds that it really isn't that impressive. It's simply a state of no longer being banished.

Alistair McGrath takes it a bit further, he declared that atheism is in its last efforts. I don't necessarily agree but when Philosophy Now starts running articles saying that the case for naturalized objective morality is dead and that the new atheism is the same as the old atheism one is apt to think you are underestimating things. If you really think that Christian Morality only 'just alive' then check out philosophy now issue 78 'Is God really dead?' and look at some of the names on the writers list.

Rev. Dylan Schrader
Fr. Jeffrey Kirby
Rev. Bob Eckhard
Fr. Andrew Pinsent
Rev. Dr. John R. Mabry
Fr. Thomas Crean

A "one star" review of William Lane Craig's book "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics" at amazon-dot-com includes the nearly identical "opposite" quote from Craig's website:

"So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing."

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=5767 around the 7th paragraph from the bottom of the long web page.




This states part of a few of my concerns also:

"Contemporary popular apologists tend to look for any way to salvage the text, no matter how unlikely or untenable the argument. They’ll use scholarly sources selectively, or pounce on one scholar’s argument and run away with it, without any concern for the fact the vast majority of scholars haven’t been persuaded by it. They don’t often make arguments for what’s plausible, preferring to argue for what’s “possible,” if it serves their immediate purposes. They trade in eisegesis, wild speculation, and fanciful interpretations, reading into the text what isn’t there, indeed, what’s often contradicted by the very passages they cite."
From "Is God a Moral Compromiser? A Critical Review of Paul Copan’s 'Is God a Moral Monster?'" by Thom Stark (2011), page 1.

While Stark says to buy Copan's book (since Copan's "publisher" prohibits even moderate quotations) to follow his (Stark's) critiques, I am not going to purchase any more Copan's/WLC's books, as WLC, et al. WLC's clones & groupies, have played way too many Mutt & Jeff games with the same old rehashed noxious balderdash with numerous others, back-and-forth, and even at nominal prices, prices add up to too much money for so little worth, and then, the vast amounts of such commingled & toxic trash.

Stark's review is available for free at (and elsewhere):
http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2011 ... stark.html

The concepts of "Renaissance" and the "Christian Thought" of, and threatened violence from, fanatical apologists, are not compatible, except for "Bible-Thumping" propaganda purposes for the fascist apologists.

Tadzio

You do realize that your entire argument is outright BS in light of my statistic, right?

I'll do it again: http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
God: theism or atheism?

Accept or lean toward: atheism 678 / 931 (72.8%)
Accept or lean toward: theism 136 / 931 (14.6%)
Other 117 / 931 (12.5%)

Bam!

Selective citation to make an apologetic argument for any point you please is not going to change the actual situation, and that situation is that atheism is dominant in philosophy to an overwhelming degree.