CRoadWarrior:
CRoadWarrior:
35 comments
"You can't disprove one claim of the miraculous in the Bible."
You can't disprove my claim that there's an invisible, inaudible, imperceptible pink elephant in my front yard right now.
All you can do is claim that the elephant isn't there or that you somehow magically "know" you've been lied to.
What's your point here? Backpedaling for Jesus?
Well, it's a miracle, so it shouldn't technically be possible, so it's up to you to provide evidence and a good explanation.
Using that logic, you can say anything you damn well like, and NOTHING YOU SAY CAN EVER BE DISPROVEN.
No wonder you're comfortable with it.
If you CLAIM the Bible is true, the burden of proof is on you.
And if you make the CLAIM that the Bible is myth, then the burden of proof shifts.
And if you make the CLAIM that the person who claims "the Bible is myth" is wrong, then the burden of proof shifts again.
And if you make the CLAIM that the person who claims "the Bible is myth is wrong" is wrong, then the burden of proof shifts again.
And if you make the CLAIM that the person who claims "'the Bible is myth is wrong' is wrong" is wrong, then the burden of proof shifts again.
Gee, we could play this game all day.
If he (presumably Todd Pence} is the one making the original claim then that would indicate that the Bible makes no inherent claim of it's veracity and it proves itself false.
So either The Bible makes the claim of it's truthfulness and Todd is only making the counterclaim or the Bible makes no claim of it's truthfulness at all.
No, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. Both parties here are making a claim, but only the one making the claim that "God does exist" is making a positive one.
Not that it matters that much, really. Grigadil pretty much hits the nail on the head in saying that the argument is null since there is no proof for either side. Of course, some would think that lack of evidence for God's existence is actually evidence for his non-existence, but that's another topic.
Except when, if a book making the claims that the Bible does was just tossed in front people with no prior knowledge of it, it would be considered myth by default, until evidence to the otherwise was provided. When it comes to the supernatural, the person claiming knowledge about it is always the one who needs to offer proof, because it just goes against default knowledge.
I could barely watch this video. I cannot stand the way this guy talks.
I think we should avoid using the phrase 'burden of proof is always on the claimant' and instead use 'burden of proof lies on the affirmative position'
So, taking this a step further, notifying someone that the burden of proof is on them puts the burden of proof on you puts the burden of proof on them puts the burden of proof on you until you leave the fundie alone and embrace Jesus as he understands him.
"That's right. And if you make the CLAIM that the Bible is myth, then the burden of proof shifts. Thank you very much."
Fucking failure of a fundie seems to miss the point that they're the ones claiming the 'truth' of the Bible first.
Wrong. Burden of proof always rests on the person making the positive claim. In other words, if you say that something is real or the truth, you're the one responsible for bringing the proof. Since you're claiming that God is real and the bible is truth, it rest squarely on your shoulders.
CRoadWarrior:
No, it doesn't, because that's a negative claim.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
