helping atheist reading the Bible?

[TheAristocat]

The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. However, this can take the form of either a negative or positive assertion.

A positive assertion example would be, "Jesus is a historical person that actually existed."

A negative assertion example would be, "Jesus is not a historical person and he never actually existed."

Both types of assertions and both of these examples carry a burden of proof for the person making the assertion.

When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence. If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood.

So you're wrong Percepi.

If you make a negative claim with respect to refuting a positive claim, then you assume a burden of proof for your negative claim.

In other words, use assume a burden of proof obligation when making a negative claim in an epistemic dispute.

What he seems to be saying is one of two things:

1. "There's no evidence for this Shedeur."

In which case he'd be wrong. Or...

2. "There is evidence for this Shedeur, but not enough to make me believe."

In which case the exact amount of evidence he needs to believe in this Shedeur is neither known, nor does it affect the amount of evidence another needs to believe in this Shedeur. So it seems a matter of personal taste.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I wanted to explain what the burden of proof is, how it works, and also how it shifts in a debate.

But, thank you for the clarification TheAristocat.

 

[Percepi]

When it comes to Shedeur we can take one of three positions:

1. He existed as documented.
2. I don't know what to think with regard to the Shedeur figure in spite of documentation.
3. He did not exist in spite of documentation to the contrary.

This is both a mix of false dichotomy and missing information.

The documentation could be inaccurate, edited, etc. He could have existed but the stories about him false (such as how legends are often based off of real people). It's really not so black and white.

In other words, use assume a burden of proof obligation when making a negative claim in an epistemic dispute.

It's not an epistemic dispute.

What he seems to be saying is one of two things:

1. "There's no evidence for this Shedeur."

In which case he'd be wrong. Or...

2. "There is evidence for this Shedeur, but not enough to make me believe."

I never said he wasn't real. I simply said that it would be appropriate to ask for evidence proving he was real.

If you claim he's real, it's not my job to disprove his existence, it's your job to prove his existence.

1. "There's no evidence for this Shedeur."

In which case he'd be wrong. Or...

This is a beautiful thing to hear, because you can then provide that evidence and the evidence can be observed. It's much better than saying, "It doesn't matter if I have evidence, you need to prove me wrong."

In which case the exact amount of evidence he needs to believe in this Shedeur is neither known, nor does it affect the amount of evidence another needs to believe in this Shedeur. So it seems a matter of personal taste.

There's a difference between not believing in something because there's no evidence, and not believing in something because you claim to have evidence contrary to the claim.

There's also a difference between saying you believe something happened, even if the evidence is murky or non-existent, and saying you believe something happened because it's built on strong evidence.

If I were to say, "I personally don't believe in an afterlife", that would be a perfectly honest and reasonable statement. But if I said, "I see no evidence of an afterlife, therefore an afterlife most definitely does not exist," then I'd be wrong.

If you make a claim, find evidence for it. By shifting the burden of proof over to someone, demanding they disprove your unsupported claim, then all your doing is admitting your argument is unfounded and isn't built on a sound foundation of evidence.

It's okay to hold views that aren't entirely supported by evidence, but don't assume they're true until proven untrue.

If you don't provide evidence to support your arguments, then the are no arguments for the other person to debunk. It's asinine to believe this is how the burden of proof works.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Just for the record:

Epistemic - of or relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation.

 

[TheAristocat]

The documentation could be inaccurate, edited, etc. He could have existed but the stories about him false (such as how legends are often based off of real people). It's really not so black and white.

Which is why you would select option 2.

So now that we both may understand each other's positions, my point isn't to debate his existence. I'd just like to say that there is evidence to support proof and then evidence to support proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Again take solipsists for example. The amount of proof they would burden you with in order to prove your own existence is far more than any official organization such as the Chinese Consulate would require. And that's quite a lot. lol So there is doubt and there is reasonable doubt.

I think in some cases people manufacture a burden of proof and place it on others, because they don't want to believe. I'm not saying this is you. But those people need to step back and ask themselves if they would otherwise accept such evidence as reasonable if it came from another source. If they would, then there is no reason to continue to assert a burden of proof.