-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
So you are a Christian and I take it that your boyfriend is the atheist? I'd ask him if there is something he is interested in and then start in that area. The gospels are good -Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Psalms are good too and Proverbs for the wisdom area. Just be careful that he does not pull you away from Jesus. Live and show him Christian love. Have fun reading the bible with him and always pray as you start reading that his mind will be open to Jesus.
This is how I imagine the discussion going:
Numbers 1:5-7 And these are the names of the men that shall stand with you: of the tribe of Reuben; Elizur the son of Shedeur. Of Simeon; Shelumiel the son of Zurishaddai. Of Judah; Nahshon the son of Amminadab.
Atheist: How do you know they were standing? Aren't you just taking that on faith? What is the evidence that a Shedeur even existed? None! In the same verse it says Nahshon was of Judah but then it says he was of Amminadab! So who was his father reeeally? Lies!
Numbers 1:5-7 And these are the names of the men that shall stand with you: of the tribe of Reuben; Elizur the son of Shedeur. Of Simeon; Shelumiel the son of Zurishaddai. Of Judah; Nahshon the son of Amminadab.
Atheist: How do you know they were standing? Aren't you just taking that on faith? What is the evidence that a Shedeur even existed? None! In the same verse it says Nahshon was of Judah but then it says he was of Amminadab! So who was his father reeeally? Lies!
There are many topics in the Bible that when examined carefully are very involved. And if you need to take care to understand the finer points of the Bible just reading alone by yourself then all the more so when reading it with someone who is generally critical of it.
One example would be Jesus' genealogy and the curse of Jeconiah/Jehoiachin. I spent a month studying the genealogies in Luke and Matthew and the figures in the Bible with these names before I came to a conclusion on them. And the amount of intricacies involved in the curse of Jeconiah as it related to Jesus was impressive. Some say Jeconiah was forgiven, some say the Jeconiah that was cursed was a different Jeconiah than in Jesus' genealogy, some say that Jesus did fall under the curse because he was hung on a cross... And all of these answers had supporting evidence, but there was one answer in particular that made the most sense to me.
And if the discussion dips into controversy, then just tell him that you need time to give him a suitable answer. There is no shame in thoughtfully considering your responses and further researching what you would otherwise take for granted as long as that is what you do.
Also, don't be afraid to give multiple answers and points of view to any problem he finds. And remember that there is no potential problem where there is a potential answer. So even if you don't know the exact answer, having three answers to one potential problem just shows that the potential problem is groundless unless every single one of your answers is refuted. And happy reading.
One example would be Jesus' genealogy and the curse of Jeconiah/Jehoiachin. I spent a month studying the genealogies in Luke and Matthew and the figures in the Bible with these names before I came to a conclusion on them. And the amount of intricacies involved in the curse of Jeconiah as it related to Jesus was impressive. Some say Jeconiah was forgiven, some say the Jeconiah that was cursed was a different Jeconiah than in Jesus' genealogy, some say that Jesus did fall under the curse because he was hung on a cross... And all of these answers had supporting evidence, but there was one answer in particular that made the most sense to me.
And if the discussion dips into controversy, then just tell him that you need time to give him a suitable answer. There is no shame in thoughtfully considering your responses and further researching what you would otherwise take for granted as long as that is what you do.
Also, don't be afraid to give multiple answers and points of view to any problem he finds. And remember that there is no potential problem where there is a potential answer. So even if you don't know the exact answer, having three answers to one potential problem just shows that the potential problem is groundless unless every single one of your answers is refuted. And happy reading.
Last edited:
Just one last thing. Sorry I'm kind of bored.
While I would advocate going over every book in the Bible, you may feel that the Old Testament contains a great many problems for the modern atheist to wrap their head around. And I would say that your point should not be in reading the problem but in solving it. When one studies arithmetic, they don't read the problem and say, "Well! That was interesting. On to the next one!" Instead they think about it and solve it.
Reading the problems in the Bible with an atheist who already believes there are problems in the Bible serves no purpose but to repeat what the atheist already believes. It's useless and redundant. Like opening up a math book and reading "1 + 2 =" and then going on to read "5 + 4 =" and never solving anything. The atheist would say, "See. No one's solved it yet." That doesn't mean there's not an answer, so what's the point? So I would suggest if you're going to start from the beginning in Genesis you research several different apologetic views for each topic and print off those articles and read them with him. Otherwise it's like looking at your dirty face in a mirror and saying, "Yep, that looks like a mess," and then going about your way. It's pointless.
While I would advocate going over every book in the Bible, you may feel that the Old Testament contains a great many problems for the modern atheist to wrap their head around. And I would say that your point should not be in reading the problem but in solving it. When one studies arithmetic, they don't read the problem and say, "Well! That was interesting. On to the next one!" Instead they think about it and solve it.
Reading the problems in the Bible with an atheist who already believes there are problems in the Bible serves no purpose but to repeat what the atheist already believes. It's useless and redundant. Like opening up a math book and reading "1 + 2 =" and then going on to read "5 + 4 =" and never solving anything. The atheist would say, "See. No one's solved it yet." That doesn't mean there's not an answer, so what's the point? So I would suggest if you're going to start from the beginning in Genesis you research several different apologetic views for each topic and print off those articles and read them with him. Otherwise it's like looking at your dirty face in a mirror and saying, "Yep, that looks like a mess," and then going about your way. It's pointless.
Said no atheist ever.
Most English speaking people understand that the word stand has multiple meanings, one of them referring to supporting a person or position.
Judah clearly refers to the tribe, not the person. It's obvious in how the sentence is structured.
Honestly, it will be pretty hard to find anyone (including atheists) who make such horrendous arguments.
This is actually a perfectly reasonable question.
Sorry, but this is some of the worst advice I have ever read in my entire life.
The burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claims. If you claim a person from the Bible is real, you have to provide evidence. You can't expect your opponent to prove they weren't real. For example, can you prove Jeff the Viking who could fire thunder out of his eyes wasn't real? No? Then he must be real!
What TheAristocat is essentially saying is, "If you don't have evidence to rebut his claim, make something up that sounds like it makes sense. Then, he'll have to assume it's true until he proves you wrong!" GAH, I just don't even...
Just because we don't have an answer for something doesn't mean there isn't an answer - this is true. However, coming up with any ol' claim and saying it's "possible" is not an appropriate answer. An appropriate answer requires evidence or proof. TheAristocat used math for his analogy, so allow me to do the same.
Let's say you ask someone, let's say their name is Pete, to solve the following: 4365x2546 = ?
Pete says the answer is "1852845950". Do you assume Pete's solution is true just because he came up with a potential answer? No. Do you assume Pete is right until you prove him wrong? Again, no, you don't. You either a.) have Pete show you how he came up with the answer or b.) solve the problem yourself.
What aristocat is telling you to do is to come up with hunches and to treat them as facts without actually proving them to be factual.
If you say to him, "It's possible this could have happened like this, or that this could have happened like this. One of these is the truth, prove me wrong," then what does he have to respond with?
"It's also possible it didn't happen at all, prove me wrong."
Most English speaking people understand that the word stand has multiple meanings, one of them referring to supporting a person or position.
Judah clearly refers to the tribe, not the person. It's obvious in how the sentence is structured.
Honestly, it will be pretty hard to find anyone (including atheists) who make such horrendous arguments.
This is actually a perfectly reasonable question.
Sorry, but this is some of the worst advice I have ever read in my entire life.
The burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claims. If you claim a person from the Bible is real, you have to provide evidence. You can't expect your opponent to prove they weren't real. For example, can you prove Jeff the Viking who could fire thunder out of his eyes wasn't real? No? Then he must be real!
What TheAristocat is essentially saying is, "If you don't have evidence to rebut his claim, make something up that sounds like it makes sense. Then, he'll have to assume it's true until he proves you wrong!" GAH, I just don't even...
Just because we don't have an answer for something doesn't mean there isn't an answer - this is true. However, coming up with any ol' claim and saying it's "possible" is not an appropriate answer. An appropriate answer requires evidence or proof. TheAristocat used math for his analogy, so allow me to do the same.
Let's say you ask someone, let's say their name is Pete, to solve the following: 4365x2546 = ?
Pete says the answer is "1852845950". Do you assume Pete's solution is true just because he came up with a potential answer? No. Do you assume Pete is right until you prove him wrong? Again, no, you don't. You either a.) have Pete show you how he came up with the answer or b.) solve the problem yourself.
What aristocat is telling you to do is to come up with hunches and to treat them as facts without actually proving them to be factual.
If you say to him, "It's possible this could have happened like this, or that this could have happened like this. One of these is the truth, prove me wrong," then what does he have to respond with?
"It's also possible it didn't happen at all, prove me wrong."
What I'm saying is that if an atheist claims there is a problem with a passage in the Bible that there are already potential answers for, then it is up to the atheist to disprove those answers so that he can logically claim there is a problem. An example of this would be if you found secular anthropological evidence trying to refute a scandinavian Geoffrey, who could fire lightning bolts out of his eyes, as being a charleton who used cheap magic tricks to accomplish his feats. Then that would provide a possible answer to his existence, and it would be up to the atheist to refute the Jeffrian claim by lending more weight to the secular source or defeating it altogether by arguing X, where X would be one of the items below:
A. The secular source dates to hundreds of years after Geoffrey was said to exist and therefore was based on prior Jeffrian sources that have yet to be proven.
B. The secular source is a proven forgery by Jeffrians, trying to support the Geoffrey figure.
C. The secular source is correct in its claims that Jeff was not actually able to fire lightning bolts out of his eyes but used a crude apparatus to do so because most people can't normally fire lightning bolts out of their eyes.
It's important to understand that when one claims there is something wrong with the Bible when there is already a logically valid answer to said problem, that this does not necessarily have any bearing on whether or not the problem is real but just goes to show that such atheistic claims are baseless. They may be right or they may be wrong. But if there is an answer to them already, then why should I logically believe a problem exists? It would be up to the atheist to defeat any possible answers to make me believe that any sort of problem remains. Why? Because answers have already been provided for said problem. It may be true that there is a problem and it may be true that the answer to the problem is accurate and the problem does not exist. But, logically speaking, it is more sensible to believe that there is not a problem if an answer has been supplied rather than to believe that a problem still exists. That's half of what I'm saying. The other half of what I'm saying is to search for the answer that makes the most sense.
But claiming that a Hebrew existed with the Hebrew name of Shedeur (i.e. "Casting forth of Fire") is hardly akin to claiming that a Scandinavian Jeff with coruscating eyes existed when Geoffrey comes from Old French Geuffroi. Not to mention that the atheist has provided no logical reason for any author's bias that would lead him to fabricate an Israelite named Shedeur. And therefore he posits a problem where he has no evidence for one. In my opinion it is more logical to believe that 1. Shedeur was a Hebrew named used by Hebrews, 2. there was some Israelite man named Shedeur, 3. there was a Shedeur who played some minor role in the Bible and therefore was written down for the sake of genealogical book keeping. Why? Because we already have a document portraying that as such, and there is no strong argument to the contrary that a Hebrew being named Shedeur is some metaphysical act unsupported by the laws of Physics. Basically, there is no evidence to assume Shedeur did not exist when we have found an unbiased account of him already.
What does the atheist have? The atheist, in excess of 3000 years later, comes along and tells us - with no supporting evidence - that a Shedeur figure has been fabricated to support a rather mundane and unbiased genealogical record. Now to which theory do I subscribe? I believe the possibility of there being a passing reference to a mundane and historically accurate Shedeur figure is the simpler explanation.
So here we are debating the existence of Shedeur.
A. The secular source dates to hundreds of years after Geoffrey was said to exist and therefore was based on prior Jeffrian sources that have yet to be proven.
B. The secular source is a proven forgery by Jeffrians, trying to support the Geoffrey figure.
C. The secular source is correct in its claims that Jeff was not actually able to fire lightning bolts out of his eyes but used a crude apparatus to do so because most people can't normally fire lightning bolts out of their eyes.
It's important to understand that when one claims there is something wrong with the Bible when there is already a logically valid answer to said problem, that this does not necessarily have any bearing on whether or not the problem is real but just goes to show that such atheistic claims are baseless. They may be right or they may be wrong. But if there is an answer to them already, then why should I logically believe a problem exists? It would be up to the atheist to defeat any possible answers to make me believe that any sort of problem remains. Why? Because answers have already been provided for said problem. It may be true that there is a problem and it may be true that the answer to the problem is accurate and the problem does not exist. But, logically speaking, it is more sensible to believe that there is not a problem if an answer has been supplied rather than to believe that a problem still exists. That's half of what I'm saying. The other half of what I'm saying is to search for the answer that makes the most sense.
But claiming that a Hebrew existed with the Hebrew name of Shedeur (i.e. "Casting forth of Fire") is hardly akin to claiming that a Scandinavian Jeff with coruscating eyes existed when Geoffrey comes from Old French Geuffroi. Not to mention that the atheist has provided no logical reason for any author's bias that would lead him to fabricate an Israelite named Shedeur. And therefore he posits a problem where he has no evidence for one. In my opinion it is more logical to believe that 1. Shedeur was a Hebrew named used by Hebrews, 2. there was some Israelite man named Shedeur, 3. there was a Shedeur who played some minor role in the Bible and therefore was written down for the sake of genealogical book keeping. Why? Because we already have a document portraying that as such, and there is no strong argument to the contrary that a Hebrew being named Shedeur is some metaphysical act unsupported by the laws of Physics. Basically, there is no evidence to assume Shedeur did not exist when we have found an unbiased account of him already.
What does the atheist have? The atheist, in excess of 3000 years later, comes along and tells us - with no supporting evidence - that a Shedeur figure has been fabricated to support a rather mundane and unbiased genealogical record. Now to which theory do I subscribe? I believe the possibility of there being a passing reference to a mundane and historically accurate Shedeur figure is the simpler explanation.
So here we are debating the existence of Shedeur.
T
I know plenty of atheists who make horrendous arguments concerning the Bible. They say they know much about the Bible, but their arguments suggest otherwise. Their arguments don't make sense, aren't contextual and are often so shallow as to not even work at a superficial level. Also, they most often resort to bullying and name-calling (strong emotions and behaviour from those who believe Reason is all there is and that they're being Reasonable). But I don't think you're one of those, Percepi.
Most Christians don't even know what's in the bible...
it's silly to think atheists could know what's in there.
But they try, by golly.
They read a chapter in somebody's book,
quoting 2 bible verses out of context,
and they're ever-so-certain they're biblical experts after that.
I read a whole chapter in a law book one time,
and didn't understand a word of it...
guess that makes me a lawyer.
: )
it's silly to think atheists could know what's in there.
But they try, by golly.
They read a chapter in somebody's book,
quoting 2 bible verses out of context,
and they're ever-so-certain they're biblical experts after that.
I read a whole chapter in a law book one time,
and didn't understand a word of it...
guess that makes me a lawyer.
: )
Last edited:
I think where the confusion arises, Percepi, is from the fact that there may be many answers in response to a problem but not all answers are truly answers to the problem.
The kind of answer I'm talking about is the kind of answer that provides evidence to the contrary and therefore defeats the accusation of there being a problem. In my time of studying Apologetics, I have found evidence for multiple answers to a single problem. What matters is 1. an answer (i.e. a valid answer) has been supplied to the problem so that there is logically no problem, and 2. we should look for the most logical answer out of the list of answers. Logically there should only be one answer that is right. But also logically speaking, any answer supplied with evidence to the contrary is an answer that forces the problem's status into one of baseless accusation.
I hope this helps clear things up.
The kind of answer I'm talking about is the kind of answer that provides evidence to the contrary and therefore defeats the accusation of there being a problem. In my time of studying Apologetics, I have found evidence for multiple answers to a single problem. What matters is 1. an answer (i.e. a valid answer) has been supplied to the problem so that there is logically no problem, and 2. we should look for the most logical answer out of the list of answers. Logically there should only be one answer that is right. But also logically speaking, any answer supplied with evidence to the contrary is an answer that forces the problem's status into one of baseless accusation.
I hope this helps clear things up.
That's not how it works. You're trying to shift the burden of proof.
It's always the job of the person making the positive claim to provide evidence. It is not up to their opponent to provide evidence against a baseless argument.
Person A: This claim is true because either x could have happened, or y could have happened.
Person B: Do you have any evidence that x or y could have happened?
Person A: I presented you with the possibilities, it's your job to prove them wrong.
This logic is both flawed and a waste of time.
What apologists generally fail to realize is that explanations are not evidence.
Actually, the problem exists until it has been solved - not answered.
Imagine a multiple choice test.
Solve for y. 5y + 7 = 62
A. 50
B. 7
C. 13
D. 4
The test provided us with 4 solutions. One of those solutions, logically, must contain the answer! But if you actually solve the problem, you'll realize all of the choices provided are wrong.
Just because you can come up with a series of explanations for a problem doesn't necessarily mean any of them are true. It's always possible the solution is something you did not think of. If you find a claim in the Bible, you can provide multiple ways in which that claim could potentially be true.
Or, you can simply demand evidence for the entity's existence. If the person who makes the claim refuses to provide evidence, or can not provide evidence, then there's no reason to believe what he said is true. If he does provide evidence, then you can evaluate the evidence he provided and see if it's valid. If you try to prove their claim wrong, you might find yourself chasing ghosts.
Sometimes, we have the resources to prove claims wrong. Other times, we do not. This is why we always demand evidence from those making the positive claims.
Your answer should be based off of evidence. If you can't support the answer you provided with evidence, you should re-evaluate your position. If you're still convinced you're right, then you need to concede that your opponent came up with a question you don't have an answer to. In debate, it's okay (and honest) to say "I don't know". And it's okay to say, "I believe this happened, even though I don't have evidence for it." But you can't expect your lack of an explanation to be treated as evidence.
Actually, this is a positive claim. The atheist, in this position, would be claiming to know that Shedeur was made up. The burden of proof would fall on him to prove this point.
If he said, "I don't have reason to believe this without evidence, what evidence do you have?", then he isn't claiming to know for sure whether or not Shedeur exists - he's merely asking for the original claim (that he exists) to be proven.
I highly encourage you watch this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY
(Keep in mind, the video isn't there to disprove monotheism, it's there to expose flawed arguments - using monotheistic arguments as examples. The purpose of linking the video isn't to create doubt among anyone's faith, but to better explain how to avoid flawed arguments.)
It's always the job of the person making the positive claim to provide evidence. It is not up to their opponent to provide evidence against a baseless argument.
Person A: This claim is true because either x could have happened, or y could have happened.
Person B: Do you have any evidence that x or y could have happened?
Person A: I presented you with the possibilities, it's your job to prove them wrong.
This logic is both flawed and a waste of time.
What apologists generally fail to realize is that explanations are not evidence.
Actually, the problem exists until it has been solved - not answered.
Imagine a multiple choice test.
Solve for y. 5y + 7 = 62
A. 50
B. 7
C. 13
D. 4
The test provided us with 4 solutions. One of those solutions, logically, must contain the answer! But if you actually solve the problem, you'll realize all of the choices provided are wrong.
Just because you can come up with a series of explanations for a problem doesn't necessarily mean any of them are true. It's always possible the solution is something you did not think of. If you find a claim in the Bible, you can provide multiple ways in which that claim could potentially be true.
Or, you can simply demand evidence for the entity's existence. If the person who makes the claim refuses to provide evidence, or can not provide evidence, then there's no reason to believe what he said is true. If he does provide evidence, then you can evaluate the evidence he provided and see if it's valid. If you try to prove their claim wrong, you might find yourself chasing ghosts.
Sometimes, we have the resources to prove claims wrong. Other times, we do not. This is why we always demand evidence from those making the positive claims.
Your answer should be based off of evidence. If you can't support the answer you provided with evidence, you should re-evaluate your position. If you're still convinced you're right, then you need to concede that your opponent came up with a question you don't have an answer to. In debate, it's okay (and honest) to say "I don't know". And it's okay to say, "I believe this happened, even though I don't have evidence for it." But you can't expect your lack of an explanation to be treated as evidence.
Actually, this is a positive claim. The atheist, in this position, would be claiming to know that Shedeur was made up. The burden of proof would fall on him to prove this point.
If he said, "I don't have reason to believe this without evidence, what evidence do you have?", then he isn't claiming to know for sure whether or not Shedeur exists - he's merely asking for the original claim (that he exists) to be proven.
I highly encourage you watch this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY
(Keep in mind, the video isn't there to disprove monotheism, it's there to expose flawed arguments - using monotheistic arguments as examples. The purpose of linking the video isn't to create doubt among anyone's faith, but to better explain how to avoid flawed arguments.)
Last edited:
I answered the majority of this post in my second post already. The kind of answers I'm speaking of are ones that provide solutions to the problem. For example, there were a few solutions to the curse of Jeconiah as it related to Jesus' messiah-ship (Jeremiah 22:28-30):
1. Even though the name of Jeconiah in Jesus' genealogy is a form of Jehoiachin and a form of Coniah, that Jeconiah was not the same figure as the cursed Jehoiachin, because the two are portrayed as having different fathers (Jeremiah 22:24, Matthew 1:11).
2. The curse of Jehoiachin was forgiven Jehoiachin's offspring in a passage (Haggai 2:23) that came after Jehoiachin was first cursed, so this has no bearing on Jesus' messiah-ship.
3. Even though Jesus is descended from the cursed Jehoiachin he was killed and did not prosper, so the curse was still fulfilled. But Jesus was raised to life again to sit on the throne of David. Besides, the curse only says that Jehoiachin would be recorded as having no offspring - not that he would have no offspring.
4. Levirate marriage is the answer, and Jesus is not counted as being the offspring of the cursed Jehoiachin but is counted as the offspring of one of Jehoiachin's brothers.
So with which one of these solutions does a problem still exist so that Jesus cannot be the Messiah? Are there multiple solutions that are valid for solving the problem even if only one solution is the most logical?
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.
What I understand is that you believe points 1 and 3 are positive claims. Sure. History is full of positive claims that are well documented or have supporting evidence. Point 3 does not fall into this category. And we can all take the position of point 2 to greater or lesser degrees. I can say that I'm not sure my computer exists or that you exist (i.e. solipsism), but I have positive evidence to support a positive claim. I'll put it to you this way: if you found a man named Shedeur recorded by the United States Census Bureau and then reference to the same figure in a local newspaper would you say, "I really don't know if this guy existed?" Likewise you have to ask yourself why you would say that in this case.
Also YouTube is blocked where I live.
1. Even though the name of Jeconiah in Jesus' genealogy is a form of Jehoiachin and a form of Coniah, that Jeconiah was not the same figure as the cursed Jehoiachin, because the two are portrayed as having different fathers (Jeremiah 22:24, Matthew 1:11).
2. The curse of Jehoiachin was forgiven Jehoiachin's offspring in a passage (Haggai 2:23) that came after Jehoiachin was first cursed, so this has no bearing on Jesus' messiah-ship.
3. Even though Jesus is descended from the cursed Jehoiachin he was killed and did not prosper, so the curse was still fulfilled. But Jesus was raised to life again to sit on the throne of David. Besides, the curse only says that Jehoiachin would be recorded as having no offspring - not that he would have no offspring.
4. Levirate marriage is the answer, and Jesus is not counted as being the offspring of the cursed Jehoiachin but is counted as the offspring of one of Jehoiachin's brothers.
So with which one of these solutions does a problem still exist so that Jesus cannot be the Messiah? Are there multiple solutions that are valid for solving the problem even if only one solution is the most logical?
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.
What I understand is that you believe points 1 and 3 are positive claims. Sure. History is full of positive claims that are well documented or have supporting evidence. Point 3 does not fall into this category. And we can all take the position of point 2 to greater or lesser degrees. I can say that I'm not sure my computer exists or that you exist (i.e. solipsism), but I have positive evidence to support a positive claim. I'll put it to you this way: if you found a man named Shedeur recorded by the United States Census Bureau and then reference to the same figure in a local newspaper would you say, "I really don't know if this guy existed?" Likewise you have to ask yourself why you would say that in this case.
Also YouTube is blocked where I live.
A
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.
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.