The Jesus is a Myth, Myth

[MrEmpiricism]

Why would you want to put yourself in such a precarious position?

Yeah, you are wrong.

However, your point is a ruse.

Whether or not I have scientific or philosophical training is irrelevant with regards to whether my point is demonstrably true or not. The fact that you want to resort to impugning credentials is an example of faulty reasoning which, again, seeks to offload the burden of actually proving a point onto an irrelevancy.

Is your conclusion, by the way, on the basis of evidence (science) or logic (philosophy) or both? To prove the evidence warrants the conclusion requires you to logically prove that it does - your position on the limb, notwithstanding.

Mere observations from “out on the limb” don’t count.

Funny, how you are so quickly willing to jump to that conclusion given that the limb that holds your backside is narrow, indeed.

Well actually credentials are an essential method for establishing ones credibility on a subject. It does not make one right or wrong, but it does at least let one know someone is worth debate. So what are your credentials?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well actually credentials are an essential method for establishing ones credibility on a subject. It does not make one right or wrong, but it does at least let one know someone is worth debate. So what are your credentials?

Do you mean it lets you know whether the other person has sufficiently appropriate credentials for you to offload the “burden of proof” onto them?

Not biting.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Do you mean it lets you know whether the other person has sufficiently appropriate credentials for you to offload the “burden of proof” onto them?

Not biting.

Well the fact you do not understand the burden of proof, or maybe you do now given you have avoided my last 5 posts on the subject, makes me question the point of debate.

You do now understand the person making the claim has the burden of proof, don’t you? At least admit that, it would be a start.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Congratulations peter… Your fallacy is…

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

The thing that makes this so laughable is YOU are offloading the burden of proof while accusing me of offloading the burden of proof! This is so silly it is absurd, how is it even possible to offload the burden of proof when I am not making THE CLAIM!

 

[DCNBILL]

Right now I would say I do not agree, the only evidence I have ever seen is “every historian says so”, I have tried to find out why the all say so but it never seems to get more explanative than that. However, I am open to the idea that a man named Jesus may have existed. What I am not open to, given our understanding of the universe, is that he was a miracle working god, born of virgin etc.

So you just ignore this whole 2000 year old religion thing and 2.2 Billion current believers?

 

[lax16]

Right now I would say I do not agree, the only evidence I have ever seen is “every historian says so”, I have tried to find out why the all say so but it never seems to get more explanative than that. However, I am open to the idea that a man named Jesus may have existed. What I am not open to, given our understanding of the universe, is that he was a miracle working god, born of virgin etc.

Okay, one point at a time.

Don’t we know that any famous deceased ever person lived because “historians say so”?

 

[MrEmpiricism]

So you just ignore this whole 2000 year old religion thing and 2.2 Billion current believers?

Of course I do, what does the length of time and numbers of believers have to do with truth?

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Okay, one point at a time.

Don’t we know that any famous deceased ever person lived because “historians say so”?

No, we know due to evidence. Carl Sagan is dead and I know he lived.

 

[DCNBILL]

Of course I do, what does the length of time and numbers of believers have to do with truth?

Because it points toward the truth.

Like I know there were founding Fathers of our government not just by a piece of signed paper and some historians but by the fact that we have this democratic Republic.

See?

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Because it points toward the truth.

Like I know there were founding Fathers of our government not just by a piece of signed paper and some historians but by the fact that we have this democratic Republic.

See?

No I do not see, most people believed the earth was flat, most people believed we were the centre of the universe, most people believed the sun went round the earth. You are presenting an argumentum ad populum and it is a well known fallacy like trying to shift the burden of proof.

See?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

“by the fact that we have this democratic Republic.”

This has NOTHING to do with the length of time and number of years.

 

[lax16]

No, we know due to evidence. Carl Sagan is dead and I know he lived.

What evidence?

Did Sagan rely on the works of others?

What about Galileo and Hipparchus? Do we know they actually lived?

 

[Peter_Plato]

No I do not see, most people believed the earth was flat, most people believed we were the centre of the universe, most people believed the sun went round the earth. You are presenting an argumentum ad populum and it is a well known fallacy like trying to shift the burden of proof.

See?

You do realize, for example, that Aristotle and several other Greek philosophers demonstrated the Earth was round over 2300 years ago, yes?

Do you have verifiable evidence about what “most people” believed back then? Surveys of “most people” to prove your point? Or are you relying on conjecture and personal opinion rather than verifying your claims? Are you showing consistency in what you choose to believe or not believe? It appears not.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well the fact you do not understand the burden of proof, or maybe you do now given you have avoided my last 5 posts on the subject, makes me question the point of debate.

You do now understand the person making the claim has the burden of proof, don’t you? At least admit that, it would be a start.

I agree that, as a matter of gentleman’s agreement, a person making a novel claim bears the onus for establishing the plausibility of the claim. That has nothing to do with whether anyone else should accept truth of the claim or not. The truth of a claim doesn’t hinge on whether the original claimant satisfactorily met the burden or not. The fact that the original claimant was or was not successful meeting the burden does not, by itself, prove the truth of the claim.

The proof is still in the pudding, so to speak, not in the chef preparing it.

Where burden of proof as a logical fallacy occurs, is when it is used to try argue that a claim is false BECAUSE the one purportedly carrying the burden couldn’t prove the proposition true.

In other words, the fallacy is in claiming that because the one shouldering the “burden of proof” couldn’t prove the claim, the claim is, therefore, false. That is what logically doesn’t follow.

In other, other words, the fallacy occurs when …

1. …you claim that you will consider what I say false until I fulfill the burden of proving it to you. It doesn’t follow that my proposition is false merely because I fail to meet the burden of proving it to you. Or
2. …you will consider something true unless and until someone else meets the burden of proving the proposition false. It doesn’t follow that merely because someone hasn’t proven something false that it is, therefore, true.

Do you NOW see how that works?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I was talking about the power of science in regard to ONE aspect of understanding, anyway this is all getting rather pointless…

Lets get to the crux of the matter. I do not accept that a god exists as there is no verifiable evidence to support the claim. I do not understand how any rational thinker can accept such a claim when there is no way to verify it. It is utterly rational to reject such a claim until it is supported by verifiable evidence, and the burden of proof for said claim lies with those making it.

Let’s narrow things just a tad, then.

Whether God exists or not has tons of verifiable evidence which can be used either for or against the affirmative proposition.

It doesn’t take much to “verify” evidence. That merely entails that the evidence is known to exist.

Take the Shroud of Turin, for example. It is clearly verifiable as a piece of evidence. It exists, it can be analyzed and subject to all kinds of verification tests. It is indisputably evidence that can be verified.

The question is, however, whether the Shroud serves as evidence to prove a small slice of the case for the Christian understanding of God. For you to categorically claim that NO evidence exists means, if it is to be taken at all seriously, is that you have personally, diligently and expertly considered all the known evidence and are justified in dismissing every last bit of it.

Do you see how ludicrous that claim, taken at face value, is?

First of all, we would have to have some kind of assurance of your expertise with regard to BOTH metaphysics and science, since God is not a physical entity to be prodded and probed - but rather a metaphysical reality - and the question of the quality of evidence is definitely a concern of science.

So your claim that “no verifiable evidence exists to prove the existence of God” is a positive claim on your part. Now, being a gentleman who assumes the “burden of proof” for any positive claim, it is up to you to prove that ALL proposed evidence is

1. NOT verifiable, and
2. CANNOT serve in any way to positively establish the existence of God.

Now, given the “your logical fallacy is ‘burden of proof’” web link YOU provided, trying to offload your positive claim that “NO verifiable evidence exists” onto others by claiming you will assume that your claim is true until someone else takes on the burden of proving it false is a clear example of the burden of proof fallacy YOU wish to pin on me.

I am relatively certain you won’t follow nor understand the above argument or will find a way to dismiss it, but if you can see where the issue is with your position, as outlined above, we can move to one piece of verifiable evidence (The Shroud of Turin) that cannot be so easily dismissed with regard to the question of whether Jesus is mythical or not in order to get us back on topic.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Once in a while when I visit discussion forums (non religious subjects) , invariably talk mixes subjects about Christianity or Jesus. It then devolves into Jesus and the “2000 year myth”.

Now my question is first why do discussion eventually lead to this and second how often have you noticed it happening? Thirdly the arguments don’t devolve usually into Islam. But why not? After all Islam also believes in a "Jesus ".

So, if Jesus is a "myth " is it wrong to involve ourselves and mention on these forums that Jesus can’t be a Myth when Billons on earth know there was such a person? Regardless of how Jesus is considered in Christianity and Islam. (I know that we can even consider other Faiths who may accept that this "holy man " lJesus did exist) .

Interested in everyone’s thoughts.

God bless.

MJ

The major problem with Jesus is a “myth” hypothesis is that the writers of the Gospels got so many historical facts correct, which means they must have been writing very near the time they claim Jesus existed and when their writing would have been susceptible to scrutiny by those around them who were wont to question what they said.

A nice five part overview of the historical reliability of the Gospels and Acts is here…

youtu.be/rml5Cif01g4
youtu.be/WYEzxD2kcGQ
youtu.be/vCp-ayAp7fE
youtu.be/_l0Say2wMw0
youtu.be/qIdCRanZZyw

 

[DCNBILL]

No I do not see, most people believed the earth was flat, most people believed we were the centre of the universe, most people believed the sun went round the earth. You are presenting an argumentum ad populum and it is a well known fallacy like trying to shift the burden of proof.

See?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

“by the fact that we have this democratic Republic.”

This has NOTHING to do with the length of time and number of years.

I am sorry, thought this was a rational discussion. Be well.

 

[lax16]

Well actually credentials are an essential method for establishing ones credibility on a subject. It does not make one right or wrong, but it does at least let one know someone is worth debate. So what are your credentials?

You need to know credentials in order to engage in a discussion with someone on a certain topic? What types of credentials are you looking for?

 

[MrEmpiricism]

I am sorry, thought this was a rational discussion. Be well.

So did I, hence why I pointed out the logical fallacy you were making.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

You do realize, for example, that Aristotle and several other Greek philosophers demonstrated the Earth was round over 2300 years ago, yes?

Do you have verifiable evidence about what “most people” believed back then? Surveys of “most people” to prove your point? Or are you relying on conjecture and personal opinion rather than verifying your claims? Are you showing consistency in what you choose to believe or not believe? It appears not.

Actually it was Eratosthenes of Cyrene that DEMONSTRATED the earth was round and even worked out the circumference, and guess what method he used . Hint it was not philosophy.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

I agree that, as a matter of gentleman’s agreement, a person making a novel claim bears the onus for establishing the plausibility of the claim. That has nothing to do with whether anyone else should accept truth of the claim or not. The truth of a claim doesn’t hinge on whether the original claimant satisfactorily met the burden or not. The fact that the original claimant was or was not successful meeting the burden does not, by itself, prove the truth of the claim.

The proof is still in the pudding, so to speak, not in the chef preparing it.

Where burden of proof as a logical fallacy occurs, is when it is used to try argue that a claim is false BECAUSE the one purportedly carrying the burden couldn’t prove the proposition true.

In other words, the fallacy is in claiming that because the one shouldering the “burden of proof” couldn’t prove the claim, the claim is, therefore, false. That is what logically doesn’t follow.

In other, other words, the fallacy occurs when …

1. …you claim that you will consider what I say false until I fulfill the burden of proving it to you. It doesn’t follow that my proposition is false merely because I fail to meet the burden of proving it to you. Or
2. …you will consider something true unless and until someone else meets the burden of proving the proposition false. It doesn’t follow that merely because someone hasn’t proven something false that it is, therefore, true.

Do you NOW see how that works?

No that is not the end of it.

You also have the fallacy as you are applying it…

Because I can not disprove your claim, it therefore has some merit…

“An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false”