Re: [biblicalapologetics] Robert Nusom
With regards to the burden of proof; could you show me a logic text or rule
(with cited sources) that states that positions or statements that affirm a
proposition incur a burden of proof and those that deny a proposition don't
incur the burden of proof?
You stated that if you claimed that there were a purple people-eater jumping
around on my leaft ear, that I would be under no obligation to prove this
statement wrong. I am inclined to agree, but not because there is any rule
of logic that states this. I would agree only because your proposition is
not something that people would be inclined to agree with for very good
reasons: We don't have experiential justifications that would lead us to
believe in purple people-eaters and even if we did, such a belief would not
change our lives in areas of knowledge, morality, our eternal destiny and so
on. Plus, it is obvious that your proposition is ad-hoc, so when you move
from burden of proof claims in purple people-eaters to that of God, I
believe that your move is unwarranted. You said:
"It is the same with Christianity. You tell me there is a man named Jesus
knocking at the door of my heart. Am I obligated to prove this wrong? Not
a chance. My UNBELIEF is therefore the default position, unless and until
evidence comes in to substantiate your belief."
You went from purple people-eaters to Christianity and claimed that it is
the same. How is it the same (other than your say so)? It seems to me that
you are comparing apples and oranges. Unbelief in purple people-eaters may
be one thing but just because we are warranted in our unbelief of such
entities, it doesn't follow that there is a warranted universal unbelief in
all existential entities and that atheism is a default position. What if I
don't believe that existence is real, can you prove that existence is real
(as opposed to an allusion)? And, if you can't (and I can assure you that
you can't), am I justified in my lack of belief until you provide evidence
to substantiate your claims that existence is real? Burden of proof claims
are always viewed from within a context; there are no rules of logic that
state that unbelief is a default position of some kind. If you think there
are, then prove that I have to prove that God exists.
I know I could argue quite successfully that -- if anything -- agnosticism
is the default position, but I think I can do more than that and argue that
theism is the default position. There are no atheistic societies and from
our earliest history, man has always held to some type of belief in higher
powers. Atheists have always been a minority and without appealing to pure
numbers, it seems that such a near universal belief gives warrant to the
fact that our belief is justified. Just because some skeptic comes along
and says, "I am not happy with that, there is no evidence for God, etc.
etc." does not mean that we theists have a burden of proof. Anyone can be a
skeptic, that's easy. But until you show me a law of logic or text in a
reliable logic textbook, I see no reasons to accept your claim other than
just your assertion. An assertion that is, up this point, a baseless
assertion without merit.
~ J. Sloan
Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et
nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.
>It is the same with Christianity. You tell me there
>is a man named Jesus knocking at the door of my heart.
> Am I obligated to prove this wrong? Not a chance.
>My UNBELIEF is therefore the default position, unless
>and until evidence comes in to substantiate your
Got something to buy, sell or swap? Try Windows Live Expo