Counterfeits.

[tabibito]

You're the one making the claim that Jesus came back to life. The burden of proof rests with you.

Do your claims have veracity? How can anyone know if they're not backed by evidence?
Burden of proof rests with anyone making a claim - or counterclaim.
For anyone on a Christian site making claims about Christianity - primary burden of proof doesn't rest with others.

[Tassman]

No, it doesn't? You're the one who asked him what evidence it would take for him not to believe in God and he answered with the post you're responding to. You don't bear any burden of proof for your own personal beliefs. Perhaps you should consider taking a break from arguing if you can't even remember what you yourself wrote just yesterday?

"The 'burden of proof' is the duty of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position". Wiki. The default position in this instance is that there is no god. If you think there is then the burden of proof rests with the person making the claim.

[tabibito]

This is a Christian site: the default position is ......?

[Tassman]

This is a Christian site: the default position is ......?

The world is bigger than TWeb, can you believe?

[tabibito]

The world is bigger than TWeb, can you believe?

In the broader world too, both claim and counter-claim need supporting evidence before a skeptic will give either a hearing.

[Tassman]

In the broader world too, both claim and counter-claim need supporting evidence before a skeptic will give either a hearing.

In the "broader world" "the 'burden of proof' is the duty of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position". Wiki. The default position in this instance is that there is no god. If you think there is then the burden of proof rests with the person making the claim.

[tabibito]

In the "broader world" "the 'burden of proof' is the duty of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position". Wiki. The default position in this instance is that there is no god. If you think there is then the burden of proof rests with the person making the claim.

Nope - that's in the world of the court room. The same rules don't apply in ordinary debate: nor in the world of science, where the burden is shared equally by both parties.

[Sparko]

You're the one making the claim that Jesus came back to life. The burden of proof rests with you.

dumbass. You asked me what it would take to make me not believe in God. I told you. I wasn't asking you to prove anything. I was giving you an example of what it would take to get me to not believe in God. I already believe in him. But if solid evidence showed up that he did not rise from the dead, for example incontrovertible proof of his body being found, then I would stop believing.

Why can't you do the same and give me an example of what evidence it would take for you to believe in God? Either you are too afraid to say, or you are too close-minded to even consider any evidence as good enough.

[Roy]

What evidence would it take for you to NOT believe in God?

Prove to me that Jesus did not come back to life. Show me his body and evidence that it really is him.

You're the one making the claim that Jesus came back to life. The burden of proof rests with you.

There are a lot of ways to effectively respond to Sparko's suggested counter-evidence. Yours was not one of them.

[37818]

Ah, so it's all predestined is it? In that case I'm doomed.

Your name is in the book of life until it is blotted out.

1 John 5:5,
. . . Who is he that overcometh the world? But he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God. . . .

Revelation 3:5,
. . . He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. . . .

Psalm 69:27-28,
Add iniquity unto their iniquity: and let them not come into thy righteousness. Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.

[Tassman]

There are a lot of ways to effectively respond to Sparko's suggested counter-evidence. Yours was not one of them.

Well if you say so. But it seems to me that when an improbable, unverified claim is made (i.e. that Jesus came back to life) that the burden of proof rests with the claimant.

[Roy]

Well if you say so. But it seems to me that when an improbable, unverified claim is made (i.e. that Jesus came back to life) that the burden of proof rests with the claimant.

It certainly is.

But that's irrelevant, because Sparko wasn't making an improbable, unverified claim - he was answering your question.

Your response suggests you forgot that you had asked him a question, and were responding to his reply as if it were devoid of context.

[Tassman]

It certainly is.

But that's irrelevant, because Sparko wasn't making an improbable, unverified claim - he was answering your question.

Your response suggests you forgot that you had asked him a question, and were responding to his reply as if it were devoid of context.

OK! Rebuke accepted.

[Tassman]

dumbass. You asked me what it would take to make me not believe in God. I told you. I wasn't asking you to prove anything. I was giving you an example of what it would take to get me to not believe in God. I already believe in him. But if solid evidence showed up that he did not rise from the dead, for example incontrovertible proof of his body being found, then I would stop believing.

Why can't you do the same and give me an example of what evidence it would take for you to believe in God? Either you are too afraid to say, or you are too close-minded to even consider any evidence as good enough.

You're correct, my mistake.

My response, to paraphrase Hume, is that Christianity is based on faith, not reason. So miracles never should have been used to establish the truth of Christianity in the first place. And, in my view, it is always more reasonable to believe that the event in question has a natural cause and is not miraculous...no matter how improbable the natural explanation may seem to be.

[Sparko]

You're correct, my mistake.

Thank you.

My response, to paraphrase Hume, is that Christianity is based on faith, not reason. So miracles never should have been used to establish the truth of Christianity in the first place. And, in my view, it is always more reasonable to believe that the event in question has a natural cause and is not miraculous...no matter how improbable the natural explanation may seem to be.

You are basically saying the same thing: you will not believe anything that proves God to be real. You really don't need to keep repeating yourself in different ways. I get it. You are close-minded and wouldn't believe in God if he stood right in front of you and did anything you asked of him. He will probably be tossing you into hell after you die and you will be saying "I still don't believe you exiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisssssstt" on the way down.