Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmytheT
Its called shifting the burden of proof to the negative, which is a logical fallacy. FOr example, say you are arguing with someone who says Santa Clause is very real, and has 9 flying reindeer that pull his sleigh round the world on Christmas Eve. Noticing the extraordinary claims this person is making you demand evidence for his claim; he turns around and says, "You cannot disprove the existence of Santa Clause".
Of course you can't disprove the existence of Santa Clause, just like you can't disprove the existence of God, the tooth fairy, hob-goblins or a teapot that's orbitting the sun. There are countless things you cannot disprove, and that's not the point. Claims require evidence, before said claim can be considered provable. You are doing exactly what the guy in my Santa Clause example is doing.
|
Actually it isn't comparable. The writers aren't just saying they believe that Jesus rose from the dead, performed miracles, fulfilled 300 plus Old Testament prophesies, and ascended up into heaven. Their saying they were eyewitnesses and named scores of other eyewitnesses who could confirm their testimony. Now if several hundred people came around and said they had seen Santa Claus. Some reported independently the same encounter as others and others reported different encounters with the same person. It would be reasonable to conclude they seen someone of that description even if you were apt to believe he was a fraud.
It is not logical to presume all the witnesses lied and carried that lie to the grave.