Epistemology and Biblical Evidence

[Interbane]

Those are claims rather than evidence. Unless you're witholding the claim you intend those passages to support. In either case, the claims must be supported. The easiest claim of the group is that king Herod arrested some belonging to the church. I can see there being contemporary or secular sources supporting this claim. However, the claim that Rhoda answered the door when John knocked may be exceedingly difficult to provide evidence to support. You are best left to faith in believing that part to be true. Which of the claims are you hoping to provide support for?

[stahrwe]

Those are claims rather than evidence. Unless you're witholding the claim you intend those passages to support. In either case, the claims must be supported. The easiest claim of the group is that king Herod arrested some belonging to the church. I can see there being contemporary or secular sources supporting this claim. However, the claim that Rhoda answered the door when John knocked may be exceedingly difficult to provide evidence to support. You are best left to faith in believing that part to be true. Which of the claims are you hoping to provide support for?

You are resorting to the old saw of demanding undefined evidence. I have submitted evidence. It is in the form of an ancient written document. Such a document is accepted evidence in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence and its truthfulness is also assumed unless the opposing counsel can impeach it. In this case there is, within the account itself, minute details which argue in favor or its accuracy. The name of the servant, Rhoda, a detail unlikely to be provided in a fictional account. The servant so surprised that she doesn't let Peter in but leaves him standing outside. The foolishness reaction of the group praying for Peter's release when told he is at the door. How can he be at the door, he is in prison, can't you see we're praying for his release?

Finally, the report shows how hostile Herod was to the believers. They prayed behind locked doors because they feared for their lives, and with good reason as they were being rounded up and put to death. A powerful belief was motivating them to risk their lives.

[Interbane]

Such a document is accepted evidence in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence and its truthfulness is also assumed unless the opposing counsel can impeach it.

No, it's truthfulness is most certainly not assumed. And the burden of proof is most certainly not on the opposing counsel. The burden of proof is yours to support these claims.

Please don't foolishly(and wrongly) argue this point. I don't have time to type a six paragraph response again to show you why you are wrong. Do some research. Figure out why evidence is not assumed true. Then figure out why the burden of proof is on you. Then come up with supportive evidence or reasoning for your claims.

[Chris OConnor]

I disclaim any association with the accolade currently associated with my post count.

LOL

[stahrwe]

Such a document is accepted evidence in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence and its truthfulness is also assumed unless the opposing counsel can impeach it.

No, it's truthfulness is most certainly not assumed. And the burden of proof is most certainly not on the opposing counsel. The burden of proof is yours to support these claims.

Please don't foolishly(and wrongly) argue this point. I don't have time to type a six paragraph response again to show you why you are wrong. Do some research. Figure out why evidence is not assumed true. Then figure out why the burden of proof is on you. Then come up with supportive evidence or reasoning for your claims.

Prior to commencing the presentation of evidence you agreed to use the Federal Rules of Evidence as the basis for what types of, and how evidence is acceptable. In accordance with said rules Ancient documents may be presented as evidence of the truth of any statements contained therein. The passage from the Book of Acts is presented in the form of a statement of events and contains both names of key participants and a record of their actions and statements.

The rules of evidence clearly demonstrate that the burden is on you to impeach the evidence if you believe it to be false. If you are unable to do so, the evidence is addmissable and must be considered to be truthful and correct.

[Interbane]

Stahrwe, the prosecutor, presents as evidence a gun.

"Your honor, this is the gun the defendant used to kill his girlfriend." Stahrwe says.

"I accept this evidence as true," says his honor, "Defense, do you have any way to impeach this evidence?"

"No," says the defense, "my client was asleep at home as we've said, and he's never seen that gun, nor owned any gun."

"So, unable to impeach the evidence, you're hereby convicted of murder in the first degree!"



Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'll explain in detail why you're wrong later today, and why the burden of proof is on you.

[stahrwe]

Stahrwe, the prosecutor, presents as evidence a gun.

"Your honor, this is the gun the defendant used to kill his girlfriend." Stahrwe says.

"I accept this evidence as true," says his honor, "Defense, do you have any way to impeach this evidence?"

"No," says the defense, "my client was asleep at home as we've said, and he's never seen that gun, nor owned any gun."

"So, unable to impeach the evidence, you're hereby convicted of murder in the first degree!"



Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'll explain in detail why you're wrong later today, and why the burden of proof is on you.

When you do you should also explain why your above scenario is totally unrelated to my submission.

[Interbane]

Hold on, this is fun, I have another one.

I hereby submit the full works of L. Ron Hubbard as evidence to support the existence of Thetans. As it is older than 20 years, it falls in the same category as your evidence, 'ancient documents' per the FRE. So we shall assume the entire works to be true unless you can impeach the existence of Thetans.

[stahrwe]

Hold on, this is fun, I have another one.

I hereby submit the full works of L. Ron Hubbard as evidence to support the existence of Thetans. As it is older than 20 years, it falls in the same category as your evidence, 'ancient documents' per the FRE. So we shall assume the entire works to be true unless you can impeach the existence of Thetans.

I am glad you are enjoying yourself.

#1) I refer you to the FRE again.
#2) This discussion is "Epistemology and Biblical Evidence" for which I submitted an ancient document as evidence. Based on FRE it is up to you to impreach that evidence or it stands. If you wish to start another discussion, "Epistemology and Dianetics" and submit the works of L. Ron Hubbard it would be appropriate for you to do so as evidence at which time it would be up to me to impeach them, which based on my knowledge of Mr. Hubbard would be a trivial matter.

Perhaps you can return to the instant discussion.

[Interbane]

I asked for clarification earlier. What claim are you defending? There must be something that the evidence supports. You never clarified what that something was for this second batch of evidence. Second, which of the claims in your package of evidence do you wish to be evidence? Each proposition is an independant claim.


Wikipedia entry on the Federal Rules of Evidence:

"By admitting an ancient document into evidence, it is presumed only that the document is what it purports to be, but there are no presumptions about the truth of the document's contents. A jury can still decide that the author of the document was lying or mistaken when the author wrote it."

Wikipedia entry on Burden of Proof:

Holder of the burden
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim.[1] This burden does not demand a mathematical or strictly logical proof (although many strong arguments do rise to this level such as in logical syllogisms), but rather demands an amount of evidence that is established or accepted by convention or community standards.[2][3]

This burden of proof is often asymmetrical and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive claim, or makes a claim more "extraordinary",[4] that is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts.