cuchulain Posted April 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 I can appreciate both points of view at this time. But what I am looking for is the logical basis of extraordinary. So far, I have come to the point of acknowledging that the term extraordinary is subjective. I also have come to the point of acknowledging that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence(or whatever other term you would like to insert instead of evidence). This leaves me at the point of needing to understand fully who has the burden of understanding, the person making the claim or the person listening. I think for this part, I use the analogy of a foreigner being arrested but not being able to understand the language of the arresting officer. Is it the officer's obligation to find a way to make him/herself understood, or is the the person being arrested's obligation to figure out what the officer means? I tend toward the first. So, does the burden of understanding evidence fall unto the listener or the teller, and does the term in question(proof) become subjective at that point? Who's point of view in terms of what proof is becomes more important when discussing evidence? I see a tree with rings in it that predate the alleged creation of the world, and I consider that ample evidence to suggest that the bible is flawed. Another person would look at the same evidence and interpret it as God's way of testing us by having created that ring in the tree in such a manner as to make us have possible doubts, a test of faith of sorts(I have heard that exact argument). The evidence is the same no matter who is viewing it: A tree with more rings than the bible claims years. Then there is the subjectivity of time, and biblical interpretation. Is a day a year, a month, what? Each person has their own idea, but who's evidence matters? I think, and this is my own opinion of the subject, that the burden lies on the person trying to convince someone else. If I try to convince Dan that that tree really does predate creation according the bible, then I need to be able to back up that positive assertion. The way to do that is to demonstrate via the way the world has been observed to work that tree rings grow a specific manner, etc...but in the end, the burden of convincing him falls to me because I made the assertion. If he chooses not to believe me, that is my failing and not his. On the same note, if Dan tries to convince me that God is real and the bible is evidence, the burden of understanding would be his, the same as the burden of proof. It falls on him at the point he makes the positive assertion to convince me, not the other way around. The same as if I had said I had a peanut butter sandwich...if the person I am talking to doesn't believe me and asks for proof, it doesn't fall on THEM to somehow garner the information and believe me, simply because the claim isn't that fantastic and so should be believable. It becomes incumbent to me to prove the claim, or determine that the claim isn't worth the effort to prove. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.