Asking someone to prove a negative, with evidence!
Sounds like something a troll or tobacco company would say.
This btw is your brain doing “selective bias”. Your admission of breezing over things that do not support your position is demonstrable evidence of this thought process at work.
It’s your brain 
.
Again, I dealt with this analogy as you presented - you have not established a triangle - just a corner.
Nope. Wrong. So so sadly wrong. Your proposed method would have you sending money to Nigerian Princes. Seriously 
I made no such claim, nor would I attempt to “disprove” something that has no basis in reality. YOU prove there is NO unicorns 
! It’s silly.
I remain neutral. YOU claim a god as truth. I say I am unconvinced. You need to back your claim.
Lol! And then you demand in bold an answer to your method! You are a very young naive thinker!
Interesting 
. Have you ever thought about looking up “objective evidence”?
Here, little guy - “ Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation. One can examine and evaluate objective evidence .
I’m sitting here in anticipation of what you’ve got hidden under your bed!!! Many a scientists (especially ones of the Christian faith) would love to get their hands on some!
@Whitefire13; Thanks for responding to the main part of the discussion. Since you did then I’ll respond to you (It’s not that I don’t want to engage with other comments. I’ve just already stated that those discussions will not be fruitful at this time since we have some foundational stuff to clear up first).
So you are claiming that CCA (cumulative case argumentation) is not a good means toward moving toward truth claims. But you have provided no basis upon which this conclusion was made. Please back your claim. Why is **Is Cumulative Case Argumentation not a good way of establishing weight for truth claims?
Lol - 
there’s that selective bias brain process at work again. No problem … just a second, I’ll need to smoke.
Usually used in law (criminal cases) … so here’s an example:
Suppose Jones is accused of murdering Smith. The prosecution might offer a whole string of arguments for Jones guilt: Jones’ lack of an alibi, Jones’ opportunity, Jones’ clear motive, fibres from Jones’ clothing otherwise inexplicably found at the crime scene, an eyewitness of Jones committing the murder, Jones’ admission of the crime to a cell mate, and so on.
The real strength of such a cumulative case is this: while any one component argument or piece of evidence for Jones’ guilt might turn out to be no good, what remains can still be more than sufficient to convict him.
Do you watch Judge Judy? Your use of Cumulative Argument wouldn’t make it pass “heresay” when it comes to the Jesus resurrection “case”. As for the other “case” - god did it” - you, as a prosecutor state your case:
HOWEVER Defense has shown there are a multitude of equal “suspects” that could be just as guilty as the “Defendant”. Thereby raising “reasonable doubt” - and dismissing your “case”.
Fuck - that was easy… I said smoke 
AND 
it came to me!
Edited to add cause I’m at my third post in a row:
Now, specifically.
Princes exist.
Nigeria exists.
Taxes and fees exist.
Bank accounts exist.
Stories of “helping others and getting a reward” exist.
A letter asking for help from a Nigerian Prince to pay a fee/legal cost to release his wealth and rewarding you with a high percentage is perfectly “reasonable” by this method.
Flowery metaphors that imply that objects have attributes that they clearly do not have; is great for literature, poetry, speeches, etc. But appealing to these fantasy attributes is ruinous for logic. This seems to be a re-occurring problem in your arguments.
Thanks for your reply here @Whitefire13!
However, there isn’t anything here answering my question. My question wasn’t
Is Cumulative Case Argumentation a good way of establishing weight for the existence of God?
Rather it was:
Is Cumulative Case Argumentation not a good way of establishing weight for truth claims?
Please answer Yes/No and then explain why as this will be most clear.
I need proof as to why you believe CCA is inadequate in establishing weight for truth claims since you posted in response to CCA:
No! 
1 Like
Thanks for your thoughts. But I still don’t see here an answer to the question.
Is Cumulative Case Argumentation not a good way of establishing weight for truth claims?
Great! Thanks for answering with a Yes or No! I really respect that! Now… what is your evidence that proves that what you’re saying is correct?
I thought I was clear and simple…however I guess it needs to be dumbed down more so.
Notice I had to modify you question to even give a yes/no answer; because as you wrote it: it non-sense. Will you be answering the simple yes/no question I asked you a week ago?
1 Like
This was the wording I read… I removed one “is” (you have two). Answering a why question with “YES” or “NO” is non-sense.
Your professor is a shitty teacher.
Because cumulative case arguments are not proofs? I assume we are talking about logic, not legal matters; right?
If you want to establish where you were on Saturday night, then lots of pieces of evidence that suggest you were at a certain location might be helpful for convincing a judge/jury where you were. But that isn’t logic at all. Logic is a very different animal. It is similar to rolling a strike in bowling, then claiming you made a touchdown! It seems like you don’t know what you are talking about.
You seem to be suffering from some very serious misconceptions; misconceptions that are rather common in society. So while I sympathize with the position you are in; I can’t change reality to match your fantasies about logic.
I offered a definition whereby his use of Cumulative Evidence has real life application, and thereby demonstrated use. This method by no means gets you to “truth”. It can establish claims of innocence or guilt - legal terms, but cannot determine (in most or some cases) the truth of the event.
“Guilty” proved innocent via DNA
“Innocent” judgement although committed the offence (insufficient evidence)
Admissions of “guilt” that were not true.
False “witness” testimony and or biased/corrupted evidence.
Lol. And this is in reality.
In imagination- the logic wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. Philosophy is enjoyable mind candy.
“Apologetics” is a tool for power and control over people’s lives.
Before we continue let’s establish that by CCA I’m talking about the following:
CUMULATIVE (The Argument) .—An argument gaining in force by increase of evidence and of reasons as it advances, each new point having additional testimony for the conclusion. Its strength does not lie in the connection of the points with each other, but simply in their sum.
Yes - the Nigerian Prince letter.