MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[His_Majesty]

No, it is a rejection of your claim.

Um it is both, by rejecting my claim, he made a claim of knowledge. So he walked and chewed gum at the same time.

If I told you about an invisible dragon living in my garage and you told me that dragon is just in my imagination, this is not a claim of knowledge but a rejection of my claim of the dragon's existence.

Could I be wrong? Yes or no.

This is a reasonable statement given the lack of reason to believe the dragon exists.

What if he had good reasons to believe that the dragon exists?

This is why we can lock away people who "hear voices" in their heads. We can't prove the voices aren't really unseen spirits that somehow only the locked away person can hear. It is not necessary to prove that the voices do no exist outside his imagination. Simply the fact that the claim of hearing voices lacks any evidence to support any source outside his imagination is enough.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It is logically impossible to prove a negative.

If there is actually a voice inside the person's head which transcends the person and yourself, then it wouldn't be negative, now would it? Just because you don't see evidence for something doesn't make it a negative, sir, because if there really is an invisible dragon in someones basement (perfectly conceivable), just because you don't see the evidence for it or have any reason to believe it doesn't change the truth value of whether or not the dragon exists or is there.

Your god does not exist.

Have you ever been behind the sun? So how do you know that my God isn't behind the sun?? There is no way you can wiggle out of it, either...you've never been behind the sun, so you simply don't know...plain and simple...so for you to sit there and make these absolute statements, these claims of knowledge, is fallacious.