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

[His_Majesty]

Sorry, "A" not proven is not equivalent to "A" disproved. Not proven is not a claim of knowledge.

Straw man.

Not in and of itself no. But coupled with reasons for why such evidence would exist were the thing so, it can be evidence of absence. For example, absence of a birth certificate for John Doe in the county records of State X is evidence that John Doe was not born there. And it makes it very likely he was not. But it can never be absolute proof he was not born there because it is not possible to prove a negative.

Then the lack of a birth certificate alone does not prove that John Doe was born there.

To prove a negative in this context is not as you seem to think, to prove something without evidence. To prove a negative is to prove that something does not exist. It is not possible to prove that something does not exist.

We can bypass the philosophical babble and just say that I find that there are good reasons to believe in Christian theism....you people say otherwise.

It doesn't get any more simple than that.

You just gave a practical example of why a negative cannot be proven.
You can't prove there aren't invisible purple nothings on the other side of the sun.

"Nothing" cannot be an entity. So what you've just said is nonsense.

But that doesn't mean they do exist. Your god is an invisible purple nothing.

"Nothing" does not have a color. So what you've just said is nonsense.

It's lack of existence can't be proven because it is not possible to prove a negative.

I believe there are good reasons to believe in God.

But you can't prove god's existence (and neither can much, much, much, brighter men then you).

Based on the evidence that has been presented, I draw the conclusion that the existence of God is more plausible than not.

Therefore until evidence to the contrary is produced, I will not believe in the existence of god or invisible purple nothings.

Again..."nothing" doesn't have a color...so what you've just said is nonsense.

Yes, we can only evaluate what we can read. But we don't give it all the same value. We pay attention to the likelihood of the source's veracity, which is something you obviously do not do.

What makes you say that?

You just finished arguing that because five people lived to more than average age, that the writers of the gospels must also have lived to more than average age.

Not at all..you were making it seem as if just because the average person didn't live past X amount of years, that it was unlikely that the writers of the Gospels did...and my point was it was not impossible for the writers of the Gospels to live past the average life span, considering we know many people during that time that did.

You argued further that they just happened to wait until the extreme old age to write down what must have been the most important events of their times.

For at least the sixth time...you are emphasizing on writing as if that was the only way the story could spread...they told their stories VERBALLY first, as that was an oral society...and eventually their stories were written down.

When something important or exciting happen in your life, do you write it down first, or do you verbally tell someone first? You probably verbally tell someone. So what the hell is the difference between what you would do and what they did? Nothing.

There is no evidence of that and it is an extreme unlikelihood. And the authors themselves make no such claims. That is absurd.

No evidence of what, Jenny?