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

[Jenny A]

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.

^This response speaks for itself^

What it demonstrates is that you either can't or won't think. There's no point in further discussion. It's not so much that I disagree with you. It's rather that your lack of ability to reason makes discussion with you about as enlightening as a game of chess with a toddler who wants to play horsey with the knights --or more exactly to roll around giggling on the board.