RE: MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)
December 15, 2014 at 6:09 pm
(This post was last modified: December 15, 2014 at 6:17 pm by Jenny A.)
This is such a concise display of your general lack of understanding of how logic, evidence, and proof work.
Sorry, "A" not proven is not equivalent to "A" disproved. Not proven is not a claim of knowledge.
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.
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.
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. But that doesn't mean they do exist. Your god is an invisible purple nothing. It's lack of existence can't be proven because it is not possible to prove a negative. But you can't prove god's existence (and neither can much, much, much, brighter men then you). Therefore until evidence to the contrary is produced, I will not believe in the existence of god or invisible purple nothings.
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.
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. 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. There is no evidence of that and it is an extreme unlikelihood. And the authors themselves make no such claims. That is absurd.
(December 15, 2014 at 5:11 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:
Um it is both, by rejecting my claim, he made a claim of knowledge. So he walked and chewed gum at the same time.
Sorry, "A" not proven is not equivalent to "A" disproved. Not proven is not a claim of knowledge.
(December 15, 2014 at 5:11 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
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.
(December 15, 2014 at 5:11 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:(December 15, 2014 at 8:48 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: It is logically impossible to prove a negative.. . .
Just because you don't see evidence for something doesn't make it a negative . . .
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.
(December 15, 2014 at 5:11 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: 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.
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. But that doesn't mean they do exist. Your god is an invisible purple nothing. It's lack of existence can't be proven because it is not possible to prove a negative. But you can't prove god's existence (and neither can much, much, much, brighter men then you). Therefore until evidence to the contrary is produced, I will not believe in the existence of god or invisible purple nothings.
(December 15, 2014 at 5:47 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: The entire genre of history is based on faith, you don't know anything about history, all you know is what you were told...so whatever you believed happened in history, you believe it happened based on faith.
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.
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. 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. There is no evidence of that and it is an extreme unlikelihood. And the authors themselves make no such claims. That is absurd.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
