Warbler said:
Yes, I agree they would not need as much faith as I would need. That is why in the Bible Jesus said: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Jesus said many things and none of them changes the faith issue ,all what he said is on the bible and that is precisely the book we are discussing if it is true or not. Bottom line you also have ''faith'' on Jesus himself actually saying that, but I could argue that you can't prove it for sure he said it and then we'll be stuck on the ''you can't disprove/prove it therefore is not false/true'' argument.
Warbler said:
huh? just because you can easily doubt something, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it is what I believe, yes. and yes I agree I can not prove that he is risen. My point is that you can not prove he isn't risen. And a claim that can't be disproved or proved also isn't a falsehood.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you look at what I originally wrote, you will I see I was discussing what Christians belief. As for a debate on whether not what they belief is true, I don't see the point in such a debate. There is no way to prove that what they belief is true and they is no way to prove that what they belief is false.
I know that if a claim can't be prove nor disprove then it doesn't make it neither true or false which is fine with me, but a claim can't sustain a ongoing duality of being true and false at the same time and that is why when a claim is doubtful we call it ''hypothesis''. Now, the way we decide if a hypothesis is true or false is by supplying evidence to sustain what you believe is the correct answer but so far you have presented NONE.
If you present me a piece of paper that says something (it could be anything) and then you claim that what the paper says is true then I will request evidence other than a paper saying so in order to confirm that it is true, you can't say that because you don't have evidence to support the claim and I don't have means to disprove it then it becomes true because is not false. That rationalization may fit in a philosophical scheme but in terms of proving that the bible is true it doesn't hold by itself, the bible may not be false but for sure is not true or at least not without evidence. The bible is, at best, an unproven hypothesis that you chose to believe as true based on ''faith'' and flaw logic. Pure logic can often fall on catch-22, a good example is my signature.
Warbler said:
Long ago, it was easy to doubt that the world was round, but that didn't make it false. I can drop a bowling ball and feather at the same time from the same height and then easily doubt that objects fall at the rate, but they do.
The difference is that all of that is already proven and you (and the entire human race) have EVIDENCE of that, that is why you are saying that is TRUE. You can't just pick things that were easily doubt in the past but we know that now are true, specially when you know that those things are true because you have evidence and not because you have faith in it. The point you tried to make would be valid if we already had indisputable EVIDENCE that the Christian religion is TRUE but that isn't the case.