Warbler said:
flaw logic?
Yes, I guess you could call it an unproven hypothesis. Just don't call it a false one, since you can't prove it to be false.
Did you read what I posted before about the ''hypothesis''? ANY claim on the bible is an unproven hypothesis which makes it false until evidence is presented since the claims are the ones presenting ''facts'' without evidence, any unproven claim falls by default on ''false''.
If I show you a random paper saying that I have a million dollars without presenting evidence of that, would you say that is true because it can't be disproved? Would you sell me a million dollar house just by having ''faith'' that the paper says the true?. My guess is that you will demand an official bank statement or similar and if I don't present it you'll going to say that the claim on the paper is false and I can't just say ''hey is not false, is an unproven true therefore isn't false, sell me the house''. I don't think so.
In any case if I can't say that the claim is false then by any means you can't call it true, you can say that you have faith or believe in it but you can't say it's true. Basically you'll end up with like a sort of Schrödinger's Jesus.
Warbler said:
The point I was trying to make was that just because it is easy to doubt something, doesn't necessarily mean it is false. The example I gave show that. They were things were easy to doubt BEFORE we the evidence. Many did doubt that the world was round. A lot of kids before you explain it to them would think you were nuts if you told them everything falls at the same rate. Without the evidence, these things are easy to doubt. Yet they are true. Even though it is easy to doubt that the Biblical Christ is real, it doesn't necessarily mean he isn't.
This started with you saying "you know he's dead right"? My point is, you don't know that he is dead. Without evidence, it is just what you believe, it is not fact.
Many things can be doubted before evidence is presented and A LOT also ended up being false, you are just exposing things that ended up being true but I can present many things that ended up being false and still use that argument to say the bible is false, same as you did.
Without evidence there is no true at all, you can chose a ''truth for you'' but is just what you chose to believe without evidence. I'm not "choosing to belive what is a fact", my evidence that he is not real (dead or alive) is the mere ABSENCE of evidence of those who claim it is real. How do you provide evidence about the non-existence of something? Should I provide non-evidence? The burden of proof is on the person stating a claim is true, my "false" claim is a result of the failure in presenting evidence to sustain the "true" claim. If I apply your logic then unicorns are real since nobody can present evidence that they don't exist... same with pixies, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, etc. You're running in circles on the ''it can't be disprove then is true'', it's a philosophical catch-22.
Warbler said:
Yes, the same is true for me, I don't know that he rose from the dead and then ascended into heaven, it is just what I believe it. I have no evidence and therefore it is not a fact.
Thank you.