A moment of chastisement — Page 7

What an odd thing to think about.

Oh great, dcg, just when I had turned this thread around with pure positivity and sustained good vibes, we're back to this...

I'm sorry, but this thread is now about Darth Id's delusions.

JEDIT: Point proven even as I was making it.

When was it not?

Edit: Well, there have of course been some provocative digressions re TV Flunk's ever-widening rear-hole.  Both literal and figurative.

Darth Id said:

When was it not?

Look again.  It is nice that you've admitted you have a problem, it's the only way we can help you.

TV's Frink said:

Darth Id said:

When was it not?

Look again.  It is nice that you've admitted you have a problem, it's the only way we can help you.

 I only have one problem!  Flunk Fever!

And only you can cure me, you hot slab o' cyber-twerp!

I don't know why I ever responded to Darth Id at all.  He is by, every definition, a troll.  I can carry on enjoyable conversations on an important topic with dclarkeg.  With Id, all one can do is choose not to play, because all that is happening is he is deriving pleasure from his supposed quick wit (and apparently from his imagined sodomization of Frink's avatar, as if he weren't weird enough already).  The only solution is not to play this game.  I therefore suggest a new thread, even if this is not the New Thread Thread:

The Disregard Darth Id Pledge

Darth Id said:

Zut alors!  Tres sophistiqué!

You once again prove your worthiness of the title, le Gran Douche de Off-Topic.  Sit atop your porcelain throne, oh witful one! 

 I have some correctional notes about your French. Firstly, there should be a space between the final words of your exclamations and the exclamation marks. Secondly, you missed an accent. Your first outburst of French thus ought to read as follows: "Zut alors ! Très sophistiqué !"

Thirdly, "grand" is spelled with a D at the end. Fourthly, "douche" is feminine, and thus you should have used "la" rather than "le." Fifthly, "douche" means "shower" in French, so you just called Frink a big shower. Sixthly, "de" should elide with "Off Topic," since the latter begins with a vowel. And since "Off Topic" is short for "the Off Topic forum", it should be, in the end, "la Grande Douche de l'Off Topic."

RicOlie_2 said:

 

so you just called Frink a big shower.

 Well, duh.

TV's Frink said:

I'm sorry, but this thread is now about Darth Id.

[Pre-"JEDIT"]

 And, Now there are two of them!!

RicOlie_2 said:

Darth Id said:

Zut alors!  Tres sophistiqué!

You once again prove your worthiness of the title, le Gran Douche de Off-Topic.  Sit atop your porcelain throne, oh witful one! 

 I have some correctional notes about your French. Firstly, there should be a space between the final words of your exclamations and the exclamation marks. Secondly, you missed an accent. Your first outburst of French thus ought to read as follows: "Zut alors ! Très sophistiqué !"

Thirdly, "grand" is spelled with a D at the end. Fourthly, "douche" is feminine, and thus you should have used "la" rather than "le." Fifthly, "douche" means "shower" in French, so you just called Frink a big shower. Sixthly, "de" should elide with "Off Topic," since the latter begins with a vowel. And since "Off Topic" is short for "the Off Topic forum", it should be, in the end, "la Grande Douche de l'Off Topic."

 *slow clap*

dclarkg said:

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

Warbler said:

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.  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.

 ftfy.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said

The burden of proof is on the person stating a claim is true

exactly.  You said "You do know he is dead, right?  that is a claim.  Prove it.

I'll clarify this first, when I said that he was dead I was referring to what the bible said about him being crucified and you saying about being alive.

if you were referring to the Bible, you must have missed what happened after the Crucifixion. 

I can't prove if he's death the same way that you can't prove that he's alive. The fact that no one can live for 2000 years and that the guy has not shown his face since he died pretty much will convince ANYONE that somebody is death...

you forget that the somebody in question is believed to be the son of God.  I think you'd agree that someone who is the son of God could live for over 2000 years.

except for Jesus, he has a book that says he did all kind of stuff like undying so it must be all real.

no, I just have faith that he did those things.

Anyway, I just want to clarify that to debate if he is dead or alive FIRST we need to debate if he even existed so let's start by that, from now on all my argumentation will be towards the debate of Jesus existence and not if he is dead or not.

Warbler said:

incorrect.  An unproven hypothesis is just that, an unproven hypothesis.  You can't say an hypothesis is true until you prove it and you can't say it is false until you prove that. 

dclarkg said:

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?

no, I would say I have no idea whether you had a million dollars or not.

So basically you could say that if you don't know if a claim is true or false then you are an ignorant¹ on the subject right?

yes.

Would you be willing to take any actions like selling me a house while maintaining a uncertainty?

no.

Would you take ANY actions or decisions in your everyday life taking as true a particular subject while remaining ignorant about it?.

not many.

You can say that you have no idea whether I have a million dollars or not but you will never sell me the house based on the possibility of that claim being true, you may say that you don't know but as far as you are concern I don't have a million dollars but a piece of paper saying so. Unless you are willing to sell something to a guy with no evidence of money other than a piece of paper then you can't use the same principle to say the existence of Jesus is real.

I don't use the principle to say that Jesus is real, only that it is possible he is real.

Keep in mind that an uncertainty is ignorance and if you have to decide whether something is true or not you have to pick ONE.

if I have to pick one, I'd base my decision on probability and the preponderance of the evidence.  This is assuming faith doesn't enter into the picture. 

On our every day life we all default our uncertainties based on evidence, during our lives we learn that we must corroborate all the claims before defining them as true.

correct.

Any decision to believe or act based on a claim that COULD be true but without evidence to assure it will require a ''leap of faith'' which is choosing without not knowing, your argument could be ''if can't be unproven then is not false so there is a possibility of it being true'' but that still is, for practical matters, a rationalization for your leap of faith since the decision has to be made based on nothing else than faith.

that is correct, my decision to believe in God and Christ is a leap of faith.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

Would you sell me a million dollar house just by having ''faith'' that the paper says the true?.

no I would not.

Why? If you can't assure that my claim isn't true then is not false neither, and if my claim isn't false because it can't be disproved then we could say is true as well, therefore I have a million dollars.

without sufficient evidence in either direction,  I would have no idea whether you had a million dollars.  I certainly would not sell you a house without more evidence that you had the funds to pay for it. 

If you are believing that the entire universe comes from a supreme being that sent himself/his son to save us all by dying an horrific death to later resurrect and ascend to the heavens just based on a book that has NO EVIDENCE to support all those claims then you should sell me the house.

nope.   I take it on faith that God and Christ are real.  Sorry, but I am not going to take it on faith that you have a million dollars.   It is the difference between a logic based decision and a faith based decision.

Warbler said:

dcalrkg said:

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

No,  I would say I doubt it is true.   For all I would know, you might have a million dollars or might not.  I certain would not sell you anything worth a million dollars with out further proof.  I also would not say "you're dirty stinking liar!".  I would not make such an accusation without further proof that you do not have a million dollars.

ftfy

If you demand further prove of my claim in order to sell me something then you're logically thinking that a piece of paper doesn't mean nothing, you may still think that there is a possibility for me having a million bucks but until that remains only a possibility you will take the claim as false and not sell me the house.

I don't know whether the claim is true or false.  I would not sell you a house until I knew it to be true.

You may not say that I'm a liar but your action does show mistrust,

I'd prefer calling it a lack of trust.

demanding more evidence of my claim is like: ''I'm not saying you are a liar but I don't belive you and I will require a little more than your claim on a piece of paper'', you are not saying I'm lying but you are saying that so far you don't believe it.

lets just say I'd be skeptical.

I could then tell you that my claim has not be disproved yet and since that does not make it false then YOU have to show me EVIDENCE of me NOT HAVING the million dollars... and probably you will tell me that you don't have any evidence other than me actually not having a million bucks but just a piece of paper saying so.

I don't have to show you any evidence. If I owned the house, it would be my decision of whether or not to sell it to you.   I don't have to prove that you don't have a million dollars before deciding not to sell you the house.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

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.

no can't, because it is not an "unproven true", it is simply unproven.

*sigh* 

if remove the ''true'' part it still makes sense... nevertheless ftfy

still, I would not sell you the house until it is proven true that you have a million dollars.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

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.

correct, I can not state as fact that is it true, but I do state that I believe it to be true and I have faith that it is true.

Oh I see, you can't say for a fact that the claim is true but you believe it to be true and have faith that is true, then you should as well believe that I have a million bucks and have faith in it, after all both claims are both on paper right? Let's believe and take on faith everything written on papers, what do you think?.

again, I take it on faith that Jesus is real, I do not take it on faith you have a million dollars.

Warbler said:

yes, you could come up with many things that were easy to doubt an ended up not be true.   But my point still stands.  That fact that something is easy to doubt doesn't necessarily make it false. 

Not necessarily but the absence of evidence makes it more likely don't you think?

I would agree.

Also is not necessarily true neither. The only weight that will shift the balance of a doubt between the opposites is ''evidence'', other than that is all philosophical rhetoric which does not make any claim real or false, just discussable as long as it remains as an uncertainty.  

I agree here.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

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.

you have just committed a logical fallacy.  absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Just because there is no evidence that he is real, doesn't necessarily mean he isn't.  

A prosecutor can't argue in court that just because there is no evidence of the defendant's innocence means the defendant is guilty.  The prosecutor must prove the defendant is guilty.

I guess you misread what I said, I didn't say that ''absence of evidence is evidence of absence'' I said: ''Without evidence there is no true at all'' and that ''my evidence that he is not real (dead or alive) is the mere ABSENCE of evidence'' which basically means that if you tell me to show you evidence of him not existing I would say that my evidence is the lack of your evidence proving it does. 

again, a prosecutor in court can not argue that since the defendant can't prove he is innocent,  he must be guilty.   My lack of evidence of Christ's existence doesn't prove he doesn't exist.

We already established that the non-existence of something can't be proved by other means that pointing out that absence of evidence for the claim or the mere absence of that thing/being... again, by that argument, minotaurs and unicorns are true, after all those beings were well documented in ancient books and no one can disprove them without evidence of their no-existence, right?

no it doesn't mean that montaurs or unicorns are true, it means they could be.   Something could be true until it is proven it isn't true.

Warbler said:

How do you provide evidence about the non-existence of something? Should I provide non-evidence?

I admit it would be difficult to prove the non-existence of something.  However at first, you said Jesus was dead.   To prove that you could show me the corpse if you have it.

How do you provide evidence about the non-existence of something? Should I provide non-evidence?

I admit it would be difficult to prove the non-existence of something.  However at first, you said Jesus was dead.   To prove that you could show me the corpse if you have it.

I already clarified on the beginning of my answer that I'm debating the existence but I'll play along...

I don't have Jesus corpse with me... do you happen to have any alive Jesus around your house that you can show me? You don't? what a bummer.

then, I guess I can't prove he exists and you can't prove he doesn't.   Which it what I was saying at the start of all this.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

My "false" claim is a result of the failure in presenting evidence to sustain the "true" claim.

I wouldn't call your claim false, just simply unproven until you prove it.

And so far you haven't prove anything.

You don't present evidence for any of your claims but you're desperately hanging to the only argument preventing your believes from being called false which is ''you can't disprove it then is not false just unproven'' and then demand evidence from me to prove the non-existence of something.

that is because my decision to believe Jesus is real is faith based.   Unless you want to tell me that your to to believe Jesus isn't real is faith based and not logic based, you have to prove your claim(especially when you state it as fact and not opinion or belief. ) 

I would love to see how you manage to get trough your every day living situations with those rationalizations as a guide.

I get through the day just fine, thankyou.

I would expect evidence or at least better arguments for the existence of such a powerful being like Jesus who can transcend human boundaries and knows it all.

I don't have evidence, just faith.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"'

or a leap of faith.

Warbler said:

dcalrkg said:

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.

no, my logic doesn't mean those things are real.  It only means that until evidence is provided that they are not real, they could be real.  It would only mean they are real if someone provided proof they are real.  Without evidence of either, we don't know if they are real or not.

You really like that argument right?

I like it just fine.

I'm tired of explaining this over and over so I will just say it straight: without evidence for your claim you just end up with a philosophical impasse that can't hold up for itself on the real world, you rather give a claim the absurdity of being both true and false at the same time based on philosophy than make the judgement based on logic, we may not know for sure if something is real or not but the evidence (or lack of) is what tells us which one is more likely to be like with the example of my million bucks.

I don't claim anything is true and false at the same time.  I claim that without evidence, I don't know if something is true or if it is false.

All this philosophical rhetoric reminds me a great quote:
“Philosophy begins where religion ends, just as by analogy chemistry begins where alchemy runs out, and astronomy takes the place of astrology.”

I guess you ran out of religious arguments, we've spent a lot of time arguing about ''is not false is unproven'' like if that was evidence.

 I was never trying to prove that Christ existed.  I was only trying show that it is possible that Christ exists. 

Urge to post dogs in hats rising...

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

Warbler said:

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.  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.

 ftfy.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said

The burden of proof is on the person stating a claim is true

exactly.  You said "You do know he is dead, right?  that is a claim.  Prove it.

I'll clarify this first, when I said that he was dead I was referring to what the bible said about him being crucified and you saying about being alive.

if you were referring to the Bible, you must have missed what happened after the Crucifixion. 

I can't prove if he's death the same way that you can't prove that he's alive. The fact that no one can live for 2000 years and that the guy has not shown his face since he died pretty much will convince ANYONE that somebody is death...

you forget that the somebody in question is believed to be the son of God.  I think you'd agree that someone who is the son of God could live for over 2000 years.

except for Jesus, he has a book that says he did all kind of stuff like undying so it must be all real.

no, I just have faith that he did those things.

Anyway, I just want to clarify that to debate if he is dead or alive FIRST we need to debate if he even existed so let's start by that, from now on all my argumentation will be towards the debate of Jesus existence and not if he is dead or not.

Warbler said:

incorrect.  An unproven hypothesis is just that, an unproven hypothesis.  You can't say an hypothesis is true until you prove it and you can't say it is false until you prove that. 

dclarkg said:

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?

no, I would say I have no idea whether you had a million dollars or not.

So basically you could say that if you don't know if a claim is true or false then you are an ignorant¹ on the subject right?

yes.

Would you be willing to take any actions like selling me a house while maintaining a uncertainty?

no.

Would you take ANY actions or decisions in your everyday life taking as true a particular subject while remaining ignorant about it?.

not many.

You can say that you have no idea whether I have a million dollars or not but you will never sell me the house based on the possibility of that claim being true, you may say that you don't know but as far as you are concern I don't have a million dollars but a piece of paper saying so. Unless you are willing to sell something to a guy with no evidence of money other than a piece of paper then you can't use the same principle to say the existence of Jesus is real.

I don't use the principle to say that Jesus is real, only that it is possible he is real.

Keep in mind that an uncertainty is ignorance and if you have to decide whether something is true or not you have to pick ONE.

if I have to pick one, I'd base my decision on probability and the preponderance of the evidence.  This is assuming faith doesn't enter into the picture. 

On our every day life we all default our uncertainties based on evidence, during our lives we learn that we must corroborate all the claims before defining them as true.

correct.

Any decision to believe or act based on a claim that COULD be true but without evidence to assure it will require a ''leap of faith'' which is choosing without not knowing, your argument could be ''if can't be unproven then is not false so there is a possibility of it being true'' but that still is, for practical matters, a rationalization for your leap of faith since the decision has to be made based on nothing else than faith.

that is correct, my decision to believe in God and Christ is a leap of faith.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

Would you sell me a million dollar house just by having ''faith'' that the paper says the true?.

no I would not.

Why? If you can't assure that my claim isn't true then is not false neither, and if my claim isn't false because it can't be disproved then we could say is true as well, therefore I have a million dollars.

without sufficient evidence in either direction,  I would have no idea whether you had a million dollars.  I certainly would not sell you a house without more evidence that you had the funds to pay for it. 

If you are believing that the entire universe comes from a supreme being that sent himself/his son to save us all by dying an horrific death to later resurrect and ascend to the heavens just based on a book that has NO EVIDENCE to support all those claims then you should sell me the house.

nope.   I take it on faith that God and Christ are real.  Sorry, but I am not going to take it on faith that you have a million dollars.   It is the difference between a logic based decision and a faith based decision.

Warbler said:

dcalrkg said:

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

No,  I would say I doubt it is true.   For all I would know, you might have a million dollars or might not.  I certain would not sell you anything worth a million dollars with out further proof.  I also would not say "you're dirty stinking liar!".  I would not make such an accusation without further proof that you do not have a million dollars.

ftfy

If you demand further prove of my claim in order to sell me something then you're logically thinking that a piece of paper doesn't mean nothing, you may still think that there is a possibility for me having a million bucks but until that remains only a possibility you will take the claim as false and not sell me the house.

I don't know whether the claim is true or false.  I would not sell you a house until I knew it to be true.

You may not say that I'm a liar but your action does show mistrust,

I'd prefer calling it a lack of trust.

demanding more evidence of my claim is like: ''I'm not saying you are a liar but I don't belive you and I will require a little more than your claim on a piece of paper'', you are not saying I'm lying but you are saying that so far you don't believe it.

lets just say I'd be skeptical.

I could then tell you that my claim has not be disproved yet and since that does not make it false then YOU have to show me EVIDENCE of me NOT HAVING the million dollars... and probably you will tell me that you don't have any evidence other than me actually not having a million bucks but just a piece of paper saying so.

I don't have to show you any evidence. If I owned the house, it would be my decision of whether or not to sell it to you.   I don't have to prove that you don't have a million dollars before deciding not to sell you the house.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

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.

no can't, because it is not an "unproven true", it is simply unproven.

*sigh* 

if remove the ''true'' part it still makes sense... nevertheless ftfy

still, I would not sell you the house until it is proven true that you have a million dollars.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

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.

correct, I can not state as fact that is it true, but I do state that I believe it to be true and I have faith that it is true.

Oh I see, you can't say for a fact that the claim is true but you believe it to be true and have faith that is true, then you should as well believe that I have a million bucks and have faith in it, after all both claims are both on paper right? Let's believe and take on faith everything written on papers, what do you think?.

again, I take it on faith that Jesus is real, I do not take it on faith you have a million dollars.

Warbler said:

yes, you could come up with many things that were easy to doubt an ended up not be true.   But my point still stands.  That fact that something is easy to doubt doesn't necessarily make it false. 

Not necessarily but the absence of evidence makes it more likely don't you think?

I would agree.

Also is not necessarily true neither. The only weight that will shift the balance of a doubt between the opposites is ''evidence'', other than that is all philosophical rhetoric which does not make any claim real or false, just discussable as long as it remains as an uncertainty.  

I agree here.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

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.

you have just committed a logical fallacy.  absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Just because there is no evidence that he is real, doesn't necessarily mean he isn't.  

A prosecutor can't argue in court that just because there is no evidence of the defendant's innocence means the defendant is guilty.  The prosecutor must prove the defendant is guilty.

I guess you misread what I said, I didn't say that ''absence of evidence is evidence of absence'' I said: ''Without evidence there is no true at all'' and that ''my evidence that he is not real (dead or alive) is the mere ABSENCE of evidence'' which basically means that if you tell me to show you evidence of him not existing I would say that my evidence is the lack of your evidence proving it does. 

again, a prosecutor in court can not argue that since the defendant can't prove he is innocent,  he must be guilty.   My lack of evidence of Christ's existence doesn't prove he doesn't exist.

We already established that the non-existence of something can't be proved by other means that pointing out that absence of evidence for the claim or the mere absence of that thing/being... again, by that argument, minotaurs and unicorns are true, after all those beings were well documented in ancient books and no one can disprove them without evidence of their no-existence, right?

no it doesn't mean that montaurs or unicorns are true, it means they could be.   Something could be true until it is proven it isn't true.

Warbler said:

How do you provide evidence about the non-existence of something? Should I provide non-evidence?

I admit it would be difficult to prove the non-existence of something.  However at first, you said Jesus was dead.   To prove that you could show me the corpse if you have it.

How do you provide evidence about the non-existence of something? Should I provide non-evidence?

I admit it would be difficult to prove the non-existence of something.  However at first, you said Jesus was dead.   To prove that you could show me the corpse if you have it.

I already clarified on the beginning of my answer that I'm debating the existence but I'll play along...

I don't have Jesus corpse with me... do you happen to have any alive Jesus around your house that you can show me? You don't? what a bummer.

then, I guess I can't prove he exists and you can't prove he doesn't.   Which it what I was saying at the start of all this.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

My "false" claim is a result of the failure in presenting evidence to sustain the "true" claim.

I wouldn't call your claim false, just simply unproven until you prove it.

And so far you haven't prove anything.

You don't present evidence for any of your claims but you're desperately hanging to the only argument preventing your believes from being called false which is ''you can't disprove it then is not false just unproven'' and then demand evidence from me to prove the non-existence of something.

that is because my decision to believe Jesus is real is faith based.   Unless you want to tell me that your to to believe Jesus isn't real is faith based and not logic based, you have to prove your claim(especially when you state it as fact and not opinion or belief. ) 

I would love to see how you manage to get trough your every day living situations with those rationalizations as a guide.

I get through the day just fine, thankyou.

I would expect evidence or at least better arguments for the existence of such a powerful being like Jesus who can transcend human boundaries and knows it all.

I don't have evidence, just faith.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"'

or a leap of faith.

Warbler said:

dcalrkg said:

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.

no, my logic doesn't mean those things are real.  It only means that until evidence is provided that they are not real, they could be real.  It would only mean they are real if someone provided proof they are real.  Without evidence of either, we don't know if they are real or not.

You really like that argument right?

I like it just fine.

I'm tired of explaining this over and over so I will just say it straight: without evidence for your claim you just end up with a philosophical impasse that can't hold up for itself on the real world, you rather give a claim the absurdity of being both true and false at the same time based on philosophy than make the judgement based on logic, we may not know for sure if something is real or not but the evidence (or lack of) is what tells us which one is more likely to be like with the example of my million bucks.

I don't claim anything is true and false at the same time.  I claim that without evidence, I don't know if something is true or if it is false.

All this philosophical rhetoric reminds me a great quote:
“Philosophy begins where religion ends, just as by analogy chemistry begins where alchemy runs out, and astronomy takes the place of astrology.”

I guess you ran out of religious arguments, we've spent a lot of time arguing about ''is not false is unproven'' like if that was evidence.

 I was never trying to prove that Christ existed.  I was only trying show that it is possible that Christ exists. 

 It is possible that I'm actually Michael Jackson's ghost, posting from beyond the grave.  Everything is possible.

Also, dogs in hats.

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

Warbler said:

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.  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.

 ftfy.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said

The burden of proof is on the person stating a claim is true

exactly.  You said "You do know he is dead, right?  that is a claim.  Prove it.

I'll clarify this first, when I said that he was dead I was referring to what the bible said about him being crucified and you saying about being alive.

if you were referring to the Bible, you must have missed what happened after the Crucifixion. 

I can't prove if he's death the same way that you can't prove that he's alive. The fact that no one can live for 2000 years and that the guy has not shown his face since he died pretty much will convince ANYONE that somebody is death...

you forget that the somebody in question is believed to be the son of God.  I think you'd agree that someone who is the son of God could live for over 2000 years.

except for Jesus, he has a book that says he did all kind of stuff like undying so it must be all real.

no, I just have faith that he did those things.

Anyway, I just want to clarify that to debate if he is dead or alive FIRST we need to debate if he even existed so let's start by that, from now on all my argumentation will be towards the debate of Jesus existence and not if he is dead or not.

Warbler said:

incorrect.  An unproven hypothesis is just that, an unproven hypothesis.  You can't say an hypothesis is true until you prove it and you can't say it is false until you prove that. 

dclarkg said:

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?

no, I would say I have no idea whether you had a million dollars or not.

So basically you could say that if you don't know if a claim is true or false then you are an ignorant¹ on the subject right?

yes.

Would you be willing to take any actions like selling me a house while maintaining a uncertainty?

no.

Would you take ANY actions or decisions in your everyday life taking as true a particular subject while remaining ignorant about it?.

not many.

You can say that you have no idea whether I have a million dollars or not but you will never sell me the house based on the possibility of that claim being true, you may say that you don't know but as far as you are concern I don't have a million dollars but a piece of paper saying so. Unless you are willing to sell something to a guy with no evidence of money other than a piece of paper then you can't use the same principle to say the existence of Jesus is real.

I don't use the principle to say that Jesus is real, only that it is possible he is real.

Keep in mind that an uncertainty is ignorance and if you have to decide whether something is true or not you have to pick ONE.

if I have to pick one, I'd base my decision on probability and the preponderance of the evidence.  This is assuming faith doesn't enter into the picture. 

On our every day life we all default our uncertainties based on evidence, during our lives we learn that we must corroborate all the claims before defining them as true.

correct.

Any decision to believe or act based on a claim that COULD be true but without evidence to assure it will require a ''leap of faith'' which is choosing without not knowing, your argument could be ''if can't be unproven then is not false so there is a possibility of it being true'' but that still is, for practical matters, a rationalization for your leap of faith since the decision has to be made based on nothing else than faith.

that is correct, my decision to believe in God and Christ is a leap of faith.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

Would you sell me a million dollar house just by having ''faith'' that the paper says the true?.

no I would not.

Why? If you can't assure that my claim isn't true then is not false neither, and if my claim isn't false because it can't be disproved then we could say is true as well, therefore I have a million dollars.

without sufficient evidence in either direction,  I would have no idea whether you had a million dollars.  I certainly would not sell you a house without more evidence that you had the funds to pay for it. 

If you are believing that the entire universe comes from a supreme being that sent himself/his son to save us all by dying an horrific death to later resurrect and ascend to the heavens just based on a book that has NO EVIDENCE to support all those claims then you should sell me the house.

nope.   I take it on faith that God and Christ are real.  Sorry, but I am not going to take it on faith that you have a million dollars.   It is the difference between a logic based decision and a faith based decision.

Warbler said:

dcalrkg said:

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

No,  I would say I doubt it is true.   For all I would know, you might have a million dollars or might not.  I certain would not sell you anything worth a million dollars with out further proof.  I also would not say "you're dirty stinking liar!".  I would not make such an accusation without further proof that you do not have a million dollars.

ftfy

If you demand further prove of my claim in order to sell me something then you're logically thinking that a piece of paper doesn't mean nothing, you may still think that there is a possibility for me having a million bucks but until that remains only a possibility you will take the claim as false and not sell me the house.

I don't know whether the claim is true or false.  I would not sell you a house until I knew it to be true.

You may not say that I'm a liar but your action does show mistrust,

I'd prefer calling it a lack of trust.

demanding more evidence of my claim is like: ''I'm not saying you are a liar but I don't belive you and I will require a little more than your claim on a piece of paper'', you are not saying I'm lying but you are saying that so far you don't believe it.

lets just say I'd be skeptical.

I could then tell you that my claim has not be disproved yet and since that does not make it false then YOU have to show me EVIDENCE of me NOT HAVING the million dollars... and probably you will tell me that you don't have any evidence other than me actually not having a million bucks but just a piece of paper saying so.

I don't have to show you any evidence. If I owned the house, it would be my decision of whether or not to sell it to you.   I don't have to prove that you don't have a million dollars before deciding not to sell you the house.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

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.

no can't, because it is not an "unproven true", it is simply unproven.

*sigh* 

if remove the ''true'' part it still makes sense... nevertheless ftfy

still, I would not sell you the house until it is proven true that you have a million dollars.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

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.

correct, I can not state as fact that is it true, but I do state that I believe it to be true and I have faith that it is true.

Oh I see, you can't say for a fact that the claim is true but you believe it to be true and have faith that is true, then you should as well believe that I have a million bucks and have faith in it, after all both claims are both on paper right? Let's believe and take on faith everything written on papers, what do you think?.

again, I take it on faith that Jesus is real, I do not take it on faith you have a million dollars.

Warbler said:

yes, you could come up with many things that were easy to doubt an ended up not be true.   But my point still stands.  That fact that something is easy to doubt doesn't necessarily make it false. 

Not necessarily but the absence of evidence makes it more likely don't you think?

I would agree.

Also is not necessarily true neither. The only weight that will shift the balance of a doubt between the opposites is ''evidence'', other than that is all philosophical rhetoric which does not make any claim real or false, just discussable as long as it remains as an uncertainty.  

I agree here.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

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.

you have just committed a logical fallacy.  absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Just because there is no evidence that he is real, doesn't necessarily mean he isn't.  

A prosecutor can't argue in court that just because there is no evidence of the defendant's innocence means the defendant is guilty.  The prosecutor must prove the defendant is guilty.

I guess you misread what I said, I didn't say that ''absence of evidence is evidence of absence'' I said: ''Without evidence there is no true at all'' and that ''my evidence that he is not real (dead or alive) is the mere ABSENCE of evidence'' which basically means that if you tell me to show you evidence of him not existing I would say that my evidence is the lack of your evidence proving it does. 

again, a prosecutor in court can not argue that since the defendant can't prove he is innocent,  he must be guilty.   My lack of evidence of Christ's existence doesn't prove he doesn't exist.

We already established that the non-existence of something can't be proved by other means that pointing out that absence of evidence for the claim or the mere absence of that thing/being... again, by that argument, minotaurs and unicorns are true, after all those beings were well documented in ancient books and no one can disprove them without evidence of their no-existence, right?

no it doesn't mean that montaurs or unicorns are true, it means they could be.   Something could be true until it is proven it isn't true.

Warbler said:

How do you provide evidence about the non-existence of something? Should I provide non-evidence?

I admit it would be difficult to prove the non-existence of something.  However at first, you said Jesus was dead.   To prove that you could show me the corpse if you have it.

How do you provide evidence about the non-existence of something? Should I provide non-evidence?

I admit it would be difficult to prove the non-existence of something.  However at first, you said Jesus was dead.   To prove that you could show me the corpse if you have it.

I already clarified on the beginning of my answer that I'm debating the existence but I'll play along...

I don't have Jesus corpse with me... do you happen to have any alive Jesus around your house that you can show me? You don't? what a bummer.

then, I guess I can't prove he exists and you can't prove he doesn't.   Which it what I was saying at the start of all this.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

My "false" claim is a result of the failure in presenting evidence to sustain the "true" claim.

I wouldn't call your claim false, just simply unproven until you prove it.

And so far you haven't prove anything.

You don't present evidence for any of your claims but you're desperately hanging to the only argument preventing your believes from being called false which is ''you can't disprove it then is not false just unproven'' and then demand evidence from me to prove the non-existence of something.

that is because my decision to believe Jesus is real is faith based.   Unless you want to tell me that your to to believe Jesus isn't real is faith based and not logic based, you have to prove your claim(especially when you state it as fact and not opinion or belief. ) 

I would love to see how you manage to get trough your every day living situations with those rationalizations as a guide.

I get through the day just fine, thankyou.

I would expect evidence or at least better arguments for the existence of such a powerful being like Jesus who can transcend human boundaries and knows it all.

I don't have evidence, just faith.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"'

or a leap of faith.

Warbler said:

dcalrkg said:

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.

no, my logic doesn't mean those things are real.  It only means that until evidence is provided that they are not real, they could be real.  It would only mean they are real if someone provided proof they are real.  Without evidence of either, we don't know if they are real or not.

You really like that argument right?

I like it just fine.

I'm tired of explaining this over and over so I will just say it straight: without evidence for your claim you just end up with a philosophical impasse that can't hold up for itself on the real world, you rather give a claim the absurdity of being both true and false at the same time based on philosophy than make the judgement based on logic, we may not know for sure if something is real or not but the evidence (or lack of) is what tells us which one is more likely to be like with the example of my million bucks.

I don't claim anything is true and false at the same time.  I claim that without evidence, I don't know if something is true or if it is false.

All this philosophical rhetoric reminds me a great quote:
“Philosophy begins where religion ends, just as by analogy chemistry begins where alchemy runs out, and astronomy takes the place of astrology.”

I guess you ran out of religious arguments, we've spent a lot of time arguing about ''is not false is unproven'' like if that was evidence.

 I was never trying to prove that Christ existed.  I was only trying show that it is possible that Christ exists. 

 It is possible that I'm actually Michael Jackson's ghost, posting from beyond the grave.  Everything is possible.

Also, dogs in hats.

 Jesus, this quote string is long.

*sigh*  : (

*sigh*

And Danfun thought this meme was dead ...

Neglify said:

TV's Frink said:

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

Warbler said:

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.  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.

 ftfy.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said

The burden of proof is on the person stating a claim is true

exactly.  You said "You do know he is dead, right?  that is a claim.  Prove it.

I'll clarify this first, when I said that he was dead I was referring to what the bible said about him being crucified and you saying about being alive.

if you were referring to the Bible, you must have missed what happened after the Crucifixion. 

I can't prove if he's death the same way that you can't prove that he's alive. The fact that no one can live for 2000 years and that the guy has not shown his face since he died pretty much will convince ANYONE that somebody is death...

you forget that the somebody in question is believed to be the son of God.  I think you'd agree that someone who is the son of God could live for over 2000 years.

except for Jesus, he has a book that says he did all kind of stuff like undying so it must be all real.

no, I just have faith that he did those things.

Anyway, I just want to clarify that to debate if he is dead or alive FIRST we need to debate if he even existed so let's start by that, from now on all my argumentation will be towards the debate of Jesus existence and not if he is dead or not.

Warbler said:

incorrect.  An unproven hypothesis is just that, an unproven hypothesis.  You can't say an hypothesis is true until you prove it and you can't say it is false until you prove that. 

dclarkg said:

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?

no, I would say I have no idea whether you had a million dollars or not.

So basically you could say that if you don't know if a claim is true or false then you are an ignorant¹ on the subject right?

yes.

Would you be willing to take any actions like selling me a house while maintaining a uncertainty?

no.

Would you take ANY actions or decisions in your everyday life taking as true a particular subject while remaining ignorant about it?.

not many.

You can say that you have no idea whether I have a million dollars or not but you will never sell me the house based on the possibility of that claim being true, you may say that you don't know but as far as you are concern I don't have a million dollars but a piece of paper saying so. Unless you are willing to sell something to a guy with no evidence of money other than a piece of paper then you can't use the same principle to say the existence of Jesus is real.

I don't use the principle to say that Jesus is real, only that it is possible he is real.

Keep in mind that an uncertainty is ignorance and if you have to decide whether something is true or not you have to pick ONE.

if I have to pick one, I'd base my decision on probability and the preponderance of the evidence.  This is assuming faith doesn't enter into the picture. 

On our every day life we all default our uncertainties based on evidence, during our lives we learn that we must corroborate all the claims before defining them as true.

correct.

Any decision to believe or act based on a claim that COULD be true but without evidence to assure it will require a ''leap of faith'' which is choosing without not knowing, your argument could be ''if can't be unproven then is not false so there is a possibility of it being true'' but that still is, for practical matters, a rationalization for your leap of faith since the decision has to be made based on nothing else than faith.

that is correct, my decision to believe in God and Christ is a leap of faith.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

Would you sell me a million dollar house just by having ''faith'' that the paper says the true?.

no I would not.

Why? If you can't assure that my claim isn't true then is not false neither, and if my claim isn't false because it can't be disproved then we could say is true as well, therefore I have a million dollars.

without sufficient evidence in either direction,  I would have no idea whether you had a million dollars.  I certainly would not sell you a house without more evidence that you had the funds to pay for it. 

If you are believing that the entire universe comes from a supreme being that sent himself/his son to save us all by dying an horrific death to later resurrect and ascend to the heavens just based on a book that has NO EVIDENCE to support all those claims then you should sell me the house.

nope.   I take it on faith that God and Christ are real.  Sorry, but I am not going to take it on faith that you have a million dollars.   It is the difference between a logic based decision and a faith based decision.

Warbler said:

dcalrkg said:

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

No,  I would say I doubt it is true.   For all I would know, you might have a million dollars or might not.  I certain would not sell you anything worth a million dollars with out further proof.  I also would not say "you're dirty stinking liar!".  I would not make such an accusation without further proof that you do not have a million dollars.

ftfy

If you demand further prove of my claim in order to sell me something then you're logically thinking that a piece of paper doesn't mean nothing, you may still think that there is a possibility for me having a million bucks but until that remains only a possibility you will take the claim as false and not sell me the house.

I don't know whether the claim is true or false.  I would not sell you a house until I knew it to be true.

You may not say that I'm a liar but your action does show mistrust,

I'd prefer calling it a lack of trust.

demanding more evidence of my claim is like: ''I'm not saying you are a liar but I don't belive you and I will require a little more than your claim on a piece of paper'', you are not saying I'm lying but you are saying that so far you don't believe it.

lets just say I'd be skeptical.

I could then tell you that my claim has not be disproved yet and since that does not make it false then YOU have to show me EVIDENCE of me NOT HAVING the million dollars... and probably you will tell me that you don't have any evidence other than me actually not having a million bucks but just a piece of paper saying so.

I don't have to show you any evidence. If I owned the house, it would be my decision of whether or not to sell it to you.   I don't have to prove that you don't have a million dollars before deciding not to sell you the house.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

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.

no can't, because it is not an "unproven true", it is simply unproven.

*sigh* 

if remove the ''true'' part it still makes sense... nevertheless ftfy

still, I would not sell you the house until it is proven true that you have a million dollars.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

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.

correct, I can not state as fact that is it true, but I do state that I believe it to be true and I have faith that it is true.

Oh I see, you can't say for a fact that the claim is true but you believe it to be true and have faith that is true, then you should as well believe that I have a million bucks and have faith in it, after all both claims are both on paper right? Let's believe and take on faith everything written on papers, what do you think?.

again, I take it on faith that Jesus is real, I do not take it on faith you have a million dollars.

Warbler said:

yes, you could come up with many things that were easy to doubt an ended up not be true.   But my point still stands.  That fact that something is easy to doubt doesn't necessarily make it false. 

Not necessarily but the absence of evidence makes it more likely don't you think?

I would agree.

Also is not necessarily true neither. The only weight that will shift the balance of a doubt between the opposites is ''evidence'', other than that is all philosophical rhetoric which does not make any claim real or false, just discussable as long as it remains as an uncertainty.  

I agree here.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

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.

you have just committed a logical fallacy.  absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Just because there is no evidence that he is real, doesn't necessarily mean he isn't.  

A prosecutor can't argue in court that just because there is no evidence of the defendant's innocence means the defendant is guilty.  The prosecutor must prove the defendant is guilty.

I guess you misread what I said, I didn't say that ''absence of evidence is evidence of absence'' I said: ''Without evidence there is no true at all'' and that ''my evidence that he is not real (dead or alive) is the mere ABSENCE of evidence'' which basically means that if you tell me to show you evidence of him not existing I would say that my evidence is the lack of your evidence proving it does. 

again, a prosecutor in court can not argue that since the defendant can't prove he is innocent,  he must be guilty.   My lack of evidence of Christ's existence doesn't prove he doesn't exist.

We already established that the non-existence of something can't be proved by other means that pointing out that absence of evidence for the claim or the mere absence of that thing/being... again, by that argument, minotaurs and unicorns are true, after all those beings were well documented in ancient books and no one can disprove them without evidence of their no-existence, right?

no it doesn't mean that montaurs or unicorns are true, it means they could be.   Something could be true until it is proven it isn't true.

Warbler said:

How do you provide evidence about the non-existence of something? Should I provide non-evidence?

I admit it would be difficult to prove the non-existence of something.  However at first, you said Jesus was dead.   To prove that you could show me the corpse if you have it.

How do you provide evidence about the non-existence of something? Should I provide non-evidence?

I admit it would be difficult to prove the non-existence of something.  However at first, you said Jesus was dead.   To prove that you could show me the corpse if you have it.

I already clarified on the beginning of my answer that I'm debating the existence but I'll play along...

I don't have Jesus corpse with me... do you happen to have any alive Jesus around your house that you can show me? You don't? what a bummer.

then, I guess I can't prove he exists and you can't prove he doesn't.   Which it what I was saying at the start of all this.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

My "false" claim is a result of the failure in presenting evidence to sustain the "true" claim.

I wouldn't call your claim false, just simply unproven until you prove it.

And so far you haven't prove anything.

You don't present evidence for any of your claims but you're desperately hanging to the only argument preventing your believes from being called false which is ''you can't disprove it then is not false just unproven'' and then demand evidence from me to prove the non-existence of something.

that is because my decision to believe Jesus is real is faith based.   Unless you want to tell me that your to to believe Jesus isn't real is faith based and not logic based, you have to prove your claim(especially when you state it as fact and not opinion or belief. ) 

I would love to see how you manage to get trough your every day living situations with those rationalizations as a guide.

I get through the day just fine, thankyou.

I would expect evidence or at least better arguments for the existence of such a powerful being like Jesus who can transcend human boundaries and knows it all.

I don't have evidence, just faith.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"'

or a leap of faith.

Warbler said:

dcalrkg said:

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.

no, my logic doesn't mean those things are real.  It only means that until evidence is provided that they are not real, they could be real.  It would only mean they are real if someone provided proof they are real.  Without evidence of either, we don't know if they are real or not.

You really like that argument right?

I like it just fine.

I'm tired of explaining this over and over so I will just say it straight: without evidence for your claim you just end up with a philosophical impasse that can't hold up for itself on the real world, you rather give a claim the absurdity of being both true and false at the same time based on philosophy than make the judgement based on logic, we may not know for sure if something is real or not but the evidence (or lack of) is what tells us which one is more likely to be like with the example of my million bucks.

I don't claim anything is true and false at the same time.  I claim that without evidence, I don't know if something is true or if it is false.

All this philosophical rhetoric reminds me a great quote:
“Philosophy begins where religion ends, just as by analogy chemistry begins where alchemy runs out, and astronomy takes the place of astrology.”

I guess you ran out of religious arguments, we've spent a lot of time arguing about ''is not false is unproven'' like if that was evidence.

 I was never trying to prove that Christ existed.  I was only trying show that it is possible that Christ exists. 

 It is possible that I'm actually Michael Jackson's ghost, posting from beyond the grave.  Everything is possible.

Also, dogs in hats.

 Jesus, this quote string is long.

 

darth_ender said:

Neglify said:

TV's Frink said:

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

Warbler said:

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.  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.

 ftfy.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said

The burden of proof is on the person stating a claim is true

exactly.  You said "You do know he is dead, right?  that is a claim.  Prove it.

I'll clarify this first, when I said that he was dead I was referring to what the bible said about him being crucified and you saying about being alive.

if you were referring to the Bible, you must have missed what happened after the Crucifixion. 

I can't prove if he's death the same way that you can't prove that he's alive. The fact that no one can live for 2000 years and that the guy has not shown his face since he died pretty much will convince ANYONE that somebody is death...

you forget that the somebody in question is believed to be the son of God.  I think you'd agree that someone who is the son of God could live for over 2000 years.

except for Jesus, he has a book that says he did all kind of stuff like undying so it must be all real.

no, I just have faith that he did those things.

Anyway, I just want to clarify that to debate if he is dead or alive FIRST we need to debate if he even existed so let's start by that, from now on all my argumentation will be towards the debate of Jesus existence and not if he is dead or not.

Warbler said:

incorrect.  An unproven hypothesis is just that, an unproven hypothesis.  You can't say an hypothesis is true until you prove it and you can't say it is false until you prove that. 

dclarkg said:

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?

no, I would say I have no idea whether you had a million dollars or not.

So basically you could say that if you don't know if a claim is true or false then you are an ignorant¹ on the subject right?

yes.

Would you be willing to take any actions like selling me a house while maintaining a uncertainty?

no.

Would you take ANY actions or decisions in your everyday life taking as true a particular subject while remaining ignorant about it?.

not many.

You can say that you have no idea whether I have a million dollars or not but you will never sell me the house based on the possibility of that claim being true, you may say that you don't know but as far as you are concern I don't have a million dollars but a piece of paper saying so. Unless you are willing to sell something to a guy with no evidence of money other than a piece of paper then you can't use the same principle to say the existence of Jesus is real.

I don't use the principle to say that Jesus is real, only that it is possible he is real.

Keep in mind that an uncertainty is ignorance and if you have to decide whether something is true or not you have to pick ONE.

if I have to pick one, I'd base my decision on probability and the preponderance of the evidence.  This is assuming faith doesn't enter into the picture. 

On our every day life we all default our uncertainties based on evidence, during our lives we learn that we must corroborate all the claims before defining them as true.

correct.

Any decision to believe or act based on a claim that COULD be true but without evidence to assure it will require a ''leap of faith'' which is choosing without not knowing, your argument could be ''if can't be unproven then is not false so there is a possibility of it being true'' but that still is, for practical matters, a rationalization for your leap of faith since the decision has to be made based on nothing else than faith.

that is correct, my decision to believe in God and Christ is a leap of faith.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

Would you sell me a million dollar house just by having ''faith'' that the paper says the true?.

no I would not.

Why? If you can't assure that my claim isn't true then is not false neither, and if my claim isn't false because it can't be disproved then we could say is true as well, therefore I have a million dollars.

without sufficient evidence in either direction,  I would have no idea whether you had a million dollars.  I certainly would not sell you a house without more evidence that you had the funds to pay for it. 

If you are believing that the entire universe comes from a supreme being that sent himself/his son to save us all by dying an horrific death to later resurrect and ascend to the heavens just based on a book that has NO EVIDENCE to support all those claims then you should sell me the house.

nope.   I take it on faith that God and Christ are real.  Sorry, but I am not going to take it on faith that you have a million dollars.   It is the difference between a logic based decision and a faith based decision.

Warbler said:

dcalrkg said:

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

No,  I would say I doubt it is true.   For all I would know, you might have a million dollars or might not.  I certain would not sell you anything worth a million dollars with out further proof.  I also would not say "you're dirty stinking liar!".  I would not make such an accusation without further proof that you do not have a million dollars.

ftfy

If you demand further prove of my claim in order to sell me something then you're logically thinking that a piece of paper doesn't mean nothing, you may still think that there is a possibility for me having a million bucks but until that remains only a possibility you will take the claim as false and not sell me the house.

I don't know whether the claim is true or false.  I would not sell you a house until I knew it to be true.

You may not say that I'm a liar but your action does show mistrust,

I'd prefer calling it a lack of trust.

demanding more evidence of my claim is like: ''I'm not saying you are a liar but I don't belive you and I will require a little more than your claim on a piece of paper'', you are not saying I'm lying but you are saying that so far you don't believe it.

lets just say I'd be skeptical.

I could then tell you that my claim has not be disproved yet and since that does not make it false then YOU have to show me EVIDENCE of me NOT HAVING the million dollars... and probably you will tell me that you don't have any evidence other than me actually not having a million bucks but just a piece of paper saying so.

I don't have to show you any evidence. If I owned the house, it would be my decision of whether or not to sell it to you.   I don't have to prove that you don't have a million dollars before deciding not to sell you the house.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

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.

no can't, because it is not an "unproven true", it is simply unproven.

*sigh* 

if remove the ''true'' part it still makes sense... nevertheless ftfy

still, I would not sell you the house until it is proven true that you have a million dollars.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

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.

correct, I can not state as fact that is it true, but I do state that I believe it to be true and I have faith that it is true.

Oh I see, you can't say for a fact that the claim is true but you believe it to be true and have faith that is true, then you should as well believe that I have a million bucks and have faith in it, after all both claims are both on paper right? Let's believe and take on faith everything written on papers, what do you think?.

again, I take it on faith that Jesus is real, I do not take it on faith you have a million dollars.

Warbler said:

yes, you could come up with many things that were easy to doubt an ended up not be true.   But my point still stands.  That fact that something is easy to doubt doesn't necessarily make it false. 

Not necessarily but the absence of evidence makes it more likely don't you think?

I would agree.

Also is not necessarily true neither. The only weight that will shift the balance of a doubt between the opposites is ''evidence'', other than that is all philosophical rhetoric which does not make any claim real or false, just discussable as long as it remains as an uncertainty.  

I agree here.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

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.

you have just committed a logical fallacy.  absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Just because there is no evidence that he is real, doesn't necessarily mean he isn't.  

A prosecutor can't argue in court that just because there is no evidence of the defendant's innocence means the defendant is guilty.  The prosecutor must prove the defendant is guilty.

I guess you misread what I said, I didn't say that ''absence of evidence is evidence of absence'' I said: ''Without evidence there is no true at all'' and that ''my evidence that he is not real (dead or alive) is the mere ABSENCE of evidence'' which basically means that if you tell me to show you evidence of him not existing I would say that my evidence is the lack of your evidence proving it does. 

again, a prosecutor in court can not argue that since the defendant can't prove he is innocent,  he must be guilty.   My lack of evidence of Christ's existence doesn't prove he doesn't exist.

We already established that the non-existence of something can't be proved by other means that pointing out that absence of evidence for the claim or the mere absence of that thing/being... again, by that argument, minotaurs and unicorns are true, after all those beings were well documented in ancient books and no one can disprove them without evidence of their no-existence, right?

no it doesn't mean that montaurs or unicorns are true, it means they could be.   Something could be true until it is proven it isn't true.

Warbler said:

How do you provide evidence about the non-existence of something? Should I provide non-evidence?

I admit it would be difficult to prove the non-existence of something.  However at first, you said Jesus was dead.   To prove that you could show me the corpse if you have it.

How do you provide evidence about the non-existence of something? Should I provide non-evidence?

I admit it would be difficult to prove the non-existence of something.  However at first, you said Jesus was dead.   To prove that you could show me the corpse if you have it.

I already clarified on the beginning of my answer that I'm debating the existence but I'll play along...

I don't have Jesus corpse with me... do you happen to have any alive Jesus around your house that you can show me? You don't? what a bummer.

then, I guess I can't prove he exists and you can't prove he doesn't.   Which it what I was saying at the start of all this.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

My "false" claim is a result of the failure in presenting evidence to sustain the "true" claim.

I wouldn't call your claim false, just simply unproven until you prove it.

And so far you haven't prove anything.

You don't present evidence for any of your claims but you're desperately hanging to the only argument preventing your believes from being called false which is ''you can't disprove it then is not false just unproven'' and then demand evidence from me to prove the non-existence of something.

that is because my decision to believe Jesus is real is faith based.   Unless you want to tell me that your to to believe Jesus isn't real is faith based and not logic based, you have to prove your claim(especially when you state it as fact and not opinion or belief. ) 

I would love to see how you manage to get trough your every day living situations with those rationalizations as a guide.

I get through the day just fine, thankyou.

I would expect evidence or at least better arguments for the existence of such a powerful being like Jesus who can transcend human boundaries and knows it all.

I don't have evidence, just faith.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"'

or a leap of faith.

Warbler said:

dcalrkg said:

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.

no, my logic doesn't mean those things are real.  It only means that until evidence is provided that they are not real, they could be real.  It would only mean they are real if someone provided proof they are real.  Without evidence of either, we don't know if they are real or not.

You really like that argument right?

I like it just fine.

I'm tired of explaining this over and over so I will just say it straight: without evidence for your claim you just end up with a philosophical impasse that can't hold up for itself on the real world, you rather give a claim the absurdity of being both true and false at the same time based on philosophy than make the judgement based on logic, we may not know for sure if something is real or not but the evidence (or lack of) is what tells us which one is more likely to be like with the example of my million bucks.

I don't claim anything is true and false at the same time.  I claim that without evidence, I don't know if something is true or if it is false.

All this philosophical rhetoric reminds me a great quote:
“Philosophy begins where religion ends, just as by analogy chemistry begins where alchemy runs out, and astronomy takes the place of astrology.”

I guess you ran out of religious arguments, we've spent a lot of time arguing about ''is not false is unproven'' like if that was evidence.

 I was never trying to prove that Christ existed.  I was only trying show that it is possible that Christ exists. 

 It is possible that I'm actually Michael Jackson's ghost, posting from beyond the grave.  Everything is possible.

Also, dogs in hats.

 Jesus, this quote string is long.

 

 

Alright, don't say you guys didn't see this coming ...