Warbler said:
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.
Sure, the son of god could also appear to all mankind at the same time or at least supply some evidence that he is real and all other religions are just not correct so ''faith'' isn't required anymore.
Warbler said:
dclarkg said
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.
You could use that principle to claim the possibility of anything since the imagination is the only boundary, that is why EVIDENCE is so important since the real world is not made over claims that could be possible because they can't be disproved, you can sustain and abstract claim by a philosophical impasse but that is way different than a proven fact.
Warbler said:
that is correct, my decision to believe in God and Christ is a leap of faith.
I really appreciate your honesty here since many believers don't mind to just shut themselves and say that the bible is 100% true and period, at least you are trying a philosophical argument that it may not solve the question but at least it promotes the exchange of ideas.
Warbler said:
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.
The question was not on you deciding whether to sell or not the house but on me using your ''prove me the non-existence of Jesus'' argument applied to my million dollars.
Warbler said:
still, I would not sell you the house until it is proven true that you have a million dollars.
That means that you require EVIDENCE on the matter, not a leap of faith.
Warbler said:
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.
But you know that before a trial can be held an accusation has to be made and the EVIDENCE of the accusation must be presented to the judge and he/she will decide if a trial proceeds based on EVIDENCE.
Also your lack of evidence may not prove that he doesn't exists but the reality of the world we live in has taught us that a claim without evidence is way more likely to be false. I can't say that Jesus doesn't exists 100% for sure and that is only because of the philosophical catch-22 that you propose but I can assure you that is far from being a 50% - 50% chance, even if we say that there is a 50% - 50% chance of Jesus existing still makes it unacceptable for a all-known-all-powerful entity, is just absurd.
Warbler said:
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.
Again, if we use that argument then we could just make up things because ''nothing is known for sure'', basically ANYTHING you can think off automatically has a possibility of existence but we know that can't happen, the possibilities must be tied to the real world and not to abstract philosophical ideas.
Warbler said:
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:
I was never trying to prove that Christ existed. I was only trying show that it is possible that Christ exists.
Still not enough for a supreme being that is bigger than the entire existence of everything, the existence of such deity can't be hold on a mere possibility .
Warbler said:
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 don't just choose not to believe, the logic behind not existing evidence just lead me to a very logic conclusion.