A moment of chastisement — Page 5

TV's Frink said:

Since when is the world round?  Have you looked outside lately?

 *sigh*

Frank your Majesty said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

Since when is the world round?  Have you looked outside lately?

 *sigh*

 *sigh*

 *nods*

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

Since when is the world round?  Have you looked outside lately?

 *sigh*

 I'd like to see you prove it's round.

And even if that wasn't the case, it easily could have been Photoshopped.

*cries*

Warbler said:

*cries*

 *flies*

The reptilian species that lives underground is laughing at you all right now as they approach to consume our blood.

^I'll bet huzesni is their ringleader.

Dang!  I was composing a nice reply to dclarkeg and my browser shut down.  Now I'll have to retype it, and I don't have the time right now :(

I hate it when that happens.

DuracellEnergizer said:

^I'll bet huzesni is their ringleader.

^^I'll bet Frink paid him .....  LOL 

You're hilarious!

Fo sho.  Get it?  Clever right?

Immensely.

indeed! I wholeheartedly agree with dclarkg!

There's no point in demanding proof for something that can't be proved.

dclarkg said:

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''.

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. 

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.

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

no I would not.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.    

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. 

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.

, 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.

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.

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. 

Blind Faith is the answer here.  As I am agnostic I am willing to believe if one can provide me with irrefutable proof.  Since there isn't any actual proof of Jesus' existence or his connection with the Lord, God Almighty, I move on.  

The Bible itself had so many contributors and edits that it is difficult for anyone to prove that it is anything more than just a guide on how one could live their own life.

Now Frink, he is real, I know all to well, LOL.  I believe he exists because I KNOW he exists .... I don't wish him harm because he does .... but I do like to give him a hard time on occasion ....... just because he exists.

:)

Nah, I'm just a sophisticated program Jay wrote to keep his moderators on their toes.

TV's Frink said:

Nah, I'm just a sophisticated program Jay wrote to keep his moderators on their toes.

 "Sophisticated" is a bit of a strong word for a bot that automatically responds to posts with hackneyed morning-DJ-style, rimshot-worthy, groan-inducing ripostes like "they have a cream for that."

Let's just say, "persistent."