logo Sign In

dclarkg

User Group
Members
Join date
17-Oct-2014
Last activity
7-Jun-2023
Posts
265

Post History

Post
#769513
Topic
LCD TV Questions
Time

GundarkHunter said:

Plus the fact that most HD displays @ this point still are not capable of displaying 1080x1920, the full resolution of the highest HD standard.

 And ten years later...

http://www.trustedreviews.com/samsung-110-inch-glassless-3d-8k-s9-series-tv-review

It's funny since I'm currently watching ''A&E Intervention'' on Netflix which is basically old episodes from season 1 and 2 (2005 and 2006), besides the show being in 4:3 format I just can't help to notice that all TV's shown in the episodes are old CRTs, also all cell phones are regular nokia/motorola non-touch screen devices.

10 years... go figure

Post
#768657
Topic
After the Sequel Trilogy Concludes... Then What?
Time

NeverarGreat said:

It's not a question of could they, it's should they.

 Yes, they should!

darklordoftech said:

Why get bogged down in a story that's already been told when there's so many stories that haven't been told? There's a whole galaxy and a thousand generations of history to explore.

 I'm not saying that it should be a priority but it would be a nice bitch slap to Lucas.

They could do a trilogy between the PT and the OT as well, there are enough years to explore between the ROTS and SW to make something epic about the early years of Vader and the genesis of the rebellion... at least dreaming is free (for now).

Post
#768636
Topic
Episode VII: The Force Awakens - Discussion * <strong>SPOILER THREAD</strong> *
Time

luckydube56 said:

AntcuFaalb said:

Anchorhead said:

Yet I'm beyond excited and completely on-board with the seventh film now that Lucas is completely uninvolved.

I am too, but it has less to do with Lucas' lack of involvement for me and more to do with the following image.

Yay!

 Agree.  Taken straight from the Cantina.  Look at the droid.  Why wouldn't there be a female pirate droid?  Of course there would be.  There is a droid bounty hunter in ESB.  There is definitely a Star Wars look to the whole thing that extends beyond the troopers or the falcon. 

 some original Mos Eisley Cantina aliens, I do get the OT vibe on the new images/trailer! So far I'm going to the first midnight premier screening, let's hope the upcoming trailers keep me in the same path.

Post
#768436
Topic
AMC Star Wars Marathon .....
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Now that home TVs are getting so big I think it takes the incentive of sitting in a dingy, crowded, noisy, disgusting, miserable, overpriced, and uncomfortable movie theater away. Now that film is rarely used, there is even less incentive. I can listen to people talk and get coughed on by a 2 year old while watching a movie at home for free.

 Amen brother

Post
#768423
Topic
The Boba Fett movie
Time

I'm sure the movie will be more OT (and hopefully, ST as well) oriented with the story taking place after ROTJ, the best way of dismissing the PT is not even trying to get it right, just ignoring it completely. I'm hoping that the opening scene will be him escaping from the PIT and then the story will take it from there, any historic references of the character must be as OT as they can be and if they can even contradict the PT even better!

Post
#768142
Topic
Harmy's RETURN OF THE JEDI Despecialized Edition HD - V3.1
Time

Emissary35 said:

Also I noticed when Darth Vadar has his helmet removed an attempt was made to replace his eyebrows that Lucas decided to wax off for the special editions for some unknown reason.  The restoration needs a bit of tweaking to get those brows right, but apart from that the movie is absolutely flawless, and I can't wait for version 2.0.  Thanks so much!

 This will be fixed indeed, according to Harmy.

Post
#768140
Topic
The Boba Fett movie
Time

Well, it’s practically confirmed: The next “Star Wars” anthology movie due in 2018 that recently lost director Josh Trank will be a Boba Fett origin story, confirming one of many rumors that have appeared online in the last several months, TheWrap has learned.’’

Source: http://www.thewrap.com/star-wars-2nd-anthology-film-will-be-boba-fetts-origin-story/

See also:
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/05/boba-fett-star-wars-spinoff
http://www.slashfilm.com/boba-fett-origin/
http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/436857-the-second-star-wars-anthology-film-is-reportedly-a-boba-fett-movie#/slide/1

Also Josh Trank won’t be directing the film anymore.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3067318/Upcoming-Star-Wars-movie-suffers-early-setback-director-Josh-Trank-announces-s-dropped-high-profile-project.html

A Boba Fett movie is no surprise for me, is one of the top 3 characters I assume would be getting a spin off. My only concern with the spin offs is the consistency across the whole ST/Anthology films, I don’t want to see a magnificent TFA, a bad ‘‘Rogue One’’ then a mediocre episode VIII and a horrific Boba Fett movie. I hope Disney implements QA controls for the entire project.

Post
#767201
Topic
Video Games - a general discussion thread
Time

doubleofive said:

I was looking at the TIE Fighter GOG had up, most of the reviews were complaining it wasn't the CD-ROM Collector's Edition. But now GOG says that is coming, so now I wonder if I can still play it with a mouse and keyboard (with invincibility on, of course).

 

Tobar said:

Yeah when they first released it, it was the original release. But just this weekend they added the CD-ROM edition and upgraded everyone who had already bought it for free.

I've heard you can now play with controller support as well if you don't own a joystick.

 I'm just waiting on some cash in the card to get the xwing/tie fighter games now that they have the collector's cd edition, that is THE best version for both games.

I played the original CD collectors edition of Tie fighter 16 years ago and finished it with the mouse and keyboard (had no joystick), it may sound a pain in the ass and it was actually, but once you get on track with the learning curve is not that hard. PS: Remove your mouse pad and get some space for the mouse since you'll be doing a loooooooot of huge mouse movements.

Post
#767064
Topic
Share your good news!
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

I'm drunk off my ass right now.

Yes, yes, I know -- alcholism's a bane on society, and I know all too well from personal experience the strife it brings on others. That being said, the few times I have the opportunity to get inebriated are the one times I feel truly happy (It's an artificial joy, I know, but artificial joy is better than none at all.).

 I'm completely high right now and I feel quite normal, actually I'm at work but I'm not stressed at all. That's a real joy ;)

Post
#766886
Topic
The Scientology Thread (was: Ask the Ex-Scientologist Anything)
Time

Neglify said:

Adolfhipster said:

Please invite me, thanks

Ok. I've sent your name and address to the Scientology Mother Church. Agents will be picking you up momentarily. Say goodbye to family, friends and sanity. You're in Scientology now!!

Let me share some comedy among the group

 ''First time I heard the story of Scientology I was like, that is the dumbest shit I have ever heard in my life, it was like: Hey, everybody there’s a space ship coming back, everybody’s getting sneakers, this is Tom Cruise...

And I said that is the dumbest shit I have ever heard, while simultaneously still kind of believing that a woman who never got fucked, had a baby that walked on water, died and came back three days later, so...''
Bill Burr

Post
#766693
Topic
Star Wars GOUT in HD using super resolution algorithm (* unfinished project *)
Time

DrDre said:

To give you an idea how the HD GOUT is created, I will roughly describe the steps to create it.

First a raw super resolution upscale is created with the super resolution script I wrote:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/123952

This raw upscale has the enhanced detail, but also has enhanced grain and unwanted noise. Therefore in the next step the raw upscale is filtered with a non-linear filter I wrote to get rid of the grain and excess noise:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/123956

Some of the detail is removed in this intermediate step, but this can be recovered. By applying the same filter on the Spline64Resize upscale and adding the difference to the filtered super resolution upscale the final result is obtained:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/123957

As you can see below, the final result has the detail of the raw super resolution upscale and the grain and noise structure of the original GOUT:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/123815

 

DrDre said:

By tomorrow the first 7-8 min of Star Wars should be finished. I will post the first part here as another sample. The script now takes up so much memory I have to process the movie 10.000-15.000 frames at a time (taking about 48 hours to process). Here's one of the iconic shots from the opening from Star Wars in yet another screenshot comparison ;-):

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/124203

Aside from the enhanced detail, it's interesting to note how much brighter the stars are in the super resolution version.

 I just can't believe how well this is looking, great detail and amazing effort to get the best out of the GOUT crappy video. Keep up!

Post
#766688
Topic
Episode VII: The Force Awakens - Discussion * <strong>SPOILER THREAD</strong> *
Time

SilverWook said:

It looked like a wrecked Super Stardestroyer to me. The regular SD seen in the opening shot wasn't upside down, and it's bridge tower was intact.

 It is a SSD, before the zooom in you can see the other sets of engines in the background, the one in the intro is a regular SD (there is also a wrecked X-WING on the front)

Post
#763850
Topic
A moment of chastisement
Time

darth_ender said:

Gosh, I haven't gotten back to you dclarkg.  It's a shame because you're the passionate atheist I enjoy debating.  It's frustrating with the large comment deleted and now so behind in the discussion, but I'll try to jump on board soon.

 That's ok, these kind of debates require time to be properly discussed and sometimes there isn't enough, the good thing is that the same nature of the discussion allows it to be picked up at anytime and at any point so don't feel obligated to catch up when we can start from scratch without problems ;)

RicOlie_2 said:

The difference between a leap of faith in selling a house and in believing in Christianity is that there is a great loss if the buyer of the house doesn't actually have the money, but no such loss (unless you go all the way and become a hermit, or something) in being a Christian. However, by deciding not to be a Christian because there isn't sufficient evidence (while not seeing any other reason that it isn't true) entails a great loss in the afterlife, whether it's not going to heaven, or spending a long time in purgatory, or not being able to experience heaven in the same way as those who took the leap of faith (it could be any of those--I don't claim to know exactly how God judges).

However, there could well be other reasons for not believing than lack of evidence. I see no need to go into that now, so I'll leave you with that argument for now.

 1- I don't see any good reasons for not believing in Christianity or any other religion in general other than a complete absence of evidence, what else would you need?

2-Of course there is a bigger loss in the house example since the consequences are immediate and we know those are going to be real, but becoming a christian just to play a ''safe side'' in case the whole deal is real looks like fear impulse and not a love impulse, that's precisely another thing I despise of religions because it also uses fear as a motive to sustain it's premises, the fear of god is a primary component of the religious faith because horrific consequences are always presented as a certainty if you don't comply with the dogma. First of all, what kind of all-powefull-loving god blackmails his entire creation with horrendous punishments if we use the free will that himself gave us? Second, why would I be scared of ''holly punishment'' presented in the same book that I don't believe in? If you are an atheist you won't believe in any of the religious propositions, you just don't care what they say.

Warbler said:

No, logically and scientifically speaking, I can't say with 100% certainty that he exists.   But I believe he exists.  I have faith he exists. 

 I quote myself: '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:

 yes, I logical conclusion that he doesn't exist, but not a 100% certain one.   You maybe able to say it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt Christ does not exist.  But you can't say it is a 100% certainty.   It is possible(not probable) that he exists.  

I think that is all I have to say on this for now.

 By that rationalization then we can't rule out the existence of pixies, unicorns, trolls, witches, Easter bunnies, tooth fairies and so on because ''is not 100% certain those don't exist'' which puts your entire religion next to those same things with the only difference being the amount of people that believe them as true. You are just choosing one mythological story over the others and wishing very hard that it is real, and despite the fact that you already claimed that is not even probable and that you don't have any evidence you still go trough your everyday decisions, opinions and actions deeply influenced by you taking the bible ''by faith'' as true. It's amazing how can a believer be aware of the slim chances of the existence of something or a claim being true and then just neglect that fact and act like it is true.

You don't go to church, pray to Jesus and follow the bible teachings with such devotion while simultaneously believing that all of that is ''just probable'' at best, somewhere in your brain the ''faith'' has convinced you that all the story is true despite all signs pointing in the opposite direction and that makes sense since ''faith'' is  ''...belief, confidence or trust in a person, object, religion, idea or view despite the absence of proof.''

At least we can conclude that Jesus is on the same level that any other gods, legends, mythic creatures and any super magical mystical beings that we can invent and not ''disproved 100% percent'', also we can conclude that anybody can pick one and just have 'faith'' in it, and finally we can conclude that Jesus is not a reality, just a slim philosophical probability.

I hope you are willing to debate in the future ;)

TV's Frink said:

 Can you say with 100% certainty that he does exist?

C'mon, you know you want to be agnostic too. ;-)

 Yeah, agnosticism is a way better position for a ''I logically conclude that he doesn't exist, but not as a 100% certainty '' argument.

Post
#763590
Topic
A moment of chastisement
Time

    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.

Post
#763566
Topic
Episode VII: The Force Awakens - Discussion * <strong>SPOILER THREAD</strong> *
Time

Gogogadget said:

SilverWook said:

Gogogadget said:

Calling George Lucas legendary and saying any of his movies are masterpieces is hilarious, really. Especially if you've seen pretty much any actual masterpieces from actual legendary directors.

 Legendary director Stanley Kubrick was a fan. ;)

“If I made as much money as George Lucas, I would not decide to become a studio mogul. I cannot understand why he doesn’t want to direct films anymore, because American Graffiti and even Star Wars were very good.”

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/polls-surveys/stanley-kubrick-cinephile

That quote actually says a lot about Stanley Kubrick tbh. George Lucas became a studio mogul because it would eventually make him a billionaire. No amount of money would ever not make Stanley Kubrick a filmmaker, it was his entire life up until the day he died.

 If Kubrick had earn the same amount of money than Lucas he would have  spent it in making movies, I'm sure he would have use a few hundred millions in filming the Napoleon film he always wanted... he was truly passionate of movie making.

Post
#762651
Topic
A moment of chastisement
Time

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

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? Would you be willing to take any actions like selling me a house while maintaining a uncertainty? Would you take ANY actions or decisions in your everyday life taking as true a particular subject while remaining ignorant about it?. 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.

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. 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.

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.

1- ''Lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact''

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?.

Warbler said:

dclarkg said:

Basically you'll end up with like a sort of Schrödinger's Jesus.

?

A funny reference to Schrödinger's cat

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? 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.  

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. 

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?

 

Warbler said:

dclarkg 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.

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.

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

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.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"'

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'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.

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.

Post
#762465
Topic
A moment of chastisement
Time

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.