• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jesus Christ’s Resurrection Is Probably The Best-Documented Historical Event Ever

TU Curmudgeon said:
Indeed, and anything that you define as "NOT evidence" isn't evidence either.

However, you should possibly consider stopping struggling to convince the world that I have been saying something that I have specifically not said (and which you know I have specifically not said).

I have NOT said that there is any concrete, verifiable, reliable evidence to support either the postulate "There IS a God." or the postulate "There IS NOT a God."

In fact I have repeatedly says that there IS NOT any concrete, verifiable, reliable evidence to support either the postulate "There IS a God." or the postulate "There IS NOT a God." and so NEITHER postulate can be considered to have been PROVEN.
Click to expand...

That's fine because there is no such thing as anything being proven. So you are just stating the obvious and not stating anything that is not common knowledge. So you are pretty much using too many words to say nothing of consequence.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
That is a positive "assertion of fact" - do you really want to go down that road?

See above.

Indeed, some force creates them. Now what motivates that force?

Indeed, some force creates them. Now what motivates that force?

More correctly

"Based on what we know today, the correct answer does not appear to be going to be the deities of pre-scientific knowledge,
BUT
we still don't know everything and so that might change (but don't bet the mortgage money on it)."​
Click to expand...

Natural phenomenon are not "motivated by some force".
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Absence of evidence can be a very good way of deciding how to bet.

It is NOT, however, and absolutely invariable guide to ensure that you will win the bet.

For example, based on the evidence, no rational person would have bet that Donerail would win the Kentucky Derby. However, someone who had "faith" in Donerail would have made a tidy sum if they had bet $1,000 that Donerail would win.
Click to expand...

No, someone didn't have to have faith they just had to bet on a long shot based on nothing.
 
Not really, the holocaust was much more documented and did not 100% rely on eyewitness testimony.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Absence of evidence can be a very good way of deciding how to bet.

It is NOT, however, and absolutely invariable guide to ensure that you will win the bet.

For example, based on the evidence, no rational person would have bet that Donerail would win the Kentucky Derby. However, someone who had "faith" in Donerail would have made a tidy sum if they had bet $1,000 that Donerail would win.
Click to expand...
Research =\= betting.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
So what?

Once again, since I have never claimed that gods existed, why should I prove a claim that I did not make?

I do NOT. I believe in the "One True Brassica Napus" - Turnips {BBTN}. Those deluded people who are followers of Rutabagas are followers of a false vegetable and are doomed to spend all of eternity in gastrointestinal torment.
Click to expand...

You are not using belief correctly in this context. Do people consider rutabagas something that requires belief to know that they exist as they do for a god. Are gods and rutabagas in the same category when it comes to belief? Neither requires you to follow a religion.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
That is a positive "assertion of fact" - do you really want to go down that road?

See above.

Indeed, some force creates them. Now what motivates that force?

Indeed, some force creates them. Now what motivates that force?

More correctly

"Based on what we know today, the correct answer does not appear to be going to be the deities of pre-scientific knowledge,
BUT
we still don't know everything and so that might change (but don't bet the mortgage money on it)."​
Click to expand...

And how will these deities be detected using the scientific method unless these deities are physical things?
 
devildavid said:
No, someone didn't have to have faith they just had to bet on a long shot based on nothing.
Click to expand...
True, you do sometimes win wagers based on what appears to be random betting.

However, that is NOT going to win you a lot of money at poker.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Would you like to provide the concrete, verifiable, reliable, evidence upon which you based that "assertion of fact"?
Click to expand...

Science has already done that for us. Your assertion of some "force that motivates" has no evidence of any kind to back it. So your assertion is not factual, mine is.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
True, you do sometimes win wagers based on what appears to be random betting.

However, that is NOT going to win you a lot of money at poker.
Click to expand...

You win a lot of money when a long shot comes in even if you are a terrible gambler the rest of the time.
 
bomberfox said:
Not really, the holocaust was much more documented and did not 100% rely on eyewitness testimony.
Click to expand...
That is not going to convince those who know that **T*H*E** **T*R*U*T*H** is that the so-called "Holocaust" never actually happened and that all of the so-called "documentary evidence" is fake and that all of the so-called "witnesses" are lying in order to promote the International Jewish Conspiracy.
 
bomberfox said:
Research =\= betting.
Click to expand...
Actually research is an endeavor designed to assist you in knowing how to act in order that you will achieve the desired results in the greatest percentage of cases.

IOW "research" tells you "how to bet".
 
devildavid said:
You are not using belief correctly in this context.
Click to expand...
I used the word "belief" in exactly the same sense that you wrote it.
devildavid said:
Do people consider rutabagas something that requires belief to know that they exist as they do for a god.
Click to expand...
Someone who has never seen a rutabaga will rely on documentary evidence generally compiled by someone that they do not know but whom they have been told is reliable in order to decide whether they believe that rutabagas exist.

Someone who has never seen a god will rely on documentary evidence generally compiled by someone that they do not know but whom they have been told is reliable in order to decide whether they believe that gods exist.

Those two sentences, of course, have absolutely nothing whatsoever in common.
devildavid said:
Are gods and rutabagas in the same category when it comes to belief? Neither requires you to follow a religion.
Click to expand...
See above.
 
devildavid said:
And how will these deities be detected using the scientific method unless these deities are physical things?
Click to expand...
Not being omniscient, I have no answer to your question, but that does not mean that I deny that an answer to your question might not exist.
 
devildavid said:
Science has already done that for us. Your assertion of some "force that motivates" has no evidence of any kind to back it. So your assertion is not factual, mine is.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but "Because I say so." does not qualify as concrete, verifiable, reliable, evidence.

Please try again.
 
devildavid said:
You win a lot of money when a long shot comes in even if you are a terrible gambler the rest of the time.
Click to expand...
Yes you do. And you also have to remember the old Latin maxim

Non contare mai i tuoi soldi finché non lasci il tavolo.
Never count your money until you leave the table.​
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Someone who has never seen a rutabaga will rely on documentary evidence generally compiled by someone that they do not know but whom they have been told is reliable in order to decide whether they believe that rutabagas exist.

Someone who has never seen a god will rely on documentary evidence generally compiled by someone that they do not know but whom they have been told is reliable in order to decide whether they believe that gods exist.
Click to expand...

There is objective, reality-based evidence for rutabagas. There is none for “God”.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Not being omniscient, I have no answer to your question, but that does not mean that I deny that an answer to your question might not exist.
Click to expand...

The “anything is possible” line of “debate”. Totally ridiculous, as always.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom