Belief vs. Fact

[Hammster]

Changing a claim as an erroneous statement of fact into a statement of belief is in fact a correction. If you insist on calling your beliefs fact without supporting and compelling evidence, then you misunderstand what fact is. What you say may in fact be true (however overwhelmingly unlikely that may be, since extremely improbable is not the same as impossible), however until such time as you can back it up, you cannot legitimately make such statements pretending they are facts.

I have made my point numerous times, and so the ball is in your court and the only way you can put it in mine is to provide that pesky compelling evidence. Until then, all you have is belief...not fact.

My statement wasn't in error. You've no evidence that it is.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[MarkFL]

My statement wasn't in error. You've no evidence that it is.

I honestly can't believe you would say that, but then you have backed yourself into a corner from which there is no escape and you are just wildly swinging at the air now.

That's not the way it works...at all...you made the claim, it is naturally and logically up to you to back it up. You don't get to make any kind of claim and then require me to disprove it. What kind of utter nonsense would that be?

 

[Hammster]

I honestly can't believe you would say that, but then you have backed yourself into a corner from which there is no escape and you are just wildly swinging at the air now.

That's not the way it works...at all...you made the claim, it is naturally and logically up to you to back it up. You don't get to make any kind of claim and then require me to disprove it. What kind of utter nonsense would that be?

The claim I've made repeatedly, which has gone ignored thus far, is that you will not believe unless the Spirit works in you.

For instance, you will reject the resurrection of Christ because its supernatural, and you don't believe in the supernatural. So even though there's historical evidence for the resurrection, you will reject that evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[MarkFL]

The claim I've made repeatedly, which has gone ignored thus far, is that you will not believe unless the Spirit works in you.

No...I simply need compelling evidence...I don't need some supernatural nudging. I have not ignored this belief of yours, simply dismissed it as yet another belief for which there is no compelling evidence.

For instance, you will reject the resurrection of Christ because its supernatural, and you don't believe in the supernatural. So even though there's historical evidence for the resurrection, you will reject that evidence.

Yes, I naturally reject the claim that the dead can become reanimated and live again, because it goes against everything we know about biology. There is no compelling evidence that anyone ever rose from the dead ever. You can't just say "there is evidence," you have to provide it.

 

[Hammster]

No...I simply need compelling evidence...I don't need some supernatural nudging. I have not ignored this belief of yours, simply dismissed it as yet another belief for which there is no compelling evidence.



Yes, I naturally reject the claim that the dead can become reanimated and live again, because it goes against everything we know about biology. There is no compelling evidence that anyone ever rose from the dead ever. You can't just say "there is evidence," you have to provide it.

There is historical evidence which you reject. So it goes to my point that unless the Spirit does a work in you, you will not believe.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[psalms 91]

I would suggest Josephus as a good read for you

 

[Hammster]

I think Matthew, Mark, Luke (both books), and John to be good reads.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[MarkFL]

There is historical evidence which you reject.

Where?

 

[Hammster]

Where?

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. For starters.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[MarkFL]

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. For starters.

Evidence...not scripture. But then you knew that.

Let me know if and when you are ready to be serious and have a real discussion rather than engage in a comedy routine.

 

[Hammster]

Evidence...not scripture. But then you knew that.

Let me know if and when you are ready to be serious and have a real discussion rather than engage in a comedy routine.

It's historical. And like I said, you reject it. And not for any reason other than your presuppositions.


So far you have affirmed everything I've stated as far as belief is concerned.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[MarkFL]

No, it more hysterical than historical...your side of this discussion that is.

You have to actually present the evidence first...you can't just lazily say" it's there." It's like you have never had a serious discussion before where you have to back up what you say.

 

[Hammster]

I didn't lazily say it's there. I said there are historical documents from eye witnesses. And I can tell you where to find them. And I said you would discount them. And I gave the reason.

And I told you what must happen in order for you to believe.

I think I've covered everything.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[MarkFL]

...I think I've covered everything.

Except actually presenting any evidence.

 

[Hammster]

Except actually presenting any evidence.

Just to see if you've paid attention to what I've been saying, why have I said that I will not present the type of evidence you want?


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[MarkFL]

Just to see if you've paid attention to what I've been saying, why have I said that I will not present the type of evidence you want?

The actual reason you have ducked and dodged and bobbed and weaved to avoid my reasonable request for 8 pages is because you simply CANNOT present any compelling evidence. There is none. If there was, then your religion would not require faith before accepting its tenets as true.

But you are too stubborn to admit your claims about my need for salvation are merely faith-based belief, not based on any compelling evidence, and therefore you cannot legitimately state them as fact. I don't for a second believe you are too dim to understand this, so I must conclude that you are purposefully being obstinate.

 

[Hammster]

Why have I said that I will not present the type of evidence you want? That was my question. You're response didn't address that, and it has false conclusions.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.