Can one disprove Jesus' resurrection?

[H'ethetheth]

I claim you owe me a million.

Unless you can prove different start writing a check.

I'm sure this bit of socratic sarcasm meant something in your head, tsig, but if you would have read what I've said in this thread, you would know that the burden of proof for your claim is on you.

Prove it!

 

[Leumas]

I'm sure this bit of socratic sarcasm meant something in your head, tsig, but if you would have read what I've said in this thread, you would know that the burden of proof for your claim is on you.

Nonsense... you claimed this

If someone tries to prove that the resurrection did or didn't occur, the person making either claim has the burden of proof.

This is silly, only the person making the original claim has the burden of proof.

...for that claim, yes.
If someone else claims the opposite of the original claim, they have the burden of proof of the opposite claim.

I am witness to you signing an IOU stating that you owe tsig a million dollars.

Are you claiming that my eyewitness testimony is not true?

Then according to your very own nonsense the burden of proof is on you... you said it.

Your very own illogic puts the onus of proof on you.... can you disprove that you do not owe tsig a million dollars?

I am an eyewitness willing to attest to the IOU you signed.

Do you deny that you signed it? Can you prove that you did not sign it? Your very own claptrap and nonsensical illogic that you wrote yourself puts the burden of proof on you!

Are you backing out of your own words?

Are you willing to concede your mistake and admit that your illogic is nonsense and wrong?

We have shown you a clear example of how your above imbecilic illogic when applied to any other situation than your God it causes a TOPSY TURVY mad world.

So are you still going to plod on defending against all logic your SPECIAL PLEADING?

 

[H'ethetheth]

Nonsense... you claimed this

If someone else claims the opposite of the original claim, they have the burden of proof of the opposite claim.

I am witness to you signing an IOU stating that you owe tsig a million dollars.

Are you claiming that my eyewitness testimony is not true?

Then according to your very own nonsense the burden of proof is on you... you said it.

Yes, it would be, if it weren't for the fact that I don't actually claim that your eye-witness testimony isn't true. Who the hell knows what you think you saw, or what mental health problems you may have that cause you to see things?

I will claim I don't believe you though, so don't expect me to be pay up anytime soon. A scan of an IOU with my signature on it would go a long way to convince me, or some kind of document showing that I have received something from tsig that would cause me to owe him a million dollars.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Also:

... can you disprove that you do not owe tsig a million dollars?

Hahaha, what? You mustn't fail to consider not using multiple negatives if you aren't sure what you shouldn't be refraining from.

 

[tsig]

Yes, it would be, if it weren't for the fact that I don't actually claim that your eye-witness testimony isn't true. Who the hell knows what you think you saw, or what mental health problems you may have that cause you to see things?

I will claim I don't believe you though, so don't expect me to be pay up anytime soon. A scan of an IOU with my signature on it would go a long way to convince me, or some kind of document showing that I have received something from tsig that would cause me to owe him a million dollars.

I won't hold my breath.

Sorry but according to you I do not have to prove my claim so it's up to you to disprove it.

Got any proof you don't owe my money?

 

[H'ethetheth]

Sorry but according to you I do not have to prove my claim so it's up to you to disprove it.

No. Try again tsig. **ETA: By which I mean that that is not according to me. I cannot understand how that would be what you get from my posts. Not even Leumas thinks I think that.

Got any proof you don't owe my money?

I reply thusly:
I am unconvinced.

 

[Leumas]

Yes, it would be, if it weren't for the fact that I don't actually claim that your eye-witness testimony isn't true. Who the hell knows what you think you saw, or what mental health problems you may have that cause you to see things?

Ah... the next step when casuists abysmally fail in the argument is to call people pointing out their illogic as crazy mentally disturbed people.

Congratulations... you have just passed the casuists' membership exam.

I will claim I don't believe you though, ...

So you are claiming that I am lying and thus it is according to your imbecilic illogical statement that the burden of proof is on you.

...
If someone else claims the opposite of the original claim, they have the burden of proof of the opposite claim.

 

[Leumas]

No. Try again tsig. **ETA: By which I mean that that is not according to me. I cannot understand how that would be what you get from my posts. Not even Leumas thinks I think that.


I reply thusly:
I am unconvinced.

But yet you are convinced that Jesus was resurrected and hold that it is only logical that anyone who says they are not convinced must prove the resurrection did not occur.

Why all this SPECIAL PLEADING for Jesus?

 

[tsig]

...for that claim, yes.
If someone else claims the opposite of the original claim, they have the burden of proof of the opposite claim.

No. Try again tsig. **ETA: By which I mean that that is not according to me. I cannot understand how that would be what you get from my posts. Not even Leumas thinks I think that.


I reply thusly:
I am unconvinced.

My claim:

You owe me money

Your counter claim:

I do not owe you money, so:



If someone else claims the opposite of the original claim, they have the burden of proof of the opposite claim

By your own words you have to prove you don't owe me money.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Ah... the next step when casuists abysmally fail in the argument is to call people pointing out their illogic as crazy mentally disturbed people.

Congratulations... you have just passed the casuists' membership exam.

Yes yes, that is "exactly" what I said. Your reading skills are perhaps only surpassed by your prose.

So you are claiming that I am lying and thus it is according to your imbecilic illogic the burden of proof is on you.

Ah, so that is your problem. You are of the opnion that being unconvinced of the truth of some statement is the same thing as believing a statement is untrue.

Other than pointing out that this is incorrect, I'm not sure how to help.

 

[H'ethetheth]

My claim:

You owe me money

Your counter claim:

I do not owe you money, so:

Let me stop you right there, tsig.

I don't claim that. I don't have to claim that, because I can just wait for you to start producing some actual evidence for your claim.
I am not convinced, meaning I'll need more convincement, preferrably by means of evidence.

"Prove it", as the fella says.

 

[H'ethetheth]

But yet you are convinced that Jesus was resurrected and hold that it is only logical that anyone who says they are not convinced must prove the resurrection did not occur.

Why all this SPECIAL PLEADING for Jesus?

It's astounding what you read into statements less than 100% in agreement with you.

Here, let me help: I, H'ethetheth, am unconvinced the character from the bible named Jesus existed.

Are you now more confused, or less?

 

[Leumas]

It's astounding what you read into statements less than 100% in agreement with you.

Here, let me help: I, H'ethetheth, am unconvinced the character from the bible named Jesus existed.

Are you now more confused, or less?

So according to your illogic you carry the burden of proof.

I think the one who is confused here is only you.

What is confusing you is the illogic you keep spouting in defense of your errors.

...
If someone else claims the opposite of the original claim, they have the burden of proof of the opposite claim.

 

[Leumas]

...Ah, so that is your problem. You are of the opnion that being unconvinced of the truth of some statement is the same thing as believing a statement is untrue.

Other than pointing out that this is incorrect, I'm not sure how to help.

Magical illogic!

 

[H'ethetheth]

So according to your illogic you carry the burden of proof.

I think the one who is confused here is only you.

What is confusing you is the illogic you keep spouting in defense of your errors.

The statement "I am unconvinced Jesus existed" is not equivalent to the statement "Jesus did not exist."

The statement "I am unconvinced Jesus existed" is not equivalent to the statement "I believe Jesus did not exist."

The statement "I am unconvinced I owe money to tsig" is not equivalent to the statement "I do not owe money to tsig."

The statement "I do not believe I owe money to tsig" is not equivalent to the statement "I believe I do not owe money to tsig."

Are you aware of this?

 

[H'ethetheth]

Ah, so that is your problem. You are of the opnion that being unconvinced of the truth of some statement is the same thing as believing a statement is untrue.

Other than pointing out that this is incorrect, I'm not sure how to help.

Magical illogic!

Like I said, I'm not sure how to help with your problem.

 

[Leumas]

Hahaha, what? You mustn't fail to consider not using multiple negatives if you aren't sure what you shouldn't be refraining from.

Yup... when casuists' arrant failure in an argument starts getting more and more obvious the more desperate sophistry and illogic they start flinging all over the place with the hope of befuddling the unwary.

Well done... you have just passed the second level exam of casuistry.

All I can do is look for comfort as one is want to do in the Scriptures:

Matthew 7:5

• 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

1 Corinthians

• 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;

 

[Leumas]

The statement "I am unconvinced Jesus existed" is not equivalent to the statement "Jesus did not exist."

The statement "I am unconvinced Jesus existed" is not equivalent to the statement "I believe Jesus did not exist."

The statement "I am unconvinced I owe money to tsig" is not equivalent to the statement "I do not owe money to tsig."

The statement "I do not believe I owe money to tsig" is not equivalent to the statement "I believe I do not owe money to tsig."

Are you aware of this?

Are you aware of how illogical that is?

I am sure this is going to be futile but I will try any way.

Jesus either was resurrected or was not .......X ... or Not(X).

There is no third possibility.

If you do not think Jesus resurrected then by process of LOGIC you are maintaining Jesus did not resurrect.

That is it... there is no third possibility either X... or Not(X).

According to your illogical assertions you are saying if someone comes along and says Jesus was resurrected and I say to him no he did not because he failed to prove his assertions then I have to prove my assertion.

But by your continued illogical statements you saying implicitly (due to logic rules) that he did not resurrect by not believing he did is not something that needs proving.

I hope you can see how illogical that is!

 

[Leumas]

...
If someone else claims the opposite of the original claim, they have the burden of proof of the opposite claim.

...Ah, so that is your problem. You are of the opnion that being unconvinced of the truth of some statement is the same thing as believing a statement is untrue.

Other than pointing out that this is incorrect, I'm not sure how to help.

The statement "I am unconvinced Jesus existed" is not equivalent to the statement "Jesus did not exist."

The statement "I am unconvinced Jesus existed" is not equivalent to the statement "I believe Jesus did not exist."

The statement "I am unconvinced I owe money to tsig" is not equivalent to the statement "I do not owe money to tsig."

The statement "I do not believe I owe money to tsig" is not equivalent to the statement "I believe I do not owe money to tsig."

Are you aware of this?

Magical illogic!

 

[H'ethetheth]

Jesus either was resurrected or did not .......X ... or Not(X).

There is no third possibility.

Correct.

If you do not think Jesus resurrected then by process of LOGIC you are maintaining Jesus did not resurrect.

That is it... there is no third possibility either X... or Not(X).

Incorrect.

Whether I believe Jesus was resurrected or not is an entirely independent proposition. It has no bearing on whether Jesus was actually resurrected or not. All four possible combinations can exist without contradiction for any purported historical event X:

I believe X ∧ X
I believe ¬X ∧ X
I believe X ∧ ¬X
I believe ¬X ∧ ¬X

See how that works? That's four possibilities right there.

ETA: And then there's is no contradiction in the following:

I don't believe X ∧ I don't believe ¬X

There's the third possibility you're looking for.

According to your illogical assertions you are saying if someone comes along and says Jesus was resurrected and I say to him no he did not because he failed to prove his assertions then I have to prove my assertion.

You both claim certainty about the truth about an event in history. If they fail to support their claim, you have no reason to change your mind. If you fail to support yours, there is no reason for them to change theirs.
This is really not that complicated.

But by your continued illogical statements you saying implicitly (due to logic rules) that he did not resurrect by not believing he did is not something that needs proving.

I hope you can see how illogical that is!

I can, actually. But on the other hand I neither said nor implied that. In fact, it is exactly opposite to what I would say about that.

See above for what I would say about that.

Finally, here's the short and sweet of my point in this thread:

A lack of belief about the truth of a proposition is not the same thing as a belief about the truth of a proposition.

A lack of belief is not the same thing as a belief.

A lack of belief requires no justification. A belief does.



Yes?