The Garden of Eden

Originally posted by HandyAndy
We can consider the Book of Genesis a work of fiction based on the absence of valid evidence to the contrary.

Bump for kohlrabi the wrong-way logician.

Originally posted by HandyAndy
We can consider the Book of Genesis a work of fiction based on the absence of valid evidence to the contrary.

If my interaction is anything to go by, robbie will now perhaps steadfastly refuse to state that he believes in the veracity of the Book of Genesis. And that will be some kind of debating thing that he will be doing to you. 🙂

Originally posted by RJHinds
YES

Thank you, RJ, that's a good start. Can you cite evidence?

Originally posted by FMF
If my interaction is anything to go by, robbie will now perhaps steadfastly refuse to state that he believes in the veracity of the Book of Genesis. And that will be some kind of debating thing that he will be doing to you. 🙂

He'll challenge me to prove there's no evidence and then drag in Pontius Pilate to try for a stalemate.

Originally posted by HandyAndy
Bump for kohlrabi the wrong-way logician.

the absence of evidence is your term, your evaluation and your assertion. You corroborate it or suffer the same fate as your fellow balloonist, FMF. I would just like to point out your stance is a logical fallacy as is your friends. Its an appeal to what may not be known rather than what is. I suggest you read the following.

Argument from ignorance

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary) is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

Shoddy Andy, very shoddy.

Originally posted by HandyAndy
He'll challenge me to prove there's no evidence and then drag in Pontius Pilate to try for a stalemate.

How very predictable and untrue, see the above, you like your fellow balloonist effihm the unsubstantiated, are busted.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
How very predictable and untrue, see the above, you like your fellow balloonist effihm the unsubstantiated, are busted.

Assuming for a moment that you are right, are you now willing to make a "truth claim" about the Biblical account of the conversation between Pilate and Jesus and thus assert its veracity?

Originally posted by FMF
Assuming for a moment that you are right, are you now willing to make a "truth claim" about the Biblical account of the conversation between Pilate and Jesus and thus assert its veracity?

I will only make truth claims which I can substantiate.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I will only make truth claims which I can substantiate.

So you cannot substantiate an assertion that the passage in question is "true" rather than fictional?

Originally posted by FMF
So you cannot substantiate an assertion that the passage in question is "true" rather than fictional?

I could try but it would take time to research my material.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I will only make truth claims which I can substantiate.

But earlier in this thread you claimed that I was asserting that the Bible was allegorical; a completely untrue statement which you refuse to retract or apologise for.

Originally posted by divegeester
But earlier in this thread you claimed that I was asserting that the Bible was allegorical; a completely untrue statement which you refuse to retract or apologise for.

did i say all of the Bible? are you sure? you do believe that it contains some allegory do you not? I have nothing to apologise for.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I could try but it would take time to research my material.

Take your time. If you come to the conclusion, like I have, that the supposed conversation is a kind of fictionalized reconstruction providing a few religionist doctrine "points" needed by people trying to establish a breakaway religion, then be sure to let us know.

Originally posted by FMF
Take your time. If you come to the conclusion, like I have, that the supposed conversation is a kind of fictionalized reconstruction providing a few religionist doctrine "points" needed by people trying to establish a breakaway religion, then be sure to let us know.

yes because lets face it, Pilates reaction to Christ, 'what is truth', is conducive to just that. In fact perhaps you can tell us how you came to the conclusion from reading the account that its intent is what you say it is? what will you cite, even more opinion?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes because lets face it, Pilates reaction to Christ, 'what is truth', is conducive to just that. In fact perhaps you can tell us how you came to the conclusion from reading the account that its intent is what you say it is? what will you cite, even more opinion?

It's interesting that you have chosen Pilate's words from that supposed conversation ~ and not Jesus' supposed words ~ to try to counter what I have suggested.