Catholic Church Collapsing

Quote: Wizard

Not guilty does not mean the same thing as innocent. It means not enough evidence has been presented to pronounce guilt.

But there hasn't been enough evidence to pronounce him not guilty.

How can you take a position?

Quote: FrGamble

You mean the large photographic negative of a roughly 5'8" man that even by faulty radiocarbon testing was many, many years before photography was invented.

"A study by Isabel Piczek, a mural artist with significant expertise in human anatomy determined that the body was close to 6' tall. She wrote:

I have approached the question of height from the design point of view - an image which describes a 3D object and vice-versa, including the problem of foreshortening. I have also analyzed body type, muscle structure and proportion. I determined the height to be 5'11½" to 6'1", give or take 1" for linen stretch and shrinking, both of which are possible. Because of the body type, even with shrinkage, the man cannot be under 5'11½". I lean more towards 6'0". Whether Jews in Jesus's time were smaller or larger is not relevant here."

Quote: FrGamble

You mean the shroud that no scientific explanation exists as to how the image is on the fabric?

Here's the best one. I don't understand why you
don't see this is obviously from the Middle Ages.

"the image on the shroud was formed by a photographic technique in the 13th century. Allen maintains that techniques already available before the 14th century—e.g., as described in the Book of Optics, which was at just that time translated from Arabic to Latin—were sufficient to produce primitive photographs, and that people familiar with these techniques would have been able to produce an image as found on the shroud. To demonstrate this, he successfully produced photographic images similar to the shroud using only techniques and materials available at the time the shroud was made."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Medieval_photography

A 6' tall Jesus and hocus pocus, who woulda thunk.

Quote: FrGamble

Belief in God is like the belief that our spouse loves us. There is ample evidence that grows and grows over time to reach absolute certainty. .

Worst analogy ever. Is this why 50% of
married people get divorced, the ample
evidence that our spouse loves us that just
grows and grows? Spoken like someone
who hasn't a clue as to what real marriage
is like.

Quote: Nareed

But there hasn't been enough evidence to pronounce him not guilty.

How can you take a position?

I pronounced him not guilty because of the lack of evidence. My position is that there is insufficient evidence to pronounce guilt. I presume he is innocent until proven guilty.

Quote: Wizard

My position is that there is insufficient evidence to pronounce guilt.

But there is insufficient evidence to pronounce him not guilty. How can you then take that position? If Joe claims he's not guilty, shouldn't he prove he didn't do it?

I think you are mixing logic and the law.

logic - there isn't enough evidence to make a determination one way or the other.

law - in the absence of a finding of guilt, the finding is not guilty.

Quote: Nareed

If Joe claims he's not guilty, shouldn't he prove he didn't do it?

Nope. I claim I'm not the Phoenix freeway shooter but I can't prove it, nor should I have to.

Quote: Dalex64

I think you are mixing logic and the law.

I'm talking only about logic and reason.

See, you go through your life seeing absolutely nothing which would make you think "there must be a deity of some kind." Except for a bunch of people who are convinced there is one.

There are many arguments for their position, but they all boil down to "I don't know, therefore God."

Logic dictates there is no deity of any kind, since there is no evidence of any. How can one then say "If you claim there is no god, you must be able to prove there isn't one"?

Consider then the trial analogy. One side is convinced Joe is guilty, but offers no evidence. Joe lacks an alibi. How can you reach any conclusion? Simple: you assume Joe is innocent unless the prosecution can prove otherwise. Joe doesn't have to prove his innocence at all. An agnostic would say "Well, you can't tell either way." But that would be a terrible thing to do at a trial.

Quote: Wizard

Nope. I claim I'm not the Phoenix freeway shooter but I can't prove it, nor should I have to.

then why if I claim "there is no god," should I have to prove it?

Quote: Nareed

then why if I claim "there is no god," should I have to prove it?

You don't.