[David Sklansky]

He's pretty good at wiggling out of things but not this time. It starts out when he admits he can't give 100% proof for the resurrection of Jesus and Chezlaw congratulates him on realizing that it may not be true. His reply:

"First of all, I believe 100% that Christ is the Son of God. I've come to this conclusion given the available evidence. What I said in my earlier post was that I couldn't give you 100% proof, not that I didn't believe it 100%."

Chezlaw's reply:

So you are close minded. You've taken a position that denies all other possibilities without any proof that there aren't other possibilities.

txaq007's reply:

"In how many other things in life do you need 100% proof before taking a position? The only thing we have to evaluate is the evidence that is out there, and it points to Christianity."

But he is not just "taking a position". He is claiming 100% certainty. While at the same time admitting there is not 100% proof. While at the same time claiming that he is not close minded. These three things cannot all exist at the same time whether he is talking about Jesus or whether the moon is made of green cheese.

Wonder whether he will try to refute that last sentence (not a good idea). If not, which of the three statements above (100% certainty, 100% proof, not close minded) will he give up?