There has been a fair amount of discussion regarding evidence recently. Currently in another thread sonship is challenging Ghost of a Duke to prove that Jesus didn’t actually say something, and prior to that in another thread dj2becker was refusing to state whether or not he thought that the Bible was itself evidence for God’s existence.
In this thread I’m inviting anyone, but especially sonship and dj2becker, to provide any evidence that:
- Jesus actually said all the words attributed to him in the Bible
- The Bible is in itself evidence of God’s existence.
Note: my point here (although this will be ferociously contested) is not to disparage the Bible, the words in it nor the context of it as the word of God. My point is to set aside this idea that one can hide behind it in debating a related topic.
For example:
Claim: eternal suffering is a horrible teaching but Jesus said it!
Reply: No he didn’t say that
Counter: Prove that he didn’t...
Well actually if you want to take that approach to deflect from the actual topic, then YOU prove that he did.
Example 2
Claim: There is objective evidence that God exists
Christian’s reply: what evidence?
Counter: don’t you accept the Bible as evidence?
Well if you want to go that route, then the onus is on YOU to provide that proof/rational that the Bible IS evidence.
Originally posted by @divegeester There has been a fair amount of discussion regarding evidence recently. Currently in another thread sonship is challenging Ghost of a Duke to prove that Jesus didn’t actually say something, and prior to that in another thread dj2becker was refusing to state whether or not he thought that the Bible was itself evidence for God’s existence.
In this thr ...[text shortened]... he words attributed to him in the Bible
- The Bible is in itself evidence of God’s existence.
The word ‘evidence’ can be used to mean different things in different contexts. Are you happy to use the definition of evidence as “signs or indications of something“ rather than “proof”?
Originally posted by @dj2becker The word ‘evidence’ can be used to mean different things in different contexts. Are you happy to use the definition of evidence as “signs or indications of something“ rather than “proof”?
I believe the Bible is ‘evidence’ of the existence of God in terms of the second definition, ie. an indication or sign rather than proof. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. The proof is a very personal matter and may differ from individual to individual.
Originally posted by @dj2becker I believe the Bible is ‘evidence’ of the existence of God in terms of the second definition, ie. an indication or sign rather than proof. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. The proof is a very personal matter and may differ from individual to individual.
Will "Lord of the Rings" be proof of hobbits in 2,000 years time?
Originally posted by @dj2becker I believe the Bible is ‘evidence’ of the existence of God in terms of the second definition, ie. an indication or sign rather than proof.
Are all religious scriptures 'evidence' - in the way you use the word - of the various gods that those religions worship, and not just Christianity? And has this been true for gods/religions, the world over, throughout human history?
Originally posted by @eladar Evidence is in the eye of the beholder.
dj2becker suggested we define 'evidence' as "indication or sign of something". Would you then define 'evidence' as "indication or sign of something but only when the person using the word agrees with or believes it"?
Originally posted by @fmf dj2becker suggested we define 'evidence' as "indication or sign of something". Would you then define 'evidence' as "indication or sign of something but only when the person using the word agrees with or believes it"?
He can believe any source of evidence he wished.
If another the other person agrees they can debate. If the other person disagrees they can't debate. All they can do is tell the other person he is an idiot for believing as he does or simply agree to disagree.
From what I've seen you choose to call the other person an idiot.
Originally posted by @eladar From what I've seen you choose to call the other person an idiot.
In which post are you claiming I called someone an "idiot" over an issue of 'evidence'? I didn't, of course. Does you claiming that I did [call someone an "idiot" over an issue of 'evidence'] constitute 'evidence' that I did, in your mind?
Originally posted by @eladar He can believe any source of evidence he wished.
We're talking about the definition of the word 'evidence'. Just to be clear, do you define the word 'evidence' as an indication or sign of something but only when the person using the word [you, for example] agrees with it or believes it to be true?
Originally posted by @fmf We're talking about the definition of the word 'evidence'. Just to be clear, do you define the word 'evidence' as an indication or sign of something but only when the person using the word [you, for example] agrees with it or believes it to be true?
Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Nothing you said changed anything that I said.
Originally posted by @eladar Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Nothing you said changed anything that I said.
"Evidence is in the eye of the beholder" is not, and cannot be, a definition of 'evidence' because it contains the word itself. I am asking you about the definition of the word 'evidence'.
Evidence please
31 Dec '17 13:36
Back to Top