- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
2 edits
Originally posted by @dj2beckerI 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.
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 @dj2beckerWill "Lord of the Rings" be proof of hobbits in 2,000 years time?
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 @dj2beckerAre 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?
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.
Originally posted by @fmfHe can believe any source of evidence he wished.
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"?
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 @eladarIn 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?
From what I've seen you choose to call the other person an idiot.
Originally posted by @eladarWe'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?
He can believe any source of evidence he wished.
Originally posted by @fmfEvidence is in the eye of the beholder. Nothing you said changed anything that I said.
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 @eladarIt's interesting how you are dancing around such a simple question.
Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Nothing you said changed anything that I said.
Let's put it this way, to your way of thinking, is you saying I called someone an "idiot" 'evidence' that I did because you believe it's true?
Originally posted by @eladar"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 is in the eye of the beholder. Nothing you said changed anything that I said.
Originally posted by @fmfYou only think I am dancing around the issue is because you are so arrogant you can't see beyond the tip of your own nose.
It's interesting how you are dancing around such a simple question.
Let's put it this way, to your way of thinking, is you saying I called someone an "idiot" 'evidence' that I did because you believe it's true?