Evidence please

-Removed-

Again when you cannot refute my argumemt you resort to insults.

So as you see it it you should ask me questions that I am not allowed to respond to ?

You demand evidence that you can always dismiss because you haven’t defined ‘evidence’ and therefore no one can challenge your dismissal of it. You are actually the troll here.

Originally posted by @fmf
When you asked me what I would say about Divegeester’s stance that the Bible cannot be regarded as evidence, I answered the question head-on a few minutes later. What is your take on my answer?

This answer?

I told you what evidence I believed divegeester's faith is based on. I spent a quarter of an hour thinking it over and writing it. You ignored it. I bumped it after a day or so. You ignored it again. I bumped it for a second time. You ignored it yet again. Why are you asking me again as if I haven't addressed this issue?

My take on it is that I don't recall what you are talking about and that I must have missed the post you are referring to. If you refer me to it I will guarantee you a response if I haven't already given you a response.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
My take on it is that I don't recall what you are talking about and that I must have missed the post you are referring to. If you refer me to it I will guarantee you a response.

I think you are pretending not to have read it as is your modus operandi.

We were in a dialogue back and forth - sort of in 'real time' - and you replied to every one of my posts that you felt you could offer some quip or evasive counter-question to, but you skipped that one answer. I actually PM'd two people at the time and said - watch this - dj2beceker is going to blank this post out wait and see. And I was right. You are more predictable than you realize.

You obviously saw it because you read all the posts before it and all the posts after it. You then obviously read my reminder to you that I had posted an answer to your question and that you hadn't even acknowledged it, let alone responded to it, because you posted on that thread a couple of messages down the same page.

And here you are, in your trademark passive aggressive way pretending not to remember the content of one of my posts addressed to you, and asking me to go and find something for you, type it out again, or explain again, or prove I said it, or but-but-the question before didn't have exactly the same words, etc, etc.

It reminds me of when you started a thread on the 'evil' and asked for definitions. I think I was one of the first - if perhaps one of the only posters - to actually offer a definition. You simply ignored it, and yet continued posting on that 2 page thread.

A week or so later you asked me what my definition of evil was, and pretended not to have read my definition on your own thread about it. I seem to recall your passive aggressive punchline was something along the lines of - 'if the definition was worth talking about, surely you'd be willing to type it out again for me'.

Is there another one of these hackneyed punchlines of yours coming now, I wonder.

And you wonder why there are people here who think you are a tedious jerk?

Originally posted by @fmf
I think you are pretending not to have read it as is your modus operandi.

We were in a dialogue back and forth - sort of in 'real time' - and the replied to every one of my posts that you felt you could offer some quip or evasive counter-question to, but you skipped that one answer.

You obviously saw it because you read all the posts before it and all t ...[text shortened]... ing now, I wonder.

And you wonder why there are people here who think you are a tedious jerk?

And I think you are pretending to have discussed things with me as your modus operandi because you can't seem to offer any actual evidence of this post that you are talking about because I think it doesn't exist. If it does exist I'm sure you would be able to refer me to it as I have promised to respond to it.

FMF: Is there another one of these hackneyed punchlines of yours coming now, I wonder.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
...you can't seem to offer any actual evidence of this post that you are talking about because I think it doesn't exist. If it does exist I'm sure you would be able to refer me to it as I have promised to respond to it.

BOOM. And there's the hackneyed punchline. Exactly as predicted.

Did you read the content of my previous post? It sounds like you didn't read it.

-Removed-

None that you are willing to accept because you haven't defined 'evidence' and given the criteria you use to decide whether or not something qualifies as evidence. You can therefore reject any proposed evidence without having to explain why it doesn't meet your criteria for 'evidence' because you have given no criteria. So in fact your are just trolling.

Originally posted by @fmf
BOOM. And there's the hackneyed punchline. Exactly as predicted.

Did you read the content of my previous post? It sounds like you didn't read it.

Why do you keep on whining about me ignoring your post when I have told you that I missed it and am willing to answer it? If you actually did ask a question that you want an answer to you would actually ask it again. So it seems you are just trolling.

-Removed-

I say that it isn’t

According to which definition of 'evidence' isn't the Bible 'evidence' of God's existence? I gave you the definition of evidence that I was going with and I told you why I believe the Bible is a 'sign or indication' of God's existence, (i.e fulfilled prophecy).You simply rejected it without even telling me what criteria you used to decide that I was wrong. If God exists (something that you believe to be true) and the Bible is his revelation to mankind (something you believe to be true), why in your opinion could the Bible not be a sign or indication of His existence? From a Christian perspective (which I believe you have) the logical conclusion of God existing and the Bible being His revelation is that the Bible is a sign of his existence. I think any other Christian would a agree with this. You are just trying to be obtuse.

Originally posted by @eladar
Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Only the arrogant believe people must present evidence they will accept.

FMF and company are about as arrogant as they come.

Very well said - and even if all the evidence has been given to them, they still seek more...and more...and more - it never ends.

-Removed-

Interesting - I actually don't know law that well.
An honest question. If I write my testimony and die, is it still considered valid?

If so then there is certainly a lot that evidence to what Jesus said right?

Originally posted by @nicksten
Very well said - and even if all the evidence has been given to them, they still seek more...and more...and more - it never ends.

Were the 24 or so Bible quotes in your first post on page 49 of Thread 175391 "evidence", for example? If not, what "evidence" of anything did you offer anywhere on that thread?

-Removed-

Seriously? A written will and a written testimony (for use in court) are two different documents 🙄
Is there someone that can give an honest answer? Would be interesting to know.