(August 16, 2016 at 1:40 pm)SteveII Wrote:(August 16, 2016 at 1:24 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Aaaand, now we're back to Steve lowering his standards for, and playing the semantics game with words like "evidence", "proof", and "cause and effect" as a means of lubing up his precious NT before shoving it directly into our asses.
If you don't what to hear me mention the NT, then you shouldn't claim there is no evidence for God as a rebuttal to...well...just about anything. In fact there is evidence. The most an atheist can justify saying is that the evidence is not compelling--moving from positively asserting a fact "no evidence" (and not being able to defend it) to the much modest claim of "not compelling". Perhaps I underestimate all of your ability to grasp that distinction.
Oh my god, it never stops.
You: there is evidence for God: the bible
Me: the bible is not evidence. Evidence is demonstrable, repeatable, measurable, and has predictive qualities
You: well, that's SCIENTIFIC evidence. Since God cannot be detected scientifically, you have to accept this "other" kind of non-scientific, special evidence. If you don't accept it, then you are ignoring evidence.
Me: But...one old book and a bunch of testimonials of subjective experience is not good evidence...
You: yes it is. Because...it is. You're ignoring evidence.
*face palm*
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.