(August 16, 2016 at 2:03 pm)SteveII Wrote:(August 16, 2016 at 1:55 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: 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*
Again with the science. You have described scientific evidence and tried to apply it to a field that has nothing to do with science: history and historical documents. What event in history could ever stand up to your criteria of: 'Evidence is demonstrable, repeatable, measurable, and has predictive qualities'? No that is not what evidence is.
In addition, you said in two different sentences that the 'bible is not evidence' and then 'is not good evidence'. Which is it?
Because science has nothing to say about how the laws of reality have worked throughout history. Open a damn book other than the bible sometime.
I don't believe you. Get over it.
