RE: Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?
September 18, 2017 at 6:25 am
(This post was last modified: September 18, 2017 at 6:37 am by SteveII.)
(September 16, 2017 at 11:11 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: L. Jesus' purported miracles defy all known laws of physics and our understanding of human biology. Despite the possibility of the apostles actually believing these things (instead of, you know, trying to sell a religion), a belief in them occurring does not actually lend any veracity to that belief.
You can't argue a god into being. Belief in something doesn't make that something exist by itself. Even if several billion people believe in it. There needs to be a way to test and verify, and no religion has that.
Ultimately, I wonder who you're trying to convince - us, or yourself?
You are question begging (miracles can't happen therefore there is no believable testimony of miracles). Not trying to convince anyone of anything. Atheist notoriously misunderstand the thing they feel so confident about--Christianity isn't true. I'm doing my part to correct that.
(September 16, 2017 at 11:00 pm)Khemikal Wrote:(September 16, 2017 at 10:32 pm)SteveII Wrote: Testimony is an assertion of fact. If you believe the person you accept the content of the testimony as fact. If you accept someone's testimony as fact, you have evidence to support a conclusion.No, if you accept someones testimony as fact, then you've accepted someones testimony as fact. I could have sworn we'd discussed this before.....everyone accepts their religions religious testimony...thats a job requirement for being in that religion. That doesn't mean that, by sheer acceptance of the stories people tell, they all have evidence to support their conclusions.
That somebody somewhere believes in something is not evidence of that something. You don't believe that it is any more than I do - no matter what lies you feel compelled to float for christ, and you cannot possibly be applying this ridiculous assertion equally.
Quote:Notice none of these steps are considered proof.It isn't evidence, either, regardless of whether or not you consider it as such.
Your definition of evidence is too restrictive (therefore incorrect). You need it to be completely synonymous with proof and it is not. I have highlighted the relevant words:
ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun
- 1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
synonyms:
proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation
"they found evidence of his plotting"
(September 17, 2017 at 5:32 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:(September 16, 2017 at 10:32 pm)SteveII Wrote: Testimony is an assertion of fact. If you believe the person you accept the content of the testimony as fact. If you accept someone's testimony as fact, you have evidence to support a conclusion.
lol, what?! What the hell kind of logic is that? You know that isn't remotely true, Steve. So, if I accept the testimony of the folks who believe the Mandela effect is caused by parallel universes overlapping with ours, then I have evidence that supports that conclusion? This is low even for you. Is there a reason you skipped over responding to me, btw? Just curious.
Once again, Steve has done a fine job of arguing himself over to the opposing position, lol.
Do you have reasons to believe these people? If you do, then you have evidence. Not proof, evidence. You have a real hangup on defining evidence don't you. Your confidence in your definition is misplaced. I will look back and see what I missed from you.
