which version of christianity is correct?

[Drich]

Lol, it’s cute (scary) how Drich thinks he wins debates here.

if providing three points of reference against a personal attack is loosing a debate in your mind... then there is nothing i can help you with

---

glob...

proof
/pro͞of/
[/url]Learn to pronounce
[url=https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS743US744&sxsrf=ALeKk00AdZMMJsr6k_DoDz4bpmh5VRlt4w:1583869079330&q=how+to+pronounce+proof&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRozi3w8sc9YSm9SWtOXmPU4OINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLkYglJLcoV4pRi52ItKMrPT7NiUWJKzeNZxCqWkV-uUJKvABTNywfqSFUAywMAitty_FUAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=us&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjghuCO1JDoAhWlmuAKHTASC6kQ3eEDMAB6BAgEEAQ]
noun

1. 1.
   evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
   
   
   Similar:
   evidence
   
   
   verification
   
   
   corroboration
   
   
   authentication
   
   
   asking for proof IS IN FACT ASKING FOR EVIDENCE!!!
   

---

Sorry Dritch, but when I am having discussions or debates, I avoid colloquial definitions. It helps to avoid equivocation fallacies, as theists are known to use (Kalam cosmological argument; I'm looking at you).

Proof has a very specific definition when discussing philosophy and math.

With regards to epistemology and existential claims, we are not looking for proofs, only good standards of evidence that warrants acceptance for the claim under discussion.

But even if we use your definition of proof (meaning the same as evidence), that doesn't help the point you were attempting to make anyway. The evidence I am looking for, is the evidence that supports all the supernatural claims being made in the Bible.

hey retard, i took the definition from the google dictionary, which makes it an official not colloquial definition...

rest and try a different argument.

Lady for campus: this is exactly what i am talking about..

Doom-mas moon want to pretend in his mind I am using an unofficial/my own personal meanings, which invalidate my arguments.
when in fact I used an official term and provided a link.

Doom-mas moon is arguing from what he feels. I used fact and verificable definitions. He looses because he clearly does not know what he is talking about, and is arguing against documented fact and reference material with his gut feeling and a dunning kruger internal sense of self superiority. he doesn't need to look up a term he misused 3 times now.. he knows he is right. not only that he can claim his definition used internally and approved by his dunning-kruger set of checks and balances blows past my documented and linked definition and proudly proclaims victory based on his own internal feeling.

but to you.. this is a loss to me. 

not buying trollina.