I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[amw79]

So much for "Objective truth". The 'divine creation of the Lord' first transcribed by backward peasants of the day, then changed over time, then interpreted and re-interpreted by St. John Chrysostom and Basil the Great et al, then re-interpreted and re-iterated by you to finally anounce 'I think what god meant to say was.....' That's quite a bold statement you to be speaking on god's behalf. I've never been so sure of myself to announce such a grandiose intention.

Obviously thats not what I claim. What I claim is, a) the bible is not a scientific text, b) it is to be interpreted according to the tradition that the bible originates in, and that means you interpret it according to patristics, not according to chatpilot or anyone else's arbitrary opinion.

---

EVIDENCE. If you have any - provide it. Not a discussion about evidence, or the difference between subjective and objective evidence.

If you have read my posts until now and yet is unable to understand the evidence I propose for monotheism, then I suggest you retire to a silent role.

Nor references to previous posts claiming that evidence is there (i've checked - its not). Nor a diatribe about the metaphysics of potentiality and actuality. We'll leave the discussion about evidential validity until AFTER you've provided some.

If you have checked it and it is not, that must be because of your definition of evidence. That is exactly what makes your demand of evidence another subjective an irrelevant pestillence.

I have provided subjective evidence, because what I judge subjectively as evidence is evidence.

I have also provided objective evidence, because I have provided epistemic foundations for justified belief in monotheism which does not depend on subjective notions of evidence, but on logical coherence (the epistemological argument), and the evidential argument, which is established based on aposterioritic knowledge of the universe.

I have provided the foundations for coherent monotheism, and more than enough "evidence", both subjective and objective.

You are quite clearly claiming to know "what god meant to say". Any other claim is a lie, and that is plain to see.

No evidence provided, simply more referrals to previous posts, and more discussion about subjective evidence. End of. Just because you may have wasted your life on theology and defending the indefensible, doesn't mean I'm gonna do the same.

I wish you well.

AW