(January 30, 2015 at 11:39 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:(January 30, 2015 at 11:36 am)SteveII Wrote: No you misstate my premise. I believe Y because of Z set of evidence. This evidence is not compatible with X so therefore I don't believe X because of Z set of evidence.
Your "Z" set isn't evidence, the point about which my above post laments. I'll keep using this muslim example, because it so easily demonstrates what you seem intent on ignoring.
If a muslim replied with his own "Z" set of evidence, his koran and the surrounding historical figures/writings/events/miracles, how on earth could you refute him?
You'd just be stuck repeating "I believe my Bible's claims, therefore it's evidence for Chrsitianity", and he'd be stuck repeating "I believe my Koran's claims, therefore it's evidence for Islam."
For your God's sake, you can't be this thick.
You don't get to redefine the word evidence. What you mean is proof. That is not the same thing.
If you are asking me to refute some specific evidence that Islam has that Christianity is wrong, that would be relevant--please be specific.