Plagiarism in the NT

[Astonished]

Do you not understand the very, very simple concept of what actual evidence is?

RoadRunner has a much firmer grasp of it than you apparently because your question was really just a pretext to heap abuse on him. You do not deserve the respect he has afforded you thus far. As for me, I know that your are just acting like a belligerent twat and have no interest in a reasonable discussion. Therefore I am posting this just so that, when you stand before the White Throne of God's Righteous Judgement, you will have no excuse.

Skeptics like you misuse the word evidence all the time. That misuse becomes immediately clear when you look at how the word is used in contexts outside of theology.

EXAMPLE 1:

Harry: The Chicago Cubs won the 2016 World Series.
Yogi: What’s your evidence?
Harry: They just did.

In this example, Harry isn’t presenting any facts at all. He merely restates the original claim in a different form. This would be a case of a claim being made without evidence.

EXAMPLE 2:

Harry: The Chicago Cubs won the 2016 World Series.
Yogi: What’s your evidence?
Harry: I heard people celebrating the night of the game.

Here, Harry is presenting evidence from which he inferred the Cub’s win. Since Harry lives next to Wrigley Field, he considers the party in the street sufficient justification for his claim. Yogi could object by saying that the hoopla on the street might have been from Cleveland fans or some random drunks or that people party in that neighborhood all the time. What Yogi cannot say is that Harry gave no evidence.

EXAMPLE 3:

Harry: The Chicago Cubs won the 2016 World Series.
Yogi: What’s your evidence?
Harry: I was at the game and here’s the sport’s section of the Chicago Tribune from the day after the game.

Yogi really cannot say that Harry’s claim is unjustified although he could still make some weak objections. Yogi might say that Harry’s experience is just personal testimony. Yogi might also call the Tribune article is an Argument from Authority. “Why should I believe that rag?” he asks.

Skeptics say all theistic claims about the existence of god are like Example 1. That’s simply not true. Cosmological arguments and design arguments are actually like Example 2. The evidences presented are general observations based on common everyday experience, such as the orderly and incredibly precise nature of the physical universe. From what is evident, theists apply reason and infer the existence of God.

Historical arguments are like Example 3. The evidence presented is documentation from the past in which theists have confidence. Skeptics may think that age and apparent inconsistencies make that evidence unreliable, but it’s still evidence. It’s dishonest for the skeptics like you to say we are making bald assertions like in Example 1. We have presented evidence. You just don’t believe it justifies our belief that God exists. And it’s okay if they think that. We should have those debates. You don't need to be an asshole about it.

Oh, go jump up your own ass, you judgmental piece of fucking shit. Who the goddamn fuck are you, threatening me with eternal hellfire, you bastard? You think you're better than me, motherfucker? Shut the fuck up about being respectful, cocksucker, you're such a dipshit hypocrite you don't even fucking understand what you just did, punk.

Your false equivalencies here (not that I'm surprised you've utterly failed to come up with anything better) just further hammer home your own ignorance and incapability. You've been fed a script and you can't deviate from it because you have no actual good arguments or reasons. You honestly don't think every argument ever presented hasn't been debunked or dismissed for ages? You're done. Go back to the little kids' table.