Thats an odd nit of analysis.
There are all kinds of evidence… including your hoof print evidence, which i would call Irrelevant evidence.
But circumstances could comceivably be brought to bear that could turn the appearance of irrelevancy into relevant or helpful evidence.
I do not presume that. Evidence is a category of information ised to support an idea.
The more logical the better. But illogical types of evidence are still evidence.
Wrong. Evidence is meangingless in the absence of logic.
This is nothing short of absolutely nuts. What is this but the recipe for madness and wishful thinking?
What is one person’s ILLOGIC is another person’s logic.
Evidence can be anything used to support an idea.
No, that other person not using logic isn’t using “his own personal logic”, he’s just wrong.
2+2 isn’t 5 for you and 4 for me. It’s 4 for you too. If you believe otherwise you have made communication meaningless. If you can just decide to think that anything and everything can be evidence for whatever, then why are you even here to argue with people? Presumably you came here to discuss certain subjects and possibly to learn whether you yourself was wrong about something, or persuade others to see things your way, but if noone can show another to be wrong about anything because it’s just their personal logic, what basis can there be for discussion or debate at all? Why are you here?
Evidence can be anything used to support an idea.
Ahh so anyone can just claim to have overwhelming evidence for their beliefs, and nobody can show anyone else to be wrong about anything, there are no such thing as more or less rational, more or less likely, more or less plausible, supported or unsupported beliefs. They’re all equally valid, that it?
Can I claim to know with certainty that you’re wrong about everything, and then support it with breadcrumbs on my plate? Or I once heard my neighbor fart in the hallway? I’m using these breadcrumbs and other peope’s farts to support my idea, and since evidence can be anything used to support an idea, these breadcrumbs and farts are evidence that you’re wrong about everything.
I have a hard time convincing myself that you even believe this yourself.
Naturally, ive used these very phrases.
But you dont come to a Christian Origins site to discuss the illogic of Christianity.
Im explaining how some Christians interpret the term “evidence”.
Since at least one of Webster’s definitions fits the use of the term… your continued fixation on a conflicting definition suggests that you are not qualified to discuss that part of the issue… or that you have poor manners.
This is why i suggested you might be more of a bully than anything else.
They don’t claim it’s the Christian God. That doesn’t mean they didn’t have genuine experiences either.
What does that mean? You’ve used what phrases, and for what purpose? Are you saying you agree with me that we can’t just take any imaginable idea or data point and insist it is evidence for some other idea or hypothesis?
Do you agree with me that some things actually really are evidence for certain hypotheses, and aren’t actually evidence for other hypothesis, and can’t just be mindlessly asserted to be?
But you dont come to a Christian Origins site to discuss the illogic of Christianity.
Is this a “Christian Origins site”? I wasn’t aware.
Im explaining how some Christians interpret the term “evidence”.
And you agree with me they’re irrational if they define the word evidence in such a way that any imaginable factoid, no matter how absurd or unrelated, can just be asserted to be “evidence” for some favored idea, right?
Since at least one of Webster’s definitions fits the use of the term
Nothing in your dictionary link contradicts what I’ve been saying, and there isn’t anything in the link that in any way implies that anything can or should be claimed to support something ense.
All your link says is that evidence is “something that supports something else”, but I completely agree with that. To be more specific, evidence is data that supports a particular hypothesis better than another hypothesis. That a bit simplistic a definition, and I can elaborate on what it means for evidence to “better support” one hypothesis over another. Another way to put it is to say that data that is more likely on one hypothesis A than another hypothesis B, is evidence in favor of hypothesis A over hypothesis B.
The dictionary doesn’t say that anything can be willy-nilly asserted to be support of some hypothesis. We still have to do the hard work of figuring out HOW the data supports some hypotheses better than others, if at all.
… your continued fixation on a conflicting definition suggests that you are not qualified to discuss that part of the issue… or that you have poor manners. This is why i suggested you might be more of a bully than anything else.
Since my definition evidence doesn’t actually conflict with what your dictionary link says, and since you don’t seem to have understood the implications of the very link your brought, I think of the two of us it is your qualifications that are in question. And your opinions about my manners are not a concern of mine.
That doesn’t answer my questions.
It does if you think about it.
First, the parable from Jesus’ mouth:
“Once there was a rich man who used to dress in the most expensive clothing and spent his days in magnificent luxury. At his gate had been laid a beggar named El‘azar who was covered with sores. He would have been glad to eat the scraps that fell from the rich man’s table; but instead, even the dogs would come and lick his sores.In time the beggar died and was carried away by the angels to Avraham’s side; the rich man also died and was buried.“ In Sh’ol, where he was in torment, the rich man looked up and saw Avraham far away with El‘azar at his side. He called out, ‘Father Avraham, take pity on me, and send El‘azar just to dip the tip of his finger in water to cool my tongue, because I’m in agony in this fire!’ However, Avraham said, ‘Son, remember that when you were alive, you got the good things while he got the bad; but now he gets his consolation here, while you are the one in agony. Yet that isn’t all: between you and us a deep rift has been established, so that those who would like to pass from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’“ He answered, ‘Then, father, I beg you to send him to my father’s house, where I have five brothers, to warn them; so that they may be spared having to come to this place of torment too.’ But Avraham said, ‘They have Moshe and the Prophets; they should listen to them.’ However, he said, ‘No, father Avraham, they need more. If someone from the dead goes to them, they’ll repent!’ But he replied, ‘If they won’t listen to Moshe and the Prophets, they won’t be convinced even if someone rises from the dead!’” - Luke 16:19-31 CJB
Then, the application, as Jesus answers a request:
At this some of the Torah -teachers said, “Rabbi, we want to see a miraculous sign from you.” He replied, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign? No! None will be given to it but the sign of the prophet Yonah. For just as Yonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea-monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the depths of the earth. The people of Ninveh will stand up at the Judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they turned from their sins to God when Yonah preached, but what is here now is greater than Yonah. - Matthew 12:38-41 CJB
Of course there are ongoing and even dramatic miracles, but they more often reward faith, not just attempt to create it by “force.”
And finally, the overarching rationale, as provided by Paul and his co-laborers:
"So it is with the fear of the Lord before us that we try to persuade people. Moreover, God knows us as we really are; and I hope that in your consciences you too know us as we really are.We are not recommending ourselves to you again but giving you a reason to be proud of us, so that you will be able to answer those who boast about a person’s appearance rather than his inner qualities. If we are insane, it is for God’s sake; and if we are sane, it is for your sake. For the Messiah’s love has hold of us, because we are convinced that one man died on behalf of all mankind (which implies that all mankind was already dead), and that he died on behalf of all in order that those who live should not live any longer for themselves but for the one who on their behalf died and was raised. So from now on, we do not look at anyone from a worldly viewpoint. Even if we once regarded the Messiah from a worldly viewpoint, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is united with the Messiah, he is a new creation — the old has passed; look, what has come is fresh and new! And it is all from God, who through the Messiah has reconciled us to himself and has given us the work of that reconciliation,which is that God in the Messiah was reconciling mankind to himself, not counting their sins against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. - 2 Corinthians 5:11-19 CJB
Not really.
I asked you:
You response was only directed at question 2, and you said “they don’t claim to be experiencing the Christian god”. That’s great, but my question wasn’t about who they claim to be experiencing.
I dont mean the origins of Christianity… i mean Christian discussions on human origins.
So at point do you think you should tell Orthodox Jews how tastey bacon can be… or why there isnt “evidence” for Christianity.
I understood what the words meant, I’m saying I wasn’t aware this was a “christian” site.
So at point do you think you should tell Orthodox Jews how tastey bacon can be… or why there isnt “evidence” for Christianity.
I will argue whatever the hell I feel like, and you can either participate or not.
Are you serious? Or are you just trying to be cunning?
Joshua, if he is serious, it shows how diffused your mission has become… when your work has become unrecognizable.
I have no doubt that theists have what they consider evidence for their beliefs. However, I don’t find it that compelling. What I often see is theists rejecting that very same kind of evidence for other religions and other beliefs they don’t currently share.
Yep… you are not a theist. Got it.