What is evidence?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ugh... I am saying that the talking serpent was a figurative depiction of an actual human archetype.

Yes I know...I stated that in the post you quoted, and I very specifically referred to people who claim it as an actual event. Pay attention!

 

[hobelim]

Ugh... I am saying that the talking serpent was a figurative depiction of an actual human archetype.

Yes I know...I stated that in the post you quoted, and I very specifically referred to people who claim it as an actual event. Pay attention!

Yeah, I know... Thanks....

What you didn't answer is if you realized that the conversation that you were having with meirweather was a conversation with a direct descendant of that ancient talking serpent of old. She cites her credentials as a teacher and learned person of faith and then attempts to scramble your thoughts like a small time petty con man looking for some easy chump change..

A rare specimen of an ancient species, thought to be extinct, that somehow survived to modern times living under a rock at the bottom of a dark cave..

I thought that you might be bored arguing over what scripture is not about with someone who is a perfect example of what not to do when confronted with facts, the subject of warning and condemnation in the story of Adam and Eve.

Do yourself a favor. Learn what scripture is actually about, then argue that if you want to just shut them up. No one can deceive anyone if everyone knows the truth. They wouldn't even try.

Talking serpents become as harmless as a discarded twig, good for nothing but as fuel for the fire. if they can't get away with their lies and deceptions.

Wait a minute! You don't know of any way to figure out what the truth is, no way to differentiate between what is possible or impossible, true or false, right or wrong.

No way to know what the authors were teaching. No way to know what bronze age children were expected to learn...


Never mind....

 

[Czernobog]

That entire ratn has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked. Why is it that none of you seem to want to answer the actual question I asked?

I answered your question by showing evidence for beliefs based on the bible is not the same thing as scientific evidence..

Shouldn't you ask why no one is giving you the answer you are looking for?

Listen up...

ITS A STUPID QUESTION.

like you are expecting evidence for a talking snake that can be captured on video or dissected in a laboratory as if you didn't have the sense to decipher such an extremely complicated metaphor intended to teach children lessons..

You saying that there is no evidence for God is like saying there is no evidence for Karma which is like saying there is no evidence for cause and effect.

numbskull.

**** off. It isn't a stupid question. You insist that The Bible is "evidence". Why? What do you consider the term evidence to mean? If it is such a stupid question it should be an easy one to answer.

**** off yourself.

I didn't say the bible is evidence .

I said the bible provides evidence for biblical beliefs.

People say Jesus claimed to be God. Where else are you going to look for evidence that would support that belief?

schmuck.

Why do you believe the Bible provides evidence? What do you believe the term evidence to mean?

since evidence means "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." when discussing beliefs that are claimed to be based on teaching in the bible evidence that would either support or refute those beliefs would have to be found in the bible.

Well, the Bible would in fact, be useful as evidence of whether a particular belief that is claimed to be "biblical" is, in fact, in the bible. However, who cares? "I believe in God, because he in in the Bible". When one examines the bible, low and behold, God is mentioned in the bible. Woohoo, your belief is "biblical". That doesn't make it factual.

So, we're back to my original question. What is evidence? If your entire body of evidence for believing in the existence of God is, "It's in the bible", you can understand why those of s who are not Christians might find that evidence...less than compelling, right?

 

[ding]

I answered your question by showing evidence for beliefs based on the bible is not the same thing as scientific evidence..

Shouldn't you ask why no one is giving you the answer you are looking for?

Listen up...

ITS A STUPID QUESTION.

like you are expecting evidence for a talking snake that can be captured on video or dissected in a laboratory as if you didn't have the sense to decipher such an extremely complicated metaphor intended to teach children lessons..

You saying that there is no evidence for God is like saying there is no evidence for Karma which is like saying there is no evidence for cause and effect.

numbskull.

**** off. It isn't a stupid question. You insist that The Bible is "evidence". Why? What do you consider the term evidence to mean? If it is such a stupid question it should be an easy one to answer.

**** off yourself.

I didn't say the bible is evidence .

I said the bible provides evidence for biblical beliefs.

People say Jesus claimed to be God. Where else are you going to look for evidence that would support that belief?

schmuck.

Why do you believe the Bible provides evidence? What do you believe the term evidence to mean?

since evidence means "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." when discussing beliefs that are claimed to be based on teaching in the bible evidence that would either support or refute those beliefs would have to be found in the bible.

Well, the Bible would in fact, be useful as evidence of whether a particular belief that is claimed to be "biblical" is, in fact, in the bible. However, who cares? "I believe in God, because he in in the Bible". When one examines the bible, low and behold, God is mentioned in the bible. Woohoo, your belief is "biblical". That doesn't make it factual.

So, we're back to my original question. What is evidence? If your entire body of evidence for believing in the existence of God is, "It's in the bible", you can understand why those of s who are not Christians might find that evidence...less than compelling, right?

A core doctrine of Spinozism is that the universe is essentially deterministic. All that happens or will happen could not have unfolded in any other way. Spinoza claimed that the third kind of knowledge, intuition, is the highest kind attainable. More specifically, he defined this as the ability for the human intellect to intuit knowledge based upon its accumulated understanding of the world around them.

 

[ding]

There is tons of evidence if you will only study it.

 

[ding]

A tangible item is evidence. When you create something. I can use what you created as evidence. That isn't up for debate. That is the nature of evidence.

What is debatable is what the evidence tells us.

 

[Czernobog]

Which part, exactly? If you mean, specifically, that faith and evidence based thought do not overlap...yes, the world would be infinitely better.

Is evidence the only source of all we know?

Yes. yes, it is. We can hypothesise without evidence, we can assert. We can believe. But knowledge comes from objective observation of evidence.

 

[Czernobog]

A tangible item is evidence. When you create something. I can use what you created as evidence. That isn't up for debate. That is the nature of evidence.

What is debatable is what the evidence tells us.

You keep talking about creating something. Before you declare that something was created, do you not, first need evidence that it was created? Herein is the problem with your argument. You say When I create something, you can use what I created for "evidence". How? Unless you an prove I created it, how is it evidence of anything?

Back top what do you believe evidence is? Now what is your evidence, but what is the nature of evidence? How do you go about demonstrating evidence of a premise. When you state the premise, "This thing was created", what method do you use to prove that premise?

 

[ding]

A tangible item is evidence. When you create something. I can use what you created as evidence. That isn't up for debate. That is the nature of evidence.

What is debatable is what the evidence tells us.

You keep talking about creating something. Before you declare that something was created, do you not, first need evidence that it was created? Herein is the problem with your argument. You say When I create something, you can use what I created for "evidence". How? Unless you an prove I created it, how is it evidence of anything?

I don't need to know who created something to study it and learn from it.

 

[ding]

The funny thing is that the people who claim they want to see the evidence for God are the same ones who refuse to study the evidence that they have.

 

[Czernobog]

A tangible item is evidence. When you create something. I can use what you created as evidence. That isn't up for debate. That is the nature of evidence.

What is debatable is what the evidence tells us.

You keep talking about creating something. Before you declare that something was created, do you not, first need evidence that it was created? Herein is the problem with your argument. You say When I create something, you can use what I created for "evidence". How? Unless you an prove I created it, how is it evidence of anything?

I don't need to know who created something to study it and learn from it.

But you do need to know that it was created. You can not just assert that premise without evidence. So, what is the method you use to go about proving that premise?

 

[ding]

A tangible item is evidence. When you create something. I can use what you created as evidence. That isn't up for debate. That is the nature of evidence.

What is debatable is what the evidence tells us.

You keep talking about creating something. Before you declare that something was created, do you not, first need evidence that it was created? Herein is the problem with your argument. You say When I create something, you can use what I created for "evidence". How? Unless you an prove I created it, how is it evidence of anything?

I don't need to know who created something to study it and learn from it.

But you do need to know that it was created. You can not just assert that premise without evidence. So, what is the method you use to go about proving that premise?

We know the universe was created. Science tells us so.

 

[Czernobog]

The funny thing is that the people who claim they want to see the evidence for God are the same ones who refuse to study the evidence that they have.

You have yet to provide any. You say that "the things God created " are 'evidence", but when asked to prove that "God created anything", you falter.

 

[Czernobog]

A tangible item is evidence. When you create something. I can use what you created as evidence. That isn't up for debate. That is the nature of evidence.

What is debatable is what the evidence tells us.

You keep talking about creating something. Before you declare that something was created, do you not, first need evidence that it was created? Herein is the problem with your argument. You say When I create something, you can use what I created for "evidence". How? Unless you an prove I created it, how is it evidence of anything?

I don't need to know who created something to study it and learn from it.

But you do need to know that it was created. You can not just assert that premise without evidence. So, what is the method you use to go about proving that premise?

We know the universe was created. Science tells us so.

Again, you are jumping ahead. What method do you use to arrive at your position. What, in your opinion, is evidence? What does that concept mean?

 

[ding]

Red shift, background radiation, the theory of general relativity and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tell us that the universe was created.

And since that time matter and energy has only changed form until beings that know and create arose.

 

[ding]

The funny thing is that the people who claim they want to see the evidence for God are the same ones who refuse to study the evidence that they have.

You have yet to provide any. You say that "the things God created " are 'evidence", but when asked to prove that "God created anything", you falter.

That's because you refuse to study the evidence and only look for things which confirm your beliefs.

 

[Czernobog]

Red shift, background radiation, the theory of general relativity and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tell us that the universe was created.

And since that time matter and energy has only changed form until beings that know and create arose.

Those are words. Why do those things constitute "evidence"? What. Is. Evidence?

 

[ding]

Heck, you even deny the science that tells us the universe had a beginning for crying out loud.

 

[ding]

Red shift, background radiation, the theory of general relativity and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tell us that the universe was created.

And since that time matter and energy has only changed form until beings that know and create arose.

Those are words. Why do those things constitute "evidence"? What. Is. Evidence?

I already told you that. Anything which is tangible can be used as evidence.

 

[ding]

See? He's still trying to avoid examining the evidence because he is afraid of what the evidence shows.