The apologetics game!

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]Does the conclusion have to be true for the evidence pointing to it to be considered evidence for it?

That's an interesting question. Science has a long history of coming to wrong conclusions based on good evidence. And this happens in courtroom settings as well, so I would have to say no, a conclusion doesn't have to be true for the evidence po ...[text shortened]... in the direction we think it's pointing... or a direction we think it should be pointing.[/b]

You said that "what the Bible communicates is important"

What do you think the bible "communicates" that is "important" and what "evidence" do you have that it is "important", if you don't accept the evidence of the words themselves?

Originally posted by divegeester
You said that "what the Bible communicates is important"

What do you think the bible "communicates" that is "important" and what "evidence" do you have that it is "important", if you don't accept the evidence of the words themselves?

What does it mean to "accept the evidence of the words themselves"?

If words can be evidence of what the words are saying, then why don't you accept the evidence of the words I've been writing to you? What is so important to you that you will not accept the evidence of the words you have seen in my messages?

Originally posted by lemon lime
What is so important to you that you will not accept the evidence of the words you have seen in my messages?

The words in your messages provide evidence that you do not accept the Bibles as evidence supporting Christian doctrines. So, what evidence are the Christian doctrines you subscribe to based on?

Originally posted by lemon lime
What does it mean to "accept the evidence of the words themselves"?

If words can be evidence of what the words are saying, then why don't you accept the evidence of the words I've been writing to you? What is so important to you that you will not accept the evidence of the words you have seen in my messages?

You (as a professed Christian) have stated that you do not accept that the contents of the Bible are evidence to support the claims Christians make about their god but you also say that you feel that "what the Bible communicates is important".

So my question remains as:
What therefore do you regard as being the important communicated Biblical messages, and how can you substantiate that they are important if you do not accept the Bible as being authoritative evidence?

As well as the response itself, I also find your previous avoidance of this question and subsequent deflection quite interesting, which is why I'm perusing you on this. Thanks.

Originally posted by divegeester
You (as a professed Christian) have stated (to FMF) that you do not accept that the contents of the Bible are evidence to support the claims Christians make about their god but you all state that you feel that what the Bible communicates is important.

lemon lime revealed that he does not accept the Bible as evidence supporting Christian doctrine on page 12 in an exchange with you, as it happens.

Originally posted by FMF
lemon lime revealed that he does not accept the Bible as evidence supporting Christian doctrine on page 12 in an exchange with you, as it happens.

Noted, thanks.

Originally posted by FMF
lemon lime revealed that he does not accept the Bible as evidence supporting Christian doctrine on page 12 in an exchange with you, as it happens.

No, what I have actually revealed is that I do not accept your definition of 'evidence'.

Both of you have had plenty of opportunity to understand what I've been saying. But clearly you have no intention of addressing this, and will simply continue to play the same cat and mouse type of game I've seen you playing with other Christians... the Eden thread is just one recent example.

I have already told you that I have no intention of being the mouse in one of your cat and mouse games... so why do you suppose I've participated in this with you up until this point? If I have no intention of being your mouse, then why do you suppose I've bothered to stay with this as long as I have?

Originally posted by lemon lime
No, what I have actually revealed is that I do not accept your definition of 'evidence'.

Both of you have had plenty of opportunity to understand what I've been saying. But clearly you have no intention of addressing this, and will simply continue to play the same cat and mouse type of game I've seen you playing with other Christians... the Eden threa ...[text shortened]... of being your mouse, then why do you suppose I've bothered to stay with this as long as I have?

Exchanging PMs with robbie and Galveston is no substitute for defending your stated POV in the forum.

Just sayin'

Originally posted by divegeester
Exchanging PMs with robbie and Galveston is no substitute for defending your stated POV in the forum.

Just sayin'

Say what? How could that have been a substitution? A substitution for what? It was an observation, not a substitution.

You either don't understand my point of view or have been intentionally ignoring it. You would rather tell me my point of view than for me to tell you, so there's really no point in any of this other than for me to see if my theory was correct. I wasn't sure of the cat and mouse aspect of this before we started, but now I can now confidently call this a fact...

Simply put: You two seem to get your jollies jerking Christians around.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I have already told you that I have no intention of being the mouse in one of your cat and mouse games... so why do you suppose I've participated in this with you up until this point? If I have no intention of being your mouse, then why do you suppose I've bothered to stay with this as long as I have?

Personally, I think it's because you misstated your stance earlier on this thread and you are the kind of poster who can scarcely ever admit an error and therefore you will deflect and evade and change the topic over and over and over again in an effort to bury your error even at the expense of your own credibility, which may well remain intact in your own mind due to your pomposity. Anyone can go back and trace your unravelling statements and arguments from around page 11 onwards ~ where you appeared to inadvertently take up an essentially non-Christian stance regarding the evidence provided by the Bible ~ and they can see exactly what I am referring to.

Originally posted by lemon lime
No, what I have actually revealed is that I do not accept your definition of 'evidence'.

Well this brings us back to the question you have been sidestepping so assiduously. If as you have suggested, the Bible ~ as written words ~ is not "valid evidence", and therefore is not "evidence" of Jesus rising from the dead, then on what "evidence" do you base your belief that Jesus DID rise from the dead? What other "evidence" of him rising from the dead exists aside from the "evidence" laid out in the Bible ~ which you yourself have said you do not accept as being "evidence"?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Say what? How could that have been a substitution? A substitution for what? It was an observation, not a substitution.

You either don't understand my point of view or have been intentionally ignoring it. You would rather tell me my point of view than for me to tell you, so there's really no point in any of this other than for me to see if my theory was ...[text shortened]... y call this a fact...

Simply put: You two seem to get your jollies jerking Christians around.

My question is based on what you have posted in this forum.

You (as a professed Christian) have stated that you do not accept that the contents of the Bible are evidence to support the claims Christians make about their god but you also say that you feel that "what the Bible communicates is important".

So my question remains as:
What therefore do you regard as being the important communicated Biblical messages, and how can you substantiate that they are important if you do not accept the Bible as being authoritative evidence?

Originally posted by divegeester
My question is based on what you have posted in this forum.

You (as a professed Christian) have stated that you do not accept that the contents of the Bible are evidence to support the claims Christians make about their god but you also say that you feel that "what the Bible communicates is important".

So my question remains as:
What therefore d ...[text shortened]... tantiate that they are important if you do not accept the Bible as being authoritative evidence?

The game is over now... this is the part where you two are supposed to go into some after-game commentary and declare yourselves the winners.

Originally posted by lemon lime
The game is over now... this is the part where you two are supposed to go into some after-game commentary and declare yourselves the winners.

Lol, that sounds like when Grampy Bobby does a "THREAD CLOSED" post after finding his pants repeatedly at his ankles.

Originally posted by lemon lime
The game is over now... this is the part where you two are supposed to go into some after-game commentary and declare yourselves the winners.

But after 6 or more pages, you still haven't answered this: If as you have suggested, the Bible ~ as written words ~ is not "valid evidence", and therefore is not "evidence" of Jesus rising from the dead, then on what "evidence" do you base your belief that Jesus DID rise from the dead?