EVIDENCE.
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. I have given all kinds of evidence.
No it's not 'anything'. An interpretation is not evidence of anything other than what the interpretator thinks.
Since you have no physical evidence, all is hear say from 2000 years ago.
You would lose a case in court 100% as there is no eyewitness and the books are easily faked and are also known to be cherry picked scriptures written by different people. Science, even catholic science has analyzed scriptures and concluded they were written by various writers and have identified parts where identities change etc. So your proof is so tainted and such a 100000x hearsay that a judge would throw you out before you would even begin to speak.
So you can play around with the meaning of the word evidence, but whatever meaning you pick, you lose.
If arbitrary interpretations are accepted evidence I can always give contrary interpretations (but I need not to, as there are plenty available already) as you have seen yourself. And what then? We agree to disagree?
The only way the dispute can be settled is if we both witness Jesus resurrect before our eyes. And we wont, we both know it.
So your entire endeavor and loss of time invested into coming up with all this "evidence"(just biased interpretations and nothing more) is futile from the start, which is probably one the first things I told you. I dismiss this entire thing, that's how my mind works, it knows what paths lead to useless effort.
Weighing "interpretations" as if they were evidence by comparing the credibility of the authors is NOT a scientific method and is therefore a futile effort.
Thus your intention to prove christianity by weighing various interpretations and their authors is NOT AT ALL a scientific endeavor and has nothing to do with science but has all to do with your mind picking facts you like.
You could get to know yourself by reserving a "third person perspective" to analyze what you're doing here and perhaps find out why you're so compelled to do this, or you can resume your blind life and invest further futile effort.
Having put aside the futility of your endeavor, the only other thing you can provide to compell anyone towards christianity is utility. What does christianity provide for the "believer"? Is any of that empirically testable? Is there a guarantee, how do we test it?
So you see, your theistic assertion has zero evidence. And this is by design, as if God could be proven, provoked, seen, witnessed in any way - faith would not be required, it would simply be knowledge of facts. So in essence, even if you do prove Christianity, you will in fact destroy the faith.
This is what blind people do, they destroy what they love. And you've been told about your blindness. What you will destroy is your relationship with your parents, you want to win. And being at war with parents is already a sad thing, even before there's a victor. Destruction of Christian faith would be just collateral damage of your emotional blind war. Luckily, neither of this will never happen
Edited by addx, 01 July 2014 - 03:36 PM.
This topic is locked
