- I asked if possible.
The question is, “What do you mean by “real”.
Of the natural world.
Then Spiderman cannot be real. And Jesus as god or anything supernatural cannot be real. Jesus could have been real as a man, but only as a man. We don’t have much evidence that the Jesus of the bible never existed, even as a man. His persona could have been made up out of whole cloth or it could have been based on an actual person or several persons. But as soon as you get into the supernatural realm, he ceases to be of the natural world.
"We don’t have much evidence that the Jesus of the bible never existed, "
Sorry to be a noodge. I think you may be conflating ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’. They are not the same thing; Evidence is anything used in support of an argument. There is a vast amount of evidence for the existence of Jesus. What all this evidence does not provide is proof.
I blame Carl Sagan, who said “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” This statement is incorrect. Absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence, but it is not proof…
The difference is subtle but definite.
Evidence is the bible says so. How do you know the bible is true? Because the bible says its true.
Thats what you call evidence??
“Then Spiderman cannot be real. And Jesus as god or anything supernatural cannot be real.”
So spiderman cannot possibly be real but Thor can be?
Thanks for the logic 101 lesson LoisL
“Evidence is the bible says so. How do you know the bible is true? Because the bible says its true.”
Just so. Non believers reject all sacred texts as a source of truth… Believers accept on faith; 'a belief in things unseen". There is no proof for any religious belief of which I’m aware.
“Evidence” is ANYTHING provided in support of a claim. It is NOT a synonym for ‘proof’
Hence, the Torah, New Testament, The Q’uran, Hadith, stacks of historical accounts (after the fact) and personal anecdotes are ALL ‘evidence’. For say the existence of God, the ,the life and teachings of Jesus, or Muhammed. What they are not, is proof.
Perhaps look at how evidence works in law; much of the evidence provided, is inadmissible. Eyewitness accounts are generally seen as unreliable; evidence, but not proof. Can yo see the difference? Or have I been unclear?
Is the bible evidence?
Player, if you could read AND comprehend what you read, you would know his answer to that. Just read his last post over and over and over, until maybe it will click for you.
“Player, if you could read AND comprehend what you read, you would know his answer to that. Just read his last post over and over and over, until maybe it will click for you.”
Thanks Tim; do you think it’s just that he doesn’t read posts, or do you think he might be a bit dim? I’m beginning to think that although perfectly capable of comprehension and rational responses, he gets a kick out of trolling .It’s very tedious.
Idk. Every once in a while he makes a modicum of sense. It is tedious.
I cant believe how dumb you both are. If i write a book and it says i am god and can perform miracles you say thats evidence.
Wow!
“I cant believe how dumb you both are. If i write a book and it says i am god and can perform miracles you say thats evidence.”
I’ve explained, twice about the difference between ‘evidence’ and 'proof".
Because of your ability to make sense when you want to, I’m simply unable to believe you are really as stupid and bloody minded as your last two posts show.
I can only conclude that you really are an obnoxious little troll. I’m done with you.
How can the source making the claim be used as evidence for that claim? You didnt explain. What is written in the bible are truth claims, evidence of which should be supported by contemperaneous sources. There are none.
Evidence is whatever you use to support your claim. One’s opinion of the evidence does not change the fact that it’s being used as evidence.
We cannot, with certainty, say the Bible has no value as evidence, so it can be used as evidence. My opinion is that it has almost no value as evidence for a god, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is evidence- basically worthless evidence to me, but still evidence.
Watch some Matt Dillahunty on Youtube for a crash course in this sort of thinking (here’s a video that explains it really well).
3 point - evidence for what?
Player: "3 point – evidence for what?"That's my attempt to explain evidence. It's a general definition that's applicable whenever you see the word "evidence" in a sentence.
I’m confused as to how you can be confused. Maybe you accidentally deleted the rest of your post where you explain what you mean.
3 point - evidence for what? What is the claim being made regarding the bible?
Ok. I’ll play along and pretend you haven’t been part of this thread.
Someone on this thread has an issue with calling the Bible evidence. I thought it might be useful to put my spin on how the word ‘evidence’ is used. Now, someone can use this different explanation to understand how the Bible might be called upon as evidence.
If someone has legitimate questions or problems with my definition, I hope they type lots of words to fully explain their question or problem, so I don’t have to guess what they mean.