Simple question?

Quote: FrGamble

What do you mean?

I mean they never come out and say it.
They're scientists, they don't jump to
conclusions, they don't guess. When
asked, they say it strongly points to
reincarnation, but stop short of
saying it's definite. They use the
example of tobacco. There's decades
of evidence that it causes cancer, but
all science can say is, it strongly
points in that direction. Science
isn't religion, they don't jump to
conclusions, they have no agenda
to fulfill.

Quote:

Why is this real relationship with Jesus and its real results in lives changed and insights gained not "proof" or evidence?

Because it's conjecture and wishful thinking.
It's hearsay, not evidence. I don't think you
know what evidence is or how it's arrived
at. You seem to think every little thing is
some kind of evidence for gods existence.

Quote:

I continue to show you evidence .

But you don't. What you say is evidence
is not evidence at all. It's so full of holes
it doesn't even look like Swiss cheese. Real
evidence is not arguable, what you present is
not real evidence. The sun rises in the east.
What's the evidence. Every day, like clockwork,
it rises in the east. It's solid, it's repeatable.

For some reason you think conjecture and
mass belief is evidence of something. It's not.

Quote: Evenbob

I mean they never come out and say it.
They're scientists, they don't jump to
conclusions, they don't guess.

Scientists should never jump to conclusions, nor should any of us. However, they are in the business of guessing, it's called hypothesizing.

Quote:

When asked, they say it strongly points to
reincarnation, but stop short of
saying it's definite. They use the
example of tobacco. There's decades
of evidence that it causes cancer, but
all science can say is, it strongly
points in that direction.

Nope, science doesn't jump to conclusions but they do arrive at them. The heart pumps blood, tobacco is cancer causing, the sun rises in the east, these are all conclusions reached at through scientific evidence. All fields of knowledge reach conclusions. In philosophy there are conclusions reached such as A cannot equal not-A, the number of people that believe something does not necessarily mean it is true, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, ad hominem attacks are illogical, and the list goes on and on.

Quote:

Because it's conjecture and wishful thinking.
It's hearsay, not evidence. I don't think you
know what evidence is or how it's arrived
at.

This is the argument of the defense to say that testimony is made up or hearsay, meaning not personally known. The reason the defense and you are doing this is because witness testimony IS evidence. The difference is usually the defense team has a reason why they claim the testimony is wishful thinking. You just seem to think repeating it is all you need do. Can you tell me why the real relationship and experience that billions of people have had with the living Lord Jesus that has dramatically changed their lives for the better is just wishful thinking or hearsay? Please be careful of circular reasoning in your response. You cannot say that these people cannot have a relationship with God because there is no God because to answer why or to state your evidence is only to repeat there is no God, for which you have absolutely zero evidence.

Quote:

You seem to think every little thing is
some kind of evidence for gods existence.

It is. Why is there something rather than nothing?

Quote:

Real evidence is not arguable, what you present is
not real evidence. The sun rises in the east.
What's the evidence.

I can tell by your example that you don't understand the nature of evidence. Think about it for a second. Why do we have courts where both sides present evidence to support their claim? What you are looking for is a preponderance of evidence pointing in one direction and leading reasonable people to make a decision beyond a reasonable doubt. You are confusing looking for some mathematical proof with evidence. This is the real world where things are not that simple. Please refer to the excellent cartoon that someone posted recently in this thread.

Well there is slam-dunk type evidence in court also. That's when someone usually takes a plea, instead of getting tried.

Sometimes there is very little, conflicting, or unclear evidence. That's when you often have a trial.

Then again, some cases have so little evidence, the case is not brought to trial.

(did I get that right lawyer people?)

Quote: rxwine

Well there is slam-dunk type evidence in court also. That's when someone usually takes a plea, instead of getting tried.

Sometimes there is very little, conflicting, or unclear evidence. That's when you often have a trial.

Then again, some cases have so little evidence, the case is not brought to trial.

(did I get that right lawyer people?)

What happens when one side has lots of evidence but no slam-dunk and the other side has no evidence at all?

Quote: FrGamble

Can you tell me why the real relationship and experience that billions of people have had with the living Lord Jesus that has dramatically changed their lives for the better is just wishful thinking or hearsay?

Can you tell me why the vast majority of
people in Europe, for hundreds of years,
believed that witches were so real and
such a real threat, they had to be murdered
in hideous ways? They had just as much
evidence that witches were guilty of all the
acts they were accused of, as you and your
billions have evidence that Jesus does all
the things in your life that you claim.

In other words, you have zero evidence, just
like the witch burners had nothing. Religious
delusion, it's a powerful drug.

Quote: FrGamble

What happens when one side has lots of evidence but no slam-dunk and the other side has no evidence at all?

You're "the other side," so you tell me what happens.

Quote: Nareed

You're "the other side," so you tell me what happens.

Actually I'm in the side with the evidence and you have none,at least none that you have shared.

What do you call evidence that has multiple explanations?

For example: The grass is wet. Did it rain, or did someone water the lawn?

What value does the evidence that the grass is wet have in proving or disproving the fact that it rained, or someone watered the lawn, or some other explanation such as morning dew or a broken underwater pipe?

What if it didn't rain, no one watered the lawn, it is the afternoon, and there are no underground pipes?

Quote: FrGamble

Actually I'm in the side with the evidence

You think if you keep saying that, it
will be true somehow. That's the
nature of self delusion, just keep
repeating your 'truths' and put hands
over your ears wear your blinders
when you leave the house.

Quote: Evenbob

You think if you keep saying that, it
will be true somehow. That's the
nature of self delusion, just keep
repeating your 'truths' and put hands
over your ears wear your blinders
when you leave the house.

That is exactly what you are doing!