Simple question?

Quote: FrGamble

That is exactly what you are doing!

Nope. You haven't posted anything that could
be considered evidence except to the most
hardcore deluded believer. Nothing for me to
cover my eyes and ears over. I'll say it again,
you clearly don't know what real evidence is.
If you did, you would never point to hearsay
and mass belief and proclaim it to be evidence
of anything.

Quote: FrGamble

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

You seem to be confused and forgetful. You've offered arguments and anecdotes but not one shred of evidence.

Mine includes: the Law of Identity, the Law of Conservation of Energy, the fact that Energy predates the Big Bang, the many observations that complex structures arise from simpler ones, the many observations that complex lifeforms evolves from simpler ones, among other things.

Quote: Nareed

You've offered arguments and anecdotes but not one shred of evidence.
.

I'm telling you, he doesn't know what real
evidence is. He thinks hearsay is evidence,
even though every court in the world says
it's not. He thinks people saying they talk
to Jesus and Jesus answers is evidence.

It's not.

Quote: Evenbob

I'm telling you, he doesn't know what real
evidence is. He thinks hearsay is evidence,
even though every court in the world says
it's not. He thinks people saying they talk
to Jesus and Jesus answers is evidence.

It's not.

To help you out a bit here is the definition of hearsay: 1.information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate. It is often not admissible in court and is a rather weak form of evidence. It is different from "personal testimony" which is one of the strongest of evidences that is always accepted in court. The difference would be me saying, "I heard Evenbob say that he saw Dr. Brown kill him in the Conservatory with a rope." That is hearsay. However, if I said, "I saw Dr. Brown kill him in the Ballroom with the pillow." That is personal testimony. Personal testimony is evidence and is allowed in every court in the world.

What you are doing is hearsay. You are saying that my personal experience is not valid or is a self-delusion. You cannot adequately substantiate this without falling into either circular reasoning or ad hominem attacks. So I ask you who does not know what real evidence is? The evidence my friend points to you.

Quote: Nareed

You've offered arguments and anecdotes but not one shred of evidence.

The personal testimony of billions and billions of people, the impossibility of a real infinite regress, the logical necessity of a first cause or a non-contingent being, something cannot come from nothing, the expanding universe, the big bang theory, the second law of thermodynamics, the universal concept of moral good and evil, the fine tuning of the physical laws of the universe, the instinctive desire in us for perfect justice, meaning, and purpose in our lives, miracles, the historical person of Jesus Christ and His impact on the world, the historical similarities of religious myths through history and diverse places, the coherence of the Catholic dogma, the Bible being the most attested ancient text by far, the saints, the great good done by religions through history, the great harm caused by atheistic secularism in our most recent century, our desire for love, the essential aspect of trust and faith in our daily lives, and how Christianity explains the mystery of the human person among other things that while not proof

Quote:

Mine includes:

Now were talking.

Quote:

the Law of Identity

You might have to refresh my memory. But I think you said that there cannot be an infinite being because this being would be able to create other infinite beings making an absurdity equivalent to the example of Hilbert's Hotel I used earlier. This can be solved by recognizing that God's characteristics cannot be teased out to form straw man arguments. God's goodness, logic, omniscience, all-powerfulness, etc. cannot be separated.

Quote:

the Law of Conservation of Energy

Metaphysics and logic show that for there to be energy in the first place it must have been created at the beginning.

Quote:

the fact that Energy predates the Big Bang

Unproven guess that has no evidence to support it. Even if it did it just puts this pre-existing energy as the first thing created before the Big Bang.

Quote:

the many observations that complex structures arise from simpler ones

and this is used to show what?

Quote:

among other things.

like what?

Quote: FrGamble

To help you out a bit here is the definition of hearsay: 1.information received from other people

When you tout the experiences of millions
of people, that is HEARSAY. When you get
each one of them to tell their personal
story, that's still not evidence of anything
without hard evidence to back it up.

Example. I saw a unicorn. I have 10 other
people who say they saw a unicorn.
This is not evidence for the existence of
unicorns. Have the 10 people testify,
and produce a dead unicorn, that's evidence.

You and 100 people can all testify to your
experience with Jesus. Without hard evidence,
you might as well have seen a unicorn, your
testimony carries as much weight without
hard evidence. Jesus stories make Christians
feel all warm and fuzzy because they all share
the same delusions. They're enablers for one
another. That's how cults work.

Quote:

the great harm caused by atheistic secularism in our most recent century

I always laugh when you write this
Church talking point. It's been
pointed out to you often how flawed
and ridiculous the statement is,
yet your cult programming makes
you continue to use it. You really
can't help it.

Quote: Evenbob

I always laugh when you write this
Church talking point. It's been
pointed out to you often how flawed
and ridiculous the statement is,
yet your cult programming makes
you continue to use it. You really
can't help it.

Do you deny that the 20th century was the bloodiest and most violent in human history? Can you explain how it is flawed?

Hinduism is older than Christianity and has a billion followers. However as why it didn't outpace Christianity and Islam.

Quote:

In the modern era, religious conversion from and to Hinduism has been a controversial subject. Some state the concept of missionary conversion, either way, is anathema to the precepts of Hinduism.[469]

Religious conversion to Hinduism has a long history outside India. Merchants and traders of India, particularly from the Indian peninsula, carried their religious ideas, which led to religious conversions to Hinduism in southeast Asia.[470][471][472] Within India, archeological and textual evidence such as the 2nd century BCE Heliodorus pillar suggest that Greeks and other foreigners converted to Hinduism.[473][474] The debate on proselytization and religious conversion between Christianity, Islam and Hinduism is more recent, and started in the 19th century.[475][476][note 39]

Religious leaders of some Hindu reform movements such as the Arya Samaj launched Shuddhi movement to proselytize and reconvert Muslims and Christians back to Hinduism,[479][480] while those such as the Brahmo Samaj suggested Hinduism to be a non-missionary religion.[469] All these sects of Hinduism have welcomed new members to their group, while other leaders of Hinduism's diverse schools have stated that given the intensive proselytization activities from missionary Islam and Christianity, this "there is no such thing as proselytism in Hinduism" view must be re-examined.[469][479][481]

So, it looks like the pressures of Christianity and Islam makes them reconsider.

It's generally, what I thought is the spread of religion has much to do with the aggressiveness or lack of, of its followers.

Nothing special about religion except how well it's sold.

Quote: Evenbob

When you tout the experiences of millions
of people, that is HEARSAY. When you get
each one of them to tell their personal
story, that's still not evidence of anything
without hard evidence to back it up.

My personal experience is hard evidence so is that of millions and millions of people who themselves testify to the reality of Jesus in their lives. Read the lives of the saints to hear from them their own personal testimony. This is evidence and it is hard. I don't see why this is hard for your to understand?!?

Quote:

Example. I saw a unicorn. I have 10 other
people who say they saw a unicorn.

This is insulting to our intelligence and yours.

Quote:

You and 100 people can all testify to your
experience with Jesus. Without hard evidence,
you might as well have seen a unicorn, your
testimony carries as much weight without
hard evidence.

Would you say the same thing if 100 people testified that Bill Cosby put drugs in their drinks and raped them?