On Tue, 03 Jun 1997 08:50:20 -0600, Russell Stewart wrote:
[...]
>RS>...Of course, there is not one shred >of evidence to prove
(logically and scientifically) that God exists.
SJ>What "evidence" would you accept?
RS>What do you have?
Russell, *you* are the one claiming that "there is not one shred of
evidence to prove (logically and scientifically) that God exists."
For this statement to be meaningful, you must have some idea what you
would accept as evidence . Until you state what it is, it is a waste
of time me posting what I think you would accept as evidence! No
matter what I posted, you could always say that you don't accept it
as evdience.
If you don't post up front what you would accept as evidence for the
existence of God, then I can only conclude that there is *no*
evidence for the existence of God that you would accept.
In that case your argument changes to:
...there is not one shred of evidence [that I would accept] to prove
(logically and scientifically) that God exists.
On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 12:26:08 -0600, Russell Stewart wrote:
[...]
JB>Steve asked a very important question which you need to spend a little time
>>on. As in any debate, we must make sure we are using the same terms. You use
>>two rather common terms, "evidence" and "proof." But it is not clear how you
>>are using them.
RS>I honestly don't know what would convince me that God exists. Of course, if
>He appeared in front of me in an undeniable way, that would be pretty
>convincing.
>But beyond that, I'm not sure.
This is not a request for "evidence" but for personal testimony. On that basis few
if any people could be convicted. Imagine if a jurior said, "I will not believe
OJ did it, unless he appears before me personally and tells me in an undeniable
way that he did do it!
Since the Christian apologist is unable to make God to "appear in front" of the
sceptic "in an undeniable way", that is the end of the argument! But I doubt
that even that "would be pretty convincing" to a mind which is already made up.
The sceptic would just conclude it was a hallucination.
This confirms that your claim is not:
...there is not one shred of evidence to prove (logically and scientifically) that
God exists.
but
...there is not one shred of evidence *that I would accept* to prove
(logically and scientifically) that God exists.
Which makes your original statement valueless (if not actually meaningless)
for the purposes of public debate. It tells us something about *you*, not
about the *evidence*.
Regards.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------