Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Non-scientific evidence
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8563
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 85 of 98 (564569)
06-11-2010 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Jzyehoshua
06-11-2010 12:05 AM


Re: No McDowell Citations
quote Coyote:
When it comes to religious belief, evidence plays no role. Contrary evidence is either ignored, denied, or misrepresented.
Responds Jzyehoshua:
Perhaps, but if so then Biblical belief is not by your definition 'religious belief' since evidence does indeed play some role.
And then you go into the most obvious use of circular reasoning and consider these "facts," well in keeping with the apologetics of which Coyote spoke.
You have proven his point for him.
To prove my point, what better source than the Bible itself?
Oh, how about a half-dozen sources from outside any religious field? That would certainly make the rest of us take notice.
Don't do the flud thing. That is sooo dead.
How about the "water into wine" trick? Any non-religious independent sources on that one?
How about the exodus plagues? Any independent sources (maybe Egyptian histories) for corroboration?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-11-2010 12:05 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024