|
|
|
|
|
ProtestantismMiracles & the NT
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »
»
Soundly refuted, eh? » Migisi - Clarification In response to Clarification posted by BrianTubbs:
-- posted by Migisi » redback - Clarification In response to Clarification posted by BrianTubbs:"...evidence for a black hole..." http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/07... A huge hole in the universe estimated at nearly a billion light years wide has been recently discovered. An American professor tells the story so I tend to agree with you, Brian. You can just bet the evidence is fudged there too. I ponder. Is this a hole in the heart of the universe..or an exit wound from its body...and does Heaven lie just beyond? -- posted by redback
»
» Migisi - Rules of Evidence In response to My "stretch" posted by BrianTubbs:. I didn't say it was PROOF of the resurrection. I said it was EVIDENCE for it. You used to be a police officer, Migisi. . What kind of evidence? Certainly not direct evidence. . The ancient writings (including Gospels) that you offered previously were 'hearsay evidence': "evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath." (Mer/Webster) Hearsay is disallowed by most US courts (with some exceptions stipulated in the Federal Rules of Evidence). . Your theory that 'Christianity growth = evidence of resurrection' might be seen by some as 'circumstantial evidence'... defined as combined unrelated facts that can infer a conclusion about something unknown. Circumstantial evidence is NOT proof that something happened. However, it can be used as a guide for further investigation. . Shall we investigate your theory further? -- posted by Migisi » pink101 - Rules of Evidence In response to Rules of Evidence posted by Migisi:. Shall we investigate your theory further? . You mean investigate his "stretch" of evidence further, don't you? . Not to belabor the weakness of the argument; but, it looks to me as though the apologists recognize the fact that they are on sinking sand when it comes to the "proof" that they claim to possess. That may be why they seem so reticent in their approaches to anything of substance. . . -- posted by pink101 » Migisi - Rules of Evidence In response to Rules of Evidence posted by pink101:. Apologists follow this philosophy: 'if you repeat something often enough, people will believe it'. The Gospels are 'evidence' of that truism. But repeating a theory (or a theology) doesn't prove that it's true. -- posted by Migisi » pink101 - A Little Bit Of Fear In response to Rules of Evidence posted by Migisi:. When you go into a room; cut out the doors; frame in the holes with studs; seal them over with dry wall; mud over the nails and seams; sand everything down smooth; and, paint the entire room; you have no way out. . All absolutes do that to themselves. . I do think Brian understands your position quite clearly. . And? . I think he agrees with you. . That doesn't mean that he has given up on his personal beliefs. . Remember the song, A little bitty tear let me down? Spoiled my act as a clown... . Ever hear the take off, A little bit of bear let me down? Naile my butt to the ground... . How about, A little bit of fear let me down? Until salvation I found... . People don't know about the after life and they are afraid of the frightening aspect of an eternity in Hell. . Death can be a fearful event. . -- posted by pink101 « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next » Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion. |
|
|
|