Why Don't Christians ever present any evidence?

Huh? Who's whining? Where did I whine?

I will make a deal with you. For every "attack" that a christian has made on this board - I'll provide at least 3 times as many attacks that have been directed at christians. (emphasis added)

Faith cannot be proven or dissected and true faith cannot be shaken or stirred.

I Stereo wrote:

Baddog1 - You misunderstand. I am referring to the fact that Christians never post any evidence to support their beliefs, all they do is try to dismantle other's arguements. I believe this is called an arguement from incredulty.

I'd like to see evidence to prove creationism, a great flood, jesus, etc. Further, I want evidence that isn't man made.

Neo - Can't prove or disprove God? The burden of proof falls on the people trying to prove god exists. And as far as I'm concerned, The criteria I'd use to prove for that is the amazing claims that would validate God in the form that has been claimed.

Prove God.

State standards.

I Stereo wrote:

Baddog1 - You misunderstand. I am referring to the fact that Christians never post any evidence to support their beliefs, all they do is try to dismantle other's arguements. I believe this is called an arguement from incredulty.

I'd like to see evidence to prove creationism, a great flood, jesus, etc. Further, I want evidence that isn't man made.

Neo - Can't prove or disprove God? The burden of proof falls on the people trying to prove god exists. And as far as I'm concerned, The criteria I'd use to prove for that is the amazing claims that would validate God in the form that has been claimed.

Prove God.

Are you asking for 'natural' (i.e. empirical or scientific) proof of the 'supernatural'?

Isn't that a bit like trying to smell a color , or trying to hear a photograph ?

Physicians don't consider their work to be "proof."

Judges don't consider their rulings to be "proof" of anything.

A mariner doesn't seek to "prove" anything.

baddog1 wrote:

Huh? Who's whining? Where did I whine?

In his first post in this thread . . .

baddog1 wrote:

I will make a deal with you. For every "attack" that a christian has made on this board - I'll provide at least 3 times as many attacks that have been directed at christians. (emphasis added)

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

Oh . . . that's right . . . with those cheesey emoticons you so love, you don't need any more cheese . . .

Setanta wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

Huh? Who's whining? Where did I whine?

In his first post in this thread . . .

baddog1 wrote:

I will make a deal with you. For every "attack" that a christian has made on this board - I'll provide at least 3 times as many attacks that have been directed at christians. (emphasis added)

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

Oh . . . that's right . . . with those cheesey emoticons you so love, you don't need any more cheese . . .

That was no whine, only a simple challenge in response to an accusation.

Tell you what - I issue the same challenge to you set. Deal?

And the whine/cheese pseudo-joke is older than the hills - I expected better from you.

neologist wrote:

I Stereo wrote:

Baddog1 - You misunderstand. I am referring to the fact that Christians never post any evidence to support their beliefs, all they do is try to dismantle other's arguements. I believe this is called an arguement from incredulty.

I'd like to see evidence to prove creationism, a great flood, jesus, etc. Further, I want evidence that isn't man made.

Neo - Can't prove or disprove God? The burden of proof falls on the people trying to prove god exists. And as far as I'm concerned, The criteria I'd use to prove for that is the amazing claims that would validate God in the form that has been claimed.

Prove God.

State standards.

1) Reproducable / Repeatbale
2) Tangable or observable
3) Uniform / No issues of continuity
4) Any assumption is stated as such and qualified
5) Any error in findings is explanable
6) Present tense

Neo - Are you familiar with the phrase "Rashomon effect?" Rashomon was a classic black and white Japanese film by famous director Akira Kurosawa. It depicted one event through several people's eyes and illustrated how given a single instance, people experiance it differently. IT was sucha profound hit in the philisophical and pychological community that it became it's own study; the way single events are experienced and recorded differently.

So for my criteria 3. I'm interested how you could prove to anyone, that a religion, esppecially Christianity can have unifomity or continuity.

Next, As for explaining error. It is not the error of yes or no. It's not pass fail examination, but instead the explanation of how ALL the present information is in correspondance with your hypothesis.

Say for instance you are a scientist and you are trying to predict how far a ball will roll. You base you hypothesis on calculations form all the present information. The mass and size of the ball, the properties of the floor such as the coeficiant of friction. Come time to actually rool the ball, even the greatest physic professor will have some degree of error, even if only by a mm. That even miniscule degree of error warrants a reason, and I am interested in that degree of explanation.

So if you are up to the test of my 3rd and 5th criteria, be my guest.

I then assume, that you'd then accept my deal that if there isn't 5 posts that a Christian makes trying to dismantle a non-christinan view to every 1 post that a Christian makes in support of their own view with evidence, you'll acknowledge that the Christian belief is not based at all on any proof?

Baddog1 - your callege is without definition. You can simply call any criticism of Christian beliefs an attack.

You came into my thread. I don't have to do anything for you to earn the right to hear an explanation;a dorect answer to my original post. If you don't have any evidence, don't send me on a goose humt to slow me down.

You have twisted this whole issue around.

I simply want to know why christians don't want to share any evidence? Why do they instead choose to attack science.

I'll admit that science and reason attacks christianity, but take all the attacks away, and we still have evidence. Take away all the attacks that christianity makes, and you've got nothing.

I don't hear any Christian defend their stance, all they do is attack others.

I came here to the forums to hear some real discussion on religion related issues which I cared about.

However, I have been disappointed so far.

I don't hear any Christian defend their stance, all they do is attack others.

neologist wrote:

I Stereo wrote:

Baddog1 - You misunderstand. I am referring to the fact that Christians never post any evidence to support their beliefs, all they do is try to dismantle other's arguements. I believe this is called an arguement from incredulty.

I'd like to see evidence to prove creationism, a great flood, jesus, etc. Further, I want evidence that isn't man made.

Neo - Can't prove or disprove God? The burden of proof falls on the people trying to prove god exists. And as far as I'm concerned, The criteria I'd use to prove for that is the amazing claims that would validate God in the form that has been claimed.

Prove God.

State standards.

1) Reproducable / Repeatbale
2) Tangable or observable
3) Uniform / No issues of continuity
4) Any assumption is stated as such and qualified
5) Any error in findings is explanable
6) Present tense