Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[JohnA]

Its been months since I've been on this thread...Has evidence been established?

Their irrefutable faith dogma says there is no evidence.
Some atheists and theists reject this dogma for some strange reason.
Do you think that a faith based belief can yield any evidence?
If so, how is that logical?

[assisigirl]

Star;Post 1990:It's true, evidence supports positive claims.

"Negative evidence" is a misnomer, because it isn't really evidence.

If you think you can prove pink moon fairies don't exist, it's fallacious to try. However, if you pull the common apologist maneuver, and use this an excuse to argue for the existence of pink moon fairies, that's considerably worse

assisigirl: Good stuff but you must realize the this is a double sided coin and it works in reverse. I feel a migraine coming on.
If I refuse to engage in an atheistic 'God' experiment, it is inexcusable to use this reluctance as evidence that God does not exist. (or something like that, you have a go at turning your statement around)

[assisigirl]

A tail of three donkeys:



Balaams Donkey

21 Balaam got up in the morning, saddled his donkey and went with the Moabite officials..................

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV


I am amazed and aghast that we do not discover what happens the donkey or that the donkey does not receive either a reward or an apology, What a great story for any generation. It reminds me of 'The Tinder Box',

Let's be honest here folks, NENB has got some mileage out of this poor beast.

[assisigirl]

A tail of three donkeys:


I was trying to rationalize my attraction to the writings of NENB.

I see him as a modern day Matthew

Two great writers who pull stuff out at will, especially donkeys.

Here's Matthew, with Jesus heading into Jerusalem. The stage is set and matthew is overloading the scene with props and subplots. Enter Matthew's donkey.

Jesus Comes to Jerusalem as King

21 As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.
4 This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
5 Say to Daughter Zion,
See, your king comes to you,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
6 The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. 7 They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on. 8 A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. 9 The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted,
Hosanna to the Son of David!
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!
Hosanna] in the highest heaven!
10 When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, Who is this? The crowds answered, This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee.


assisigirl: Now that's how you do donkeys!
Had Jesus a behind the scenes prop crew or is it just that he can see everything.
Maybe the donkey owner owed him a favour.
Remember this is pre-mobile phone. Today you would ring the equivalent of Hertz, a donkey hire company. This guy Matthew was the Spielberg of his day and his writing reminds me terribly of NENB.

[assisigirl]

A tail of three donkeys

Coming up next! NEBE's donkey

But first, keithprosser3, you owe me some money.

Back after the break!

[assisigirl]

I am intoxicated by his Matthewellian gusto. Here is NEBE in full flow.

Post 1958(The mint edition)

Dude, think of a courtroom. There might be evidence that somebody committed the crime, but if the evidence doesn't meet the burden of proof, then the person is not guilty.
Similarly, there is evidence for zombies and talking donkeys. The mere testimony of the authors, however unreliable, and the feelings in the hearts of theists, however absurd to atheists, are evidence. The problem is that this evidence FAILS TO MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF. Namely, it fails to counter the overwhelmingly strong evidence against the claims that zombies and talking donkeys are real.
The word to describe evidence that fails to convince one that a claim is true is: invalid evidence

The word to describe a boombox that fails to produce sound is: broken boombox

You just have to open your mind to slightly more nuanced and sophisticated terminology.

You sound like a caveman. "THIS NO MAKE SOUND. THIS NO BOOMBOX.".

I understand it doesn't make sound. It's broken. It's a "broken boombox". That's the word to describe a boombox that doesn't work.

I understand that it doesn't meet the burden of proof. It's invalid. It's "Invalid evidence". That's the word to describe evidence that doesn't meet the burden of proof.

Sigh, this sucks. Please try to understand this time.

assisigirl: more soon!

[keithprosser3]

Evidence can't be valid or invalid - it can only be weak or strong.

If evidence is very strong it can be considered 'proof' in some contexts ('ie proof beyond reasonably doubt) or it can be so weak as to be practically useless, for example if my alibi for a murder is only backed up by my mum.

Enough weak evidence can add up to being strong evidence.

If a boombox doesn't boom that is good evidence it is broken. If added to the fact that you have checked the batteries then that makes it even better evidence - good enough to count as 'proof' for practical purposes, but outside of a mathematical theorem nothing is 100% 'provable'. All you can do is pile up lots of evidence until it is 'proved beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Evidence can't prove anything beyond unreasonable doubt.

[JohnA]

Evidence can't be valid or invalid - it can only be weak or strong.

If evidence is very strong it can be considered 'proof' in some contexts ('ie proof beyond reasonably doubt) or it can be so weak as to be practically useless, for example if my alibi for a murder is only backed up by my mum.

Enough weak evidence can add up to being strong evidence.

If a boombox doesn't boom that is good evidence it is broken. If added to the fact that you have checked the batteries then that makes it even better evidence - good enough to count as 'proof' for practical purposes, but outside of a mathematical theorem nothing is 100% 'provable'. All you can do is pile up lots of evidence until it is 'proved beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Evidence can't prove anything beyond unreasonable doubt.

Sigh.

I coveted this before. You are way off. At least you got the valid and invalid correct.

Am not going to repeat the same explanation again.
What do you think the meaning of faith is? What is a faith based belief?

[assisigirl]

A tail of three donkeys (NEBE's Donkey)

NENB:Post1972

We meet NEBE again in full Matthewellian flow.

I realized I failed to answer this portion of your post.

Yes, I only believe things for which there is valid evidence.

Obviously the strength of the evidence required to persuade me of any given claim will be proportional to my estimation of the plausibility of the claim.

For example: If you were to tell me that you live in California, probably your testimony on this thread would be sufficient evidence for me to tentatively believe you for the time being.

If you were to tell me you lived in California and you were former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, I would most definitely require much stronger evidence. Probably I'd need you to send me a video of yourself saying "Yes NENB, I am the Governator, I do enjoy posting on debatingchristianity.com with username assisigirl".

If you were to tell me you lived in California, were Arnold Schwarzenegger, and that you died last week but were raised from the dead by your father the Lord God Almighty, you'd have to show me a TREMENDOUS amount of evidence.

The reason why I need more evidence for the claim "I own a talking donkey" than for the claim "I own a donkey", is because there is so much evidence against the talking donkey, that whatever evidence you provide for it, will need to be strong enough to counter it.

assisigirl :A new concept 'Quantifiable Evidence' 'Amounts of Evidence', a 'Scales of Justice' weighing process. Pretty archaic calibration, if you ask me.
It makes for fantastic reading but it is waffle.

Surely to God, you would need less evidence for 'a talking donkey' than you would need when choosing a reliable car. A guy with a few drinks in him would do me.

No where are people more aware of the concept of credibility, evidence and absolute human nature than in the NT.

Take the Jesus quote in the Lazarus story as an example.

He said to him, If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.

Is this not absolutely true.

I have been reading about sightings of a 'Flying Dutchman Ghost Ship' and there are people under pinning the notion with science.


IF A TALKING DONKEY APPEARED FROM A BUSH, WHAT WOULD YOU DO.

I'd give up the drink, I know a guy who saw the devil sitting in the back seat of his car after drinking a bottle of Jack Daniels before driving. He jumped out of his car and walked home. I have no evidence for this but I believe him. He has never lied to me.

[keithprosser3]

IF A TALKING DONKEY APPEARED FROM A BUSH, WHAT WOULD YOU DO.

That rather depends on what it said, doesn't it?