Define "Evidence"

[Shem Yoshi]

Define "evidence"

Ill give a start.

Evidence is anything used to support a claim.

Bonus question.
What is the defining factors of "no evidence" for something?

Does your definition of evidence, and no evidence, hold up to all things objectively?

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #23]

[Replying to Kylie in post #22]

I am looking for a working definition to understand the nonbelievers claim that there is "no evidence" for Christian God.

What is evidence, what isnt evidence? If it is dependent on proving a claim, in skepticism nothing is proven... So we have a problem.

Evidence is some information that supports a particular claim. Importantly, in order to be considered valid evidence, this information must be objective. In other words, any person can, in theory, at least, be able to gather information which will lead to the same conclusion.

There is no evidence for the Christian God (or any other God) that I have seen that meets this condition.

So a person that witnesses something real, alone, isnt evidence of something true they experience? Surely people can experience true things that will never be experienced by anyone else.

I think you guys just want to assert that there is no evidence for God, but really cant come to a good conclusion about what evidence can determine all truth and exclude God....

How is it we can get a definition that can encompass all things that are true? I dont think you can do it and come to the conclusion there is no evidence for God.

Yes, people can experience things that will never be experienced by anyone else. I have met people who claimed to have been abducted by aliens. They had their testimonies only. They could not provide any evidence to prove that aliens indeed came and abducted them and took them onboard their spaceships. Were these people telling the truth? Were these people lying? Were they dreaming? Were they hallucinating? I don't know. If you can prove that God exists, please do so with evidence. Testimonies don't count as evidence.

"Testimonies don't count as evidence."... Surely you cant say that... All history and past events are brought into the present by testimony of people... Are you willing to discredit all of history in an attempt to argue there is "no evidence" for God?

Testimonies can be lies, hallucinations, dreams, exaggerations, etc. That's why we need concrete evidence to find out the truth.

Testimony can also be true... Are you willing to throw out all true testimony?

Everything we haven't experienced for ourselves, that other people tell us of, is testimony... You are willing to say none of it is evidence? I am confident your own beliefs believe in things people have told you. Do you believe the south pole exists? Surely that belief is based on testimony.

I have seen the South Pole with my own eyes. Testimony is testimony. Evidence is evidence. If someone tells me that they coughed yesterday. I won't have difficulty accepting that as true. Coughing is an extremely common event when it comes to humans. However, if they said that they spoke with an angel yesterday, I will require concrete evidence that this is true before I can accept it as true.

You accepting it or not is rather irrelevant to whether it is actually true or not. Even very improbable events can be true, even if some people dont believe them, or even lets say no one believes it, it could still be true. That would be appealing to popularity anyways, which is a logical fallacy.

Are you willing to discredit things that could be actually true, in order to justify the claim that there is "no evidence" for God?

You are missing my point. How can I know whether someone's testimony is true unless I have evidence to support it? The Bible makes lots of extraordinary claims e.g. God creating the universe and all living things, the virgin birth of Jesus, the miracles performed by Jesus, the crucifixion of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, etc. I require evidence to prove these claims to be true. If you can provide me with evidence that proves the Bible to be true, then please do. The Bible itself is not the evidence that it is true.

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #23]

[Replying to Kylie in post #22]

I am looking for a working definition to understand the nonbelievers claim that there is "no evidence" for Christian God.

What is evidence, what isnt evidence? If it is dependent on proving a claim, in skepticism nothing is proven... So we have a problem.

Evidence is some information that supports a particular claim. Importantly, in order to be considered valid evidence, this information must be objective. In other words, any person can, in theory, at least, be able to gather information which will lead to the same conclusion.

There is no evidence for the Christian God (or any other God) that I have seen that meets this condition.

So a person that witnesses something real, alone, isnt evidence of something true they experience? Surely people can experience true things that will never be experienced by anyone else.

I think you guys just want to assert that there is no evidence for God, but really cant come to a good conclusion about what evidence can determine all truth and exclude God....

How is it we can get a definition that can encompass all things that are true? I dont think you can do it and come to the conclusion there is no evidence for God.

Yes, people can experience things that will never be experienced by anyone else. I have met people who claimed to have been abducted by aliens. They had their testimonies only. They could not provide any evidence to prove that aliens indeed came and abducted them and took them onboard their spaceships. Were these people telling the truth? Were these people lying? Were they dreaming? Were they hallucinating? I don't know. If you can prove that God exists, please do so with evidence. Testimonies don't count as evidence.

"Testimonies don't count as evidence."... Surely you cant say that... All history and past events are brought into the present by testimony of people... Are you willing to discredit all of history in an attempt to argue there is "no evidence" for God?

Testimonies can be lies, hallucinations, dreams, exaggerations, etc. That's why we need concrete evidence to find out the truth.

Testimony can also be true... Are you willing to throw out all true testimony?

Everything we haven't experienced for ourselves, that other people tell us of, is testimony... You are willing to say none of it is evidence? I am confident your own beliefs believe in things people have told you. Do you believe the south pole exists? Surely that belief is based on testimony.

I have seen the South Pole with my own eyes. Testimony is testimony. Evidence is evidence. If someone tells me that they coughed yesterday. I won't have difficulty accepting that as true. Coughing is an extremely common event when it comes to humans. However, if they said that they spoke with an angel yesterday, I will require concrete evidence that this is true before I can accept it as true.

You accepting it or not is rather irrelevant to whether it is actually true or not. Even very improbable events can be true, even if some people dont believe them, or even lets say no one believes it, it could still be true. That would be appealing to popularity anyways, which is a logical fallacy.

Are you willing to discredit things that could be actually true, in order to justify the claim that there is "no evidence" for God?

You are missing my point. How can I know whether someone's testimony is true unless I have evidence to support it? The Bible makes lots of extraordinary claims e.g. God creating the universe and all living things, the virgin birth of Jesus, the miracles performed by Jesus, the crucifixion of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, etc. I require evidence to prove these claims to be true. If you can provide me with evidence that proves the Bible to be true, then please do. The Bible itself is not the evidence that it is true.

This is not a debate about proving Christianity true. You are in the "Definitions and Explanations" section of the "General Discussion" tab... Here, given that people throw around the assertion "there is no evidence (for this and that)", we are trying to determine the definition of "evidence" so we can make sense of such statements. If we cant make sense of it, then it is just a nonsense saying to say "there is no evidence"...

What is "evidence" that someone can determine there is "evidence" or "no evidence" for something?

You say "How can I know whether someone's testimony is true unless I have evidence to support it?"

I dont believe truth or evidence for that truth is determined by you believing in it, do you agree? Something can be true, and have evidence, that you dont know if it is true or not... Right? It would seem anyone's personal belief is irrelevant, for people can get things wrong all the time.

I believe NO truth at all should ever be discredited... Therefor all truth, no matter what that truth is, we ought not to discredit as faulty or without evidence... Right?

[Compassionist]

Evidence is some information that supports a particular claim. Importantly, in order to be considered valid evidence, this information must be objective. In other words, any person can, in theory, at least, be able to gather information which will lead to the same conclusion.

There is no evidence for the Christian God (or any other God) that I have seen that meets this condition.

So a person that witnesses something real, alone, isnt evidence of something true they experience? Surely people can experience true things that will never be experienced by anyone else.

I think you guys just want to assert that there is no evidence for God, but really cant come to a good conclusion about what evidence can determine all truth and exclude God....

How is it we can get a definition that can encompass all things that are true? I dont think you can do it and come to the conclusion there is no evidence for God.

Yes, people can experience things that will never be experienced by anyone else. I have met people who claimed to have been abducted by aliens. They had their testimonies only. They could not provide any evidence to prove that aliens indeed came and abducted them and took them onboard their spaceships. Were these people telling the truth? Were these people lying? Were they dreaming? Were they hallucinating? I don't know. If you can prove that God exists, please do so with evidence. Testimonies don't count as evidence.

"Testimonies don't count as evidence."... Surely you cant say that... All history and past events are brought into the present by testimony of people... Are you willing to discredit all of history in an attempt to argue there is "no evidence" for God?

Testimonies can be lies, hallucinations, dreams, exaggerations, etc. That's why we need concrete evidence to find out the truth.

Testimony can also be true... Are you willing to throw out all true testimony?

Everything we haven't experienced for ourselves, that other people tell us of, is testimony... You are willing to say none of it is evidence? I am confident your own beliefs believe in things people have told you. Do you believe the south pole exists? Surely that belief is based on testimony.

I have seen the South Pole with my own eyes. Testimony is testimony. Evidence is evidence. If someone tells me that they coughed yesterday. I won't have difficulty accepting that as true. Coughing is an extremely common event when it comes to humans. However, if they said that they spoke with an angel yesterday, I will require concrete evidence that this is true before I can accept it as true.

You accepting it or not is rather irrelevant to whether it is actually true or not. Even very improbable events can be true, even if some people dont believe them, or even lets say no one believes it, it could still be true. That would be appealing to popularity anyways, which is a logical fallacy.

Are you willing to discredit things that could be actually true, in order to justify the claim that there is "no evidence" for God?

You are missing my point. How can I know whether someone's testimony is true unless I have evidence to support it? The Bible makes lots of extraordinary claims e.g. God creating the universe and all living things, the virgin birth of Jesus, the miracles performed by Jesus, the crucifixion of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, etc. I require evidence to prove these claims to be true. If you can provide me with evidence that proves the Bible to be true, then please do. The Bible itself is not the evidence that it is true.

This is not a debate about proving Christianity true. You are in the "Definitions and Explanations" section of the "General Discussion" tab... Here, given that people throw around the assertion "there is no evidence (for this and that)", we are trying to determine the definition of "evidence" so we can make sense of such statements. If we cant make sense of it, then it is just a nonsense saying to say "there is no evidence"...

What is "evidence" that someone can determine there is "evidence" or "no evidence" for something?

You say "How can I know whether someone's testimony is true unless I have evidence to support it?"

I dont believe truth or evidence for that truth is determined by you believing in it, do you agree? Something can be true, and have evidence, that you dont know if it is true or not... Right? It would seem anyone's personal belief is irrelevant, for people can get things wrong all the time.

I believe NO truth at all should ever be discredited... Therefor all truth, no matter what that truth is, we ought not to discredit as faulty or without evidence... Right?

I am sorry I don't understand what you mean. Please clarify. Please see this link https://www.dictionary.com/browse/evidence for the dictionary definitions of the word "evidence". I find the dictionary definitions sufficient and don't see the need to debate the definitions of the word "evidence".

[Shem Yoshi]

I am sorry I don't understand what you mean. Please clarify. Please see this link https://www.dictionary.com/browse/evidence for the dictionary definitions of the word "evidence". I find the dictionary definitions sufficient and don't see the need to debate the definitions of the word "evidence".

Let us look at the definition then.

Evidence
noun
1) that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2) something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3) Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Now here is your words in post # 30:
"Testimonies don't count as evidence"


Thus the definition you have referenced is contradicting your own words. Surely the only reason your said that is because you think the testimony of Christ shouldn't count as evidence, thus your assertion "there is no evidence for Christianity" can be justified.. However your own definition is contradicting that.

Surely testimony is evidence of things that can be true. Truth is revealed by witnesses testifying things, thus in many cases for truth to be known it is by testimony. Or written documents, records of things, or objects, all of which things can be applied to evidences for Christianity.

Therefor, it is shown by your definition, that there is evidence for Christianity through all the methods listed. Further more, "that which tends to prove something", is given as a definition. And what do we have for Christianity? We have testimony that tends to prove the Christian claim. Where tends is defined as "go or move in a particular direction."... Certainly this is what we see in the Book of Acts, with the conversions of the people in Israel and abroad. The testimony of the disciples tends to prove that Jesus was the Christ, and risen from the dead, we have 3 passages that use the term "proving" of the disciples proving to thousands of people around the world that Jesus was the Risen Messiah (Acts 9:22, Acts 17:3, Acts 18:28).

Certainly we can see, that the messages of the Disciples and Christianity tends to prove Jesus is the Son of God.

Finally, your definition # 2 is maybe the best one of the three, for it says "2) something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign"... It is suggesting that "evidence" is something that makes "clear" or "plain" some truth, it indicates something. The evidences of Christianity not only tends to prove Christ, but they make it clear for all to see that Christ came as the Messiah. And in fact, ALL the evidence we have for Christianity leads to one conclusion, Christ is the Risen Messiah... Now people can doubt that, for example in skepticism you can doubt everything in the reality, life, history, in skepticism you can doubt everything in existence, but doubting doesn't give a clear or plain answer to questions like why do things exist? Like how did the Bible come into existence?... We have a clear and plain answer from the evidence, that you suggest doesn't even exist, however there is only 1 clear answer for the the existence of the Bible, or even the existence for the universe itself. Indeed Christianity gives a "clear" explanation for the foundation of philosophy like justice, righteousness, existence, purpose, morality, and it gives a "clear" and "plain" explanation for Jesus Christ, who Christ was, what Christ did, and a clear explanation for the Christian Faith...

Where we have a "clear" explanation for Christianity through its evidences... In skepticism we are totally lacking a clear or a plain "explanation" for any of these things. Not only does the evidence tend to prove Christianity, there is no other coherent explanation for Jesus Christ.

(Romans 1)
"19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."


Certainly every definition you give shows Christianity has evidence. Christianity has "testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.". It certainly "tends to prove" that Jesus was the Christ and Risen from the dead by God, as billions of people can be shown to converting to the faith. And it is "something that makes plain or clear" truth itself, showing the foundation of truth, and giving the only clear explanation of the existence of Christianity, and of life.

[Compassionist]

I am sorry I don't understand what you mean. Please clarify. Please see this link https://www.dictionary.com/browse/evidence for the dictionary definitions of the word "evidence". I find the dictionary definitions sufficient and don't see the need to debate the definitions of the word "evidence".

Let us look at the definition then.

Evidence
noun
1) that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2) something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3) Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Now here is your words in post # 30:
"Testimonies don't count as evidence"


Thus the definition you have referenced is contradicting your own words. Surely the only reason your said that is because you think the testimony of Christ shouldn't count as evidence, thus your assertion "there is no evidence for Christianity" can be justified.. However your own definition is contradicting that.

Surely testimony is evidence of things that can be true. Truth is revealed by witnesses testifying things, thus in many cases for truth to be known it is by testimony. Or written documents, records of things, or objects, all of which things can be applied to evidences for Christianity.

Therefor, it is shown by your definition, that there is evidence for Christianity through all the methods listed. Further more, "that which tends to prove something", is given as a definition. And what do we have for Christianity? We have testimony that tends to prove the Christian claim. Where tends is defined as "go or move in a particular direction."... Certainly this is what we see in the Book of Acts, with the conversions of the people in Israel and abroad. The testimony of the disciples tends to prove that Jesus was the Christ, and risen from the dead, we have 3 passages that use the term "proving" of the disciples proving to thousands of people around the world that Jesus was the Risen Messiah (Acts 9:22, Acts 17:3, Acts 18:28).

Certainly we can see, that the messages of the Disciples and Christianity tends to prove Jesus is the Son of God.

Finally, your definition # 2 is maybe the best one of the three, for it says "2) something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign"... It is suggesting that "evidence" is something that makes "clear" or "plain" some truth, it indicates something. The evidences of Christianity not only tends to prove Christ, but they make it clear for all to see that Christ came as the Messiah. And in fact, ALL the evidence we have for Christianity leads to one conclusion, Christ is the Risen Messiah... Now people can doubt that, for example in skepticism you can doubt everything in the reality, life, history, in skepticism you can doubt everything in existence, but doubting doesn't give a clear or plain answer to questions like why do things exist? Like how did the Bible come into existence?... We have a clear and plain answer from the evidence, that you suggest doesn't even exist, however there is only 1 clear answer for the the existence of the Bible, or even the existence for the universe itself. Indeed Christianity gives a "clear" explanation for the foundation of philosophy like justice, righteousness, existence, purpose, morality, and it gives a "clear" and "plain" explanation for Jesus Christ, who Christ was, what Christ did, and a clear explanation for the Christian Faith...

Where we have a "clear" explanation for Christianity through its evidences... In skepticism we are totally lacking a clear or a plain "explanation" for any of these things. Not only does the evidence tend to prove Christianity, there is no other coherent explanation for Jesus Christ.

(Romans 1)
"19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."


Certainly every definition you give shows Christianity has evidence. Christianity has "testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.". It certainly "tends to prove" that Jesus was the Christ and Risen from the dead by God, as billions of people can be shown to converting to the faith. And it is "something that makes plain or clear" truth itself, showing the foundation of truth, and giving the only clear explanation of the existence of Christianity, and of life.

You keep missing the same point I have been making all along. The Bible does not make ordinary claims. It makes extraordinary claims e.g. the virgin birth of Jesus. It is not enough to make such a claim in a book to prove that is what actually happened. We need genetic evidence to prove that Jesus was half-human and half-god.

There are lots of religious books on Earth. They all make extraordinary claims. To prove the claims, we need more than stories in books. We need concrete evidence. If the mum of a baby born today claimed that her son is half-human and half-god, would we accept her words as the truth? No. We would do a genetic test on the baby to see if he indeed has half-human and half-god genes. Why doesn't Jesus show up and give us a cheek swab so we can verify his claims?

Why would an all-knowing and all-powerful God choose to communicate with living things using ancient books? Why can't we all see and hear and touch and smell and taste God? I have an infinite number of questions for God. Why not show up and answer them?

The Bible is not evidence. It is a book of lies pretending to be the truth. Please see It is the most horrific and unjust book I have ever read. Please see https://www.evilbible.com

[Shem Yoshi]

I am sorry I don't understand what you mean. Please clarify. Please see this link https://www.dictionary.com/browse/evidence for the dictionary definitions of the word "evidence". I find the dictionary definitions sufficient and don't see the need to debate the definitions of the word "evidence".

Let us look at the definition then.

Evidence
noun
1) that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2) something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3) Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Now here is your words in post # 30:
"Testimonies don't count as evidence"


Thus the definition you have referenced is contradicting your own words. Surely the only reason your said that is because you think the testimony of Christ shouldn't count as evidence, thus your assertion "there is no evidence for Christianity" can be justified.. However your own definition is contradicting that.

Surely testimony is evidence of things that can be true. Truth is revealed by witnesses testifying things, thus in many cases for truth to be known it is by testimony. Or written documents, records of things, or objects, all of which things can be applied to evidences for Christianity.

Therefor, it is shown by your definition, that there is evidence for Christianity through all the methods listed. Further more, "that which tends to prove something", is given as a definition. And what do we have for Christianity? We have testimony that tends to prove the Christian claim. Where tends is defined as "go or move in a particular direction."... Certainly this is what we see in the Book of Acts, with the conversions of the people in Israel and abroad. The testimony of the disciples tends to prove that Jesus was the Christ, and risen from the dead, we have 3 passages that use the term "proving" of the disciples proving to thousands of people around the world that Jesus was the Risen Messiah (Acts 9:22, Acts 17:3, Acts 18:28).

Certainly we can see, that the messages of the Disciples and Christianity tends to prove Jesus is the Son of God.

Finally, your definition # 2 is maybe the best one of the three, for it says "2) something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign"... It is suggesting that "evidence" is something that makes "clear" or "plain" some truth, it indicates something. The evidences of Christianity not only tends to prove Christ, but they make it clear for all to see that Christ came as the Messiah. And in fact, ALL the evidence we have for Christianity leads to one conclusion, Christ is the Risen Messiah... Now people can doubt that, for example in skepticism you can doubt everything in the reality, life, history, in skepticism you can doubt everything in existence, but doubting doesn't give a clear or plain answer to questions like why do things exist? Like how did the Bible come into existence?... We have a clear and plain answer from the evidence, that you suggest doesn't even exist, however there is only 1 clear answer for the the existence of the Bible, or even the existence for the universe itself. Indeed Christianity gives a "clear" explanation for the foundation of philosophy like justice, righteousness, existence, purpose, morality, and it gives a "clear" and "plain" explanation for Jesus Christ, who Christ was, what Christ did, and a clear explanation for the Christian Faith...

Where we have a "clear" explanation for Christianity through its evidences... In skepticism we are totally lacking a clear or a plain "explanation" for any of these things. Not only does the evidence tend to prove Christianity, there is no other coherent explanation for Jesus Christ.

(Romans 1)
"19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."


Certainly every definition you give shows Christianity has evidence. Christianity has "testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.". It certainly "tends to prove" that Jesus was the Christ and Risen from the dead by God, as billions of people can be shown to converting to the faith. And it is "something that makes plain or clear" truth itself, showing the foundation of truth, and giving the only clear explanation of the existence of Christianity, and of life.

You keep missing the same point I have been making all along. The Bible does not make ordinary claims. It makes extraordinary claims e.g. the virgin birth of Jesus. It is not enough to make such a claim in a book to prove that is what actually happened. We need genetic evidence to prove that Jesus was half-human and half-god.

There are lots of religious books on Earth. They all make extraordinary claims. To prove the claims, we need more than stories in books. We need concrete evidence. If the mum of a baby born today claimed that her son is half-human and half-god, would we accept her words as the truth? No. We would do a genetic test on the baby to see if he indeed has half-human and half-god genes. Why doesn't Jesus show up and give us a cheek swab so we can verify his claims?

Why would an all-knowing and all-powerful God choose to communicate with living things using ancient books? Why can't we all see and hear and touch and smell and taste God? I have an infinite number of questions for God. Why not show up and answer them?

Please dont link hour long videos, I am not going to watch them.

You have a bias against the type of claim. You say extraordinary claims need something more then the given standards of evidence we have for anything else. You say that in order to prove Jesus was divine we need a genetic test, I think that is a bizarre thing to claim. We dont even know what that genetic test would look like, it isnt a viable claim especially for a past historical event.

All of history acts is in a linear series of events. From the foundations of the world to today, it doesnt even make sense to suggest that history cant be valid history because it isnt in the present, that is absurd. The Christian claim is that time started through God, the foundations and creations of the universe, and then life was created, and then life played out historical events fulfilling Gods destiny at given times. One of those destinies was that a Messiah would come at a specified time, Daniel 9 reveals prophecy of a specific time for the messiah to come fulfill His calling, which is actually evidence of extraordinary caliber being prophetic in nature, which Christ fulfilled to the T at his given time. "the time is fulfilled" Christ said at His baptism, thus establishing the exact correct time for his ministry to take place, and he came and showed signs, was crucified according to prophecy in scripture (extraordinary evidence), and was risen from the dead according to prophecy in scripture.

While Jesus was ministering he outlined future events, including His death and Resurrection, the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem, the ministry of his disciples to Israel and abroad after his ascent, that the Gospel would be preached to all nations before the end of the world, the tribulations and destruction, and finally the second coming of Christ. Jesus said on multiple occasions "I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does take place, you may believe and have faith", and so did other prophets who prophesied about Gods events. All pointing to extraordinary evidence.

You are saying we need Jesus here today that we can do a genetic test on him, though what you are giving isnt even a clear explanation of truth. Not only would you not even know what to look for in the test you are talking about, and also time works linearly and in fact it is fulfilling its path through the knowledge of the everlasting God, we have evidence for it. Historical events point to the fulfillment of time according to Gods word.

It certainly seems to be the case that even in your higher standards of evidences (which you havent really justified the claim that any truth needs some kind of different standard of evidence) but none the less even in the raised standard of evidence, we see extra ordinary evidence, and it tends to prove that to billions of people.


According to every definition you gave for "evidence", Christianity has all the standards of, is a clear explanation, and tends to prove its claims.

And that clear explanation is that time itself has worked out to the will of God. This explanation is profoundly different then what you are suggesting, that no one can believe in Jesus Christ as a historical messiah because He isnt in the present, and you suggest you need to do a test which you have no knowledge of that test, to prove his existence.

You arent even offering a valid standard of evidence to the contrary.

[Compassionist]

I am sorry I don't understand what you mean. Please clarify. Please see this link https://www.dictionary.com/browse/evidence for the dictionary definitions of the word "evidence". I find the dictionary definitions sufficient and don't see the need to debate the definitions of the word "evidence".

Let us look at the definition then.

Evidence
noun
1) that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2) something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3) Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Now here is your words in post # 30:
"Testimonies don't count as evidence"


Thus the definition you have referenced is contradicting your own words. Surely the only reason your said that is because you think the testimony of Christ shouldn't count as evidence, thus your assertion "there is no evidence for Christianity" can be justified.. However your own definition is contradicting that.

Surely testimony is evidence of things that can be true. Truth is revealed by witnesses testifying things, thus in many cases for truth to be known it is by testimony. Or written documents, records of things, or objects, all of which things can be applied to evidences for Christianity.

Therefor, it is shown by your definition, that there is evidence for Christianity through all the methods listed. Further more, "that which tends to prove something", is given as a definition. And what do we have for Christianity? We have testimony that tends to prove the Christian claim. Where tends is defined as "go or move in a particular direction."... Certainly this is what we see in the Book of Acts, with the conversions of the people in Israel and abroad. The testimony of the disciples tends to prove that Jesus was the Christ, and risen from the dead, we have 3 passages that use the term "proving" of the disciples proving to thousands of people around the world that Jesus was the Risen Messiah (Acts 9:22, Acts 17:3, Acts 18:28).

Certainly we can see, that the messages of the Disciples and Christianity tends to prove Jesus is the Son of God.

Finally, your definition # 2 is maybe the best one of the three, for it says "2) something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign"... It is suggesting that "evidence" is something that makes "clear" or "plain" some truth, it indicates something. The evidences of Christianity not only tends to prove Christ, but they make it clear for all to see that Christ came as the Messiah. And in fact, ALL the evidence we have for Christianity leads to one conclusion, Christ is the Risen Messiah... Now people can doubt that, for example in skepticism you can doubt everything in the reality, life, history, in skepticism you can doubt everything in existence, but doubting doesn't give a clear or plain answer to questions like why do things exist? Like how did the Bible come into existence?... We have a clear and plain answer from the evidence, that you suggest doesn't even exist, however there is only 1 clear answer for the the existence of the Bible, or even the existence for the universe itself. Indeed Christianity gives a "clear" explanation for the foundation of philosophy like justice, righteousness, existence, purpose, morality, and it gives a "clear" and "plain" explanation for Jesus Christ, who Christ was, what Christ did, and a clear explanation for the Christian Faith...

Where we have a "clear" explanation for Christianity through its evidences... In skepticism we are totally lacking a clear or a plain "explanation" for any of these things. Not only does the evidence tend to prove Christianity, there is no other coherent explanation for Jesus Christ.

(Romans 1)
"19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."


Certainly every definition you give shows Christianity has evidence. Christianity has "testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.". It certainly "tends to prove" that Jesus was the Christ and Risen from the dead by God, as billions of people can be shown to converting to the faith. And it is "something that makes plain or clear" truth itself, showing the foundation of truth, and giving the only clear explanation of the existence of Christianity, and of life.

You keep missing the same point I have been making all along. The Bible does not make ordinary claims. It makes extraordinary claims e.g. the virgin birth of Jesus. It is not enough to make such a claim in a book to prove that is what actually happened. We need genetic evidence to prove that Jesus was half-human and half-god.

There are lots of religious books on Earth. They all make extraordinary claims. To prove the claims, we need more than stories in books. We need concrete evidence. If the mum of a baby born today claimed that her son is half-human and half-god, would we accept her words as the truth? No. We would do a genetic test on the baby to see if he indeed has half-human and half-god genes. Why doesn't Jesus show up and give us a cheek swab so we can verify his claims?

Why would an all-knowing and all-powerful God choose to communicate with living things using ancient books? Why can't we all see and hear and touch and smell and taste God? I have an infinite number of questions for God. Why not show up and answer them?

Please dont link hour long videos, I am not going to watch them.

You have a bias against the type of claim. You say extraordinary claims need something more then the given standards of evidence we have for anything else. You say that in order to prove Jesus was divine we need a genetic test, I think that is a bizarre thing to claim. We dont even know what that genetic test would look like, it isnt a viable claim especially for a past historical event.

All of history acts is in a linear series of events. From the foundations of the world to today, it doesnt even make sense to suggest that history cant be valid history because it isnt in the present, that is absurd. The Christian claim is that time started through God, the foundations and creations of the universe, and then life was created, and then life played out historical events fulfilling Gods destiny at given times. One of those destinies was that a Messiah would come at a specified time, Daniel 9 reveals prophecy of a specific time for the messiah to come fulfill His calling, which is actually evidence of extraordinary caliber being prophetic in nature, which Christ fulfilled to the T at his given time. "the time is fulfilled" Christ said at His baptism, thus establishing the exact correct time for his ministry to take place, and he came and showed signs, was crucified according to prophecy in scripture (extraordinary evidence), and was risen from the dead according to prophecy in scripture.

While Jesus was ministering he outlined future events, including His death and Resurrection, the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem, the ministry of his disciples to Israel and abroad after his ascent, that the Gospel would be preached to all nations before the end of the world, the tribulations and destruction, and finally the second coming of Christ. Jesus said on multiple occasions "I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does take place, you may believe and have faith", and so did other prophets who prophesied about Gods events. All pointing to extraordinary evidence.

You are saying we need Jesus here today that we can do a genetic test on him, though what you are giving isnt even a clear explanation of truth. Not only would you not even know what to look for in the test you are talking about, and also time works linearly and in fact it is fulfilling its path through the knowledge of the everlasting God, we have evidence for it. Historical events point to the fulfillment of time according to Gods word.

It certainly seems to be the case that even in your higher standards of evidences (which you havent really justified the claim that any truth needs some kind of different standard of evidence) but none the less even in the raised standard of evidence, we see extra ordinary evidence, and it tends to prove that to billions of people.


According to every definition you gave for "evidence", Christianity has all the standards of, is a clear explanation, and tends to prove its claims.

And that clear explanation is that time itself has worked out to the will of God. This explanation is profoundly different then what you are suggesting, that no one can believe in Jesus Christ as a historical messiah because He isnt in the present, and you suggest you need to do a test which you have no knowledge of that test, to prove his existence.

You arent even offering a valid standard of evidence to the contrary.

The claims made in the Bible are refuted by science, therefore, the Bible is false. If you can't be bothered to watch videos that prove the Bible to be wrong then I can't be bothered to debate further. A genetic test of a human-god hybrid would be fascinating. It would have 23 chromosomes from the human mum and 23 chromosomes from god. I am inviting Jesus to show up to be tested.

[Shem Yoshi]

I am sorry I don't understand what you mean. Please clarify. Please see this link https://www.dictionary.com/browse/evidence for the dictionary definitions of the word "evidence". I find the dictionary definitions sufficient and don't see the need to debate the definitions of the word "evidence".

Let us look at the definition then.

Evidence
noun
1) that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2) something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3) Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Now here is your words in post # 30:
"Testimonies don't count as evidence"


Thus the definition you have referenced is contradicting your own words. Surely the only reason your said that is because you think the testimony of Christ shouldn't count as evidence, thus your assertion "there is no evidence for Christianity" can be justified.. However your own definition is contradicting that.

Surely testimony is evidence of things that can be true. Truth is revealed by witnesses testifying things, thus in many cases for truth to be known it is by testimony. Or written documents, records of things, or objects, all of which things can be applied to evidences for Christianity.

Therefor, it is shown by your definition, that there is evidence for Christianity through all the methods listed. Further more, "that which tends to prove something", is given as a definition. And what do we have for Christianity? We have testimony that tends to prove the Christian claim. Where tends is defined as "go or move in a particular direction."... Certainly this is what we see in the Book of Acts, with the conversions of the people in Israel and abroad. The testimony of the disciples tends to prove that Jesus was the Christ, and risen from the dead, we have 3 passages that use the term "proving" of the disciples proving to thousands of people around the world that Jesus was the Risen Messiah (Acts 9:22, Acts 17:3, Acts 18:28).

Certainly we can see, that the messages of the Disciples and Christianity tends to prove Jesus is the Son of God.

Finally, your definition # 2 is maybe the best one of the three, for it says "2) something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign"... It is suggesting that "evidence" is something that makes "clear" or "plain" some truth, it indicates something. The evidences of Christianity not only tends to prove Christ, but they make it clear for all to see that Christ came as the Messiah. And in fact, ALL the evidence we have for Christianity leads to one conclusion, Christ is the Risen Messiah... Now people can doubt that, for example in skepticism you can doubt everything in the reality, life, history, in skepticism you can doubt everything in existence, but doubting doesn't give a clear or plain answer to questions like why do things exist? Like how did the Bible come into existence?... We have a clear and plain answer from the evidence, that you suggest doesn't even exist, however there is only 1 clear answer for the the existence of the Bible, or even the existence for the universe itself. Indeed Christianity gives a "clear" explanation for the foundation of philosophy like justice, righteousness, existence, purpose, morality, and it gives a "clear" and "plain" explanation for Jesus Christ, who Christ was, what Christ did, and a clear explanation for the Christian Faith...

Where we have a "clear" explanation for Christianity through its evidences... In skepticism we are totally lacking a clear or a plain "explanation" for any of these things. Not only does the evidence tend to prove Christianity, there is no other coherent explanation for Jesus Christ.

(Romans 1)
"19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."


Certainly every definition you give shows Christianity has evidence. Christianity has "testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.". It certainly "tends to prove" that Jesus was the Christ and Risen from the dead by God, as billions of people can be shown to converting to the faith. And it is "something that makes plain or clear" truth itself, showing the foundation of truth, and giving the only clear explanation of the existence of Christianity, and of life.

You keep missing the same point I have been making all along. The Bible does not make ordinary claims. It makes extraordinary claims e.g. the virgin birth of Jesus. It is not enough to make such a claim in a book to prove that is what actually happened. We need genetic evidence to prove that Jesus was half-human and half-god.

There are lots of religious books on Earth. They all make extraordinary claims. To prove the claims, we need more than stories in books. We need concrete evidence. If the mum of a baby born today claimed that her son is half-human and half-god, would we accept her words as the truth? No. We would do a genetic test on the baby to see if he indeed has half-human and half-god genes. Why doesn't Jesus show up and give us a cheek swab so we can verify his claims?

Why would an all-knowing and all-powerful God choose to communicate with living things using ancient books? Why can't we all see and hear and touch and smell and taste God? I have an infinite number of questions for God. Why not show up and answer them?

Please dont link hour long videos, I am not going to watch them.

You have a bias against the type of claim. You say extraordinary claims need something more then the given standards of evidence we have for anything else. You say that in order to prove Jesus was divine we need a genetic test, I think that is a bizarre thing to claim. We dont even know what that genetic test would look like, it isnt a viable claim especially for a past historical event.

All of history acts is in a linear series of events. From the foundations of the world to today, it doesnt even make sense to suggest that history cant be valid history because it isnt in the present, that is absurd. The Christian claim is that time started through God, the foundations and creations of the universe, and then life was created, and then life played out historical events fulfilling Gods destiny at given times. One of those destinies was that a Messiah would come at a specified time, Daniel 9 reveals prophecy of a specific time for the messiah to come fulfill His calling, which is actually evidence of extraordinary caliber being prophetic in nature, which Christ fulfilled to the T at his given time. "the time is fulfilled" Christ said at His baptism, thus establishing the exact correct time for his ministry to take place, and he came and showed signs, was crucified according to prophecy in scripture (extraordinary evidence), and was risen from the dead according to prophecy in scripture.

While Jesus was ministering he outlined future events, including His death and Resurrection, the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem, the ministry of his disciples to Israel and abroad after his ascent, that the Gospel would be preached to all nations before the end of the world, the tribulations and destruction, and finally the second coming of Christ. Jesus said on multiple occasions "I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does take place, you may believe and have faith", and so did other prophets who prophesied about Gods events. All pointing to extraordinary evidence.

You are saying we need Jesus here today that we can do a genetic test on him, though what you are giving isnt even a clear explanation of truth. Not only would you not even know what to look for in the test you are talking about, and also time works linearly and in fact it is fulfilling its path through the knowledge of the everlasting God, we have evidence for it. Historical events point to the fulfillment of time according to Gods word.

It certainly seems to be the case that even in your higher standards of evidences (which you havent really justified the claim that any truth needs some kind of different standard of evidence) but none the less even in the raised standard of evidence, we see extra ordinary evidence, and it tends to prove that to billions of people.


According to every definition you gave for "evidence", Christianity has all the standards of, is a clear explanation, and tends to prove its claims.

And that clear explanation is that time itself has worked out to the will of God. This explanation is profoundly different then what you are suggesting, that no one can believe in Jesus Christ as a historical messiah because He isnt in the present, and you suggest you need to do a test which you have no knowledge of that test, to prove his existence.

You arent even offering a valid standard of evidence to the contrary.

The claims made in the Bible are refuted by science, therefore, the Bible is false. If you can't be bothered to watch videos that prove the Bible to be wrong then I can't be bothered to debate further. A genetic test of a human-god hybrid would be fascinating. It would have 23 chromosomes from the human mum and 23 chromosomes from god. I am inviting Jesus to show up to be tested.

A god by definition is supernatural (i.e. beyond of nature), which you are trying to limit to nature, it doesnt even work by definition. Some natural test of God doesnt take into account that God is beyond nature, it is erroneous to suggest we need a natural proof for God... By definition God is outside of nature...

You are also claiming science refutes the Bible... And by the way this is getting way off discussion of the definition of evidence, and what there is and isnt evidence for, we are now examining the evidence to determine whether the Bible is true or not...

The claim that there is no evidence is absurd, none the less your claim is that science refutes the Bible... Where is your evidence for that claim? The truth of the matter is, you have no evidence for it, which is ironic, through the scientific method all we can do is observe and induce ideas, you have never witnessed any of the events in the Bible, nor any scientific thing 2000 years ago, in order to conclude science proves the Bible the wrong, you are inducing some theory based on the present make up of your reality, and reasoning in the present, to induce it proves something wrong 2000 years ago, which isnt evidence, that is inducing some idea, and there is the famous "problem of induction" saying by this method you really have no idea what happened 2000 years ago, or what will happen tomorrow. That is the "problem of induction"....

The ironic thing is, you have no evidence proving the bible wrong, by your own definition... And we have evidence from 2000 years ago, that we are not inducing in our own reasoning, of people who DID witness and testify.

Thus there is evidence for Christianity, but where is your evidence you know what happened 2000 year ago? Surely you are confronted with the problem of induction, unless you have some kind of "testimony, object, or record."

Furthermore, as i mentioned above God is beyond nature and science, and he has power to do things that are beyond nature and science. This is just a known quality of God, now you can doubt that, but where is your evidence to justify your doubt? Do you have any evidence to show God cant do things that are beyond science?

[Kylie]

Well we cant even conclude whether or not you are hallucinating now, can we? In skepticism, for all we know life may be a hallucination... Are you willing to say all of life might be untrue?

But lets say that some people could be hallucinating things that are not true, which i think is problematic to define but for the sake of argument lets say some people hallucinating things that arent true while others experience things that are true, are you willing to throw away all personal experience because a minority of personal experience might not be true?

This is the entire point of the thread, we need a working definition of evidence that includes all truth. If we have a definition of evidence that suggest some things that are actually true are arent true then it is no definition of evidence at all.

I fear this is getting into the "brain in a jar" stuff. There's no way, after all, that any of us can prove that we aren't a brain in a jar.

So how about we make the (I think) reasonable assumptions that we exist as individual people and there is some real world that we are perceiving.

If some aspect of what we perceive is a hallucination, then we would have no reason to conclude that others would have that same perception, right? If we hallucinate a pink elephant leading a marching band down the street, the chances that someone else will also see a pink elephant leading a marching band down the street are so tiny as to be negligible. And the chances that all the people watching the street see that pink elephant leading a marching band down it is so ridiculously tiny that we can justifiably consider it impossible.

On the other hand, if something is real, then most, if not all people who examine it will get the same result. All people who measure the height of the Eiffel Tower will get the same answer. And any variation (caused by the metal expanding or contracting due to the varying temperature) can be accounted for and even predicted. This kind of reliability and repeatability would seem to be essential for determining what is real.

So if any evidence is presented for the Christian God, then this evidence must be the same for any person investigating it. And this is not what we find. Any evidence that all people agree on is evidence that does not lead to one specific God (nor to the idea of a god in general, since such evidence always has a non-god explanation, at least from my experience), or it is not repeatable - different for different people. How then can we be expected to consider God as a fact?

[Kylie]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #38]

In law, 'evidence' is an item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable. Evidence can take the form of testimony, documents, photographs, videos, voice recordings, DNA testing, or other tangible objects. Evidence can also consist of expert testimony.

Whenever the subject of evidence comes up, the burden of proof accompanies it. What happens as night follows day in these discussions, is that a theist or other believer in things for which there is no evidence, is that they will launch into an unreasonable resort to solipsism. This argument always consists of at least two fallacies. It is an argument from ignorance, plus an attempt at an extreme form of false equivalence.

Thus you can count on a believer in the supernatural saying "Well! You can't prove anything absolutely, so your proofs are not better than mine [for the ghosts and spirits they believe in without evidence].

Contrast this with the enormous stacks of evidence we have for water being wet and a spherical Earth orbiting a sun. We frequently, in law, have proof beyond reasonable doubt that something happened, like the amount of proof used to convict Alex Murdaugh in SC recently. We have sufficient proof of the way things work in the physical, astronomical, and engineering worlds, that we can land a person on he moon and bring him back. Yet when it comes to gods, ghosts, and goblins we have no evidence and cannot prove their existence by even the lowest standard, 'more likely than not.'

I am not here to debate about whether or not God is true, that is for another thread, this is a discussion for determining the definition of evidence, or if there is evidence for Christianity.

Surely the definition of evidence must encompass all truth things. Right?

Also by the definition you gave for evidence... "Evidence can take the form of testimony, documents, ... or other tangible objects."

Everything you listed that was available 2000 years ago, we have as evidence for Christianity.

Can you show me a contemporary account of the teachings of Jesus?