Instant win in debate against christianity

[strikeviperMKII]

There is no evidence meaning it never happened.

Okay...but that's not really the point, is it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"If there is no evidence, it is illogical"
it means
"if there is NO proof that it is real/has happened, then is hasn't happened"

This part of your argument is illogical itself. You're committing a logical fallacy: argument from ignorance.

 

[Muffled]

You've probably thought of this before, known of this before but haven't really much payed attention to it but i believe this is the best statement to bring up when you are arguing against christianity


If it is backed by evidence, it is logical.

If it is not backed up by evidence, it is illogical.

The bible is not backed up by evidence so therefore it illogical.

Christians believe in the bible, thus they believe that if it is not backed up by evidence, it is logical.

Christians are illogical.

When i mean evidence, i mean a group of evidence that consists of actual archeological proof and other considerably firm evidence. NOT just evidence which is few and extremely subtle when supporting something in the bible.

I believe this is the best.
You can constantly argue on small details in the bible and support it with verses on topics that prove the christian lord hates homosexuals or he is evil and invented sin, but yet it all comes back to this.

Your definition of evidence is illogical and muddled.

For that reason your conclusion is false.

 

[Muffled]

Yea, what you just said supports that fact



What you just said is giving me a really bad headache, you're constantly saying what i am saying is a logical fallacy when you don't even support WHY.

Allow me to clarify the obvious.

when i meant
"if there is evidence, it is logical"
It means
"If there is proof that it is real/has happened, then it is real/has happened"

"If there is no evidence, it is illogical"
it means
"if there is NO proof that it is real/has happened, then is hasn't happened"

If you are going to argue with me saying
"oh,maybe i said blah blah to my friend. we have no proof it ever has happened, so with your illogical statements, you would conclude that it never happened when it actually did"

My arguement:
Witnesses and yourself and your friend count as proof. The only way you could support that it happened is if you said it and i believed it and then you would go on saying the bible is like that

BUT NO.

the bible is different. the bible is incredibly firm this giving it room for a lot of people to point out its flaws or anything questionable.

Why is there no hard physical evidence of the 40 years moses and his people have been on the desert?
What about proof of jesus?
historical evidence that certain stories in the bible actually happened?

I don't agree. Evidence quite often refutes what we logiacally expect.

This is the null hypothesis which is extremely difficult to prove. In order to say that it is logical to say that Moses wasn't in the desert for 40 years, you have to have some evidence to support that concept. With the null hypothesis there is no evidence. However one could say that it is reasonable to expect evidence to exist. In this case however I would disagree. It would be a great stretch of the imagination to think that someone traipsing through the desert 2000 years ago would leave even a trace. Then when you consider that there is a book which gives an account of Moses in the desert, it becomes the only evidence availabe.

One witness is not enough to be sure of something. That is why Jewish law required two witnesses to testify about what Jesus said. we have the witness of Moses and also the witness of Jesus that Moses wasn't making stuff up:
Joh 5:46 For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me.

 

[Revoltingest]

You've probably thought of this before, known of this before but haven't really much payed attention to it but i believe this is the best statement to bring up when you are arguing against christianity....

There is no "instant win". When people have deeply held beliefs, no matter how irrational they are, one cannot dissuade them by finding a logical fly in the ointment.
I find the best way to argue with the faithful is to not argue at all. It seems best to explain my perspective, let them explain theirs, & then find common ground.
If it turns out that they find me reasonable, then this alleviates their fear of or opposition to my way of seeing things. I don't need to convert them...."winning"
is when there is more common understanding. Yeah, it sounds self-serving since I get to feel like I win more often. I'm shallow & petty that way.