I think you must be joking, but I am persistent and will try one more time.
Please define "prove" for me, in your own words. When you demand that I "prove" something, what are you wanting me to do exactly?
This is at least the third time I've asked and you've refused to respond.
Just to be clear, I have answered this the last two times. But I will again.
When I ask you to prove something, I am asking you to provide evidence supporting your argument.
Also, just to show I have addressed this point, from post
658: As for defining the word prove. As with the last time you asked, I am willing to substitute the idea of prove, and instead, would just like you to provide evidence of your position. Just provide evidence supporting your argument. That is all I mean by prove.
The first time was in post
389: I'll simplify it. Provide some evidence for your position. That is all I want.
I'm not attacking your character. I just don't think you are ready for primetime debate. It's not a flaw in your character. I suspect that with your passion, you may one day grow into a different view of debate than you currently seem to hold.
So that is not attacking my character? You're just calling me, basically, immature, and not ready for this type of discussion. I think that would constitute and attack. And either way, it is simply you trying to dismiss me for one reason or another.
I've given you my reasons again and again. (Remember the word-tracking thing, for just one example?)
But it doesn't matter what evidence or reasoning I give, you will come again at me with "Back it up!" or "Prove it."
It's pretty tiring, fallingblood. It looks like a debate game to me, and I'm just not interested in games. Serious matters are afoot.
Yes, I remember your word tracking claim. And I did discuss that, multiple times. For instance, in post
424, I addressed your six claims that you made that you used to support your position.
Now, granted, I didn't give an answer you found satisfactory. So I did it again in post
512. You responded: "Thank you, Blood. I feel like someone has finally addressed my issue head on. And I'll take your word for the tracked language, pending verification later." In post
516. And I responded to that in post
521.
I didn't simply come back with prove it or back it up in those. I addressed your arguments. In fact, in post 424, which I linked to above, I addressed all your six points. As far as I can recall, I have only once came out with nothing more than prove it, which I later explained in more detail.
You're not serious. I'm pretty sure of it. You could not possibly have forgotten all my arguments in such a short time.
I have addressed all your arguments already, yet, you refuse, for the most part, to offer a rebuttal. And you continue to state the same thing, that you believe that the Gospel writers intended to write fiction. So since you won't address the vast majority of my rebuttals, I would like it if you just provided evidence for this statement that you continue to repeat.
I'm trying to help you understand that you should stop. Just stop and stand still and spend some time thinking about the nature of debate itself. You have a lot of knowledge, but you're wasting it here, I think. You should be thinking about technique, not about substance.
I'm offering my help with that. Take it or don't.
I have taken various debate classes. I have also been in various debate clubs. In high school, I was in Student Congress, which was just another form of a debate club. I know how to debate. I know various theories on debate. I have learned how to debate both formally and informally. And I have had no real problem on this forum before.
I know enough about how to debate.
Really? Are you sure that's all you mean by it? Because I've provided a bunch of evidence for my belief in gospels-as-fiction. (Please don't deny it. I'll just point everyone to our posted messages where we discussed plagiarism).
I have provided evidence. Therefore, by your definition of "prove", I have proved that the gospels were written as fiction, yes?
Please answer this last part of my message if you have any interest in keeping my interest.
Have I proved my position, according to your own definition of "prove"?
Yes, I am sure that is what I mean by it. And please, do point out to everyone to those posts. I would have no problem going over them again. If you are referring to post 424, where I responded to the 6 points you brought up, I have already linked to that. And please, do go over it and offer a response to the rebuttals I offered. That would be great. If you are referring to other arguments you brought up, please point to them, and I will be happy to address them again. I have no problem with that at all, and I feel that would be a step in the right direction.
As for proving your position, no. You did supply an argument for your position, and maybe a little evidence; however, the argument was not enough, as pointed out in the rebuttal that I offered.
This is a back and forth ordeal. You can provide proof or evidence for your argument, and for the time being, prove it. However, once a rebuttal is offered, it signals that either the evidence or argument are not completely satisfactory, thus, denying the status of being proven anymore.
*Edit* Just to clarify that last point. If you provide evidence for your argument, in a sense, you have proven it. Now, if I come back, and offer a rebuttal, which I have, then that evidence which you provided, either doesn't support your argument, or does so unsuccessfully. Thus, in order to again prove your position, you must address the rebuttal, and either provide additional evidence, or show why in fact the previous evidence did support your position. If I come back with another rebuttal, then the process starts again.
One can prove their side, and then later on, have it unproven. If that happens, either one has to accept that their side simply does not hold up, or set on the task, once again, to prove their side.
