• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why ask for proof and evidence?

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
Why evangelize without proof and evidence?

What's the deal with someone insisting that because something they take entirely on faith works emotionally/psychologically/spiritually for them, that is must therefore work for everyone else?
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
If it is called a faith, you wouldn't need evidence. Maybe that is the difference between religion and faith. ;);)
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
What's the story with people asking for proof and evidence? :shrug:

What I find more curious is why people ask for these things and then constrain the criteria of what constitutes proof or evidence to something so narrow that they will never receive it. Why even ask the question if you rig the deck to make answering it impossible?
 

Biblestudent_007

Active Member
To me its like asking "why is the sky blue or the grass green' 'Why are there trees and vegetation' 'Why are there oceans' and 'nature'. etc . . .
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
What I find more curious is why people ask for these things and then constrain the criteria of what constitutes proof or evidence to something so narrow that they will never receive it.
You place no constraints upon what constitutes 'proof' or 'evidence'? How does that work for you?
 

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
:confused:What is the difference between "proof" AND "evidence" ?
You didn't say: "OR", you said "AND".
So with that thought in mind, "evidential proof" of an entity would be something that could be seen, smelled, felt, or sensed in some way. Or would have to be nearly three dimensional, at least a scent, maybe a sweet aroma, a presense of some sort.
In that way, "evidence" would be a clue or an indication that something "proved" that an entity is or was present at one or another point to "prove" that the entity probably did exist.
Problem is: I didn't see it, smell it, feel it, or sense it in any way.
~
Maybe you should re-ask your question, I don't think I got the gest of it !
~
Maybe I'm just confused again...:confused:
`mud
 

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
hey Jay,
say without saying "other / or"
try it with "same / and"
and I'll add the smiley....:cool:....and the booze !
~
`mud
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
What's the story with people asking for proof and evidence? :shrug:
While proof and evidence are two different things, In theory, suppositions given with even slight evidence are a bit more convincing than naked speculations. Even then though, it depends who is making the suggestion. If Stephen Hawking came out with some speculation in line with his area of expertise, I would give that naked speculation more merit than I would if the identical idea was made by a poster on RF. If Stephen Hawking came out with something highly speculative that was not within his area of expertise, I would tend to think about it, given the authority of the person making the statement, but not automatically assume it was the last word on the matter.

Proof, on the other hand, is very difficult to dismiss.
 

Photonic

Ad astra!
What I find more curious is why people ask for these things and then constrain the criteria of what constitutes proof or evidence to something so narrow that they will never receive it. Why even ask the question if you rig the deck to make answering it impossible?

My evidence that the monkey is in the closet is that the closet exists, therefore so does the monkey.
 
Top