RS <<What do you have?
Steve asked a very important question which you need to spend a little time
on. As in any debate, we must make sure we are using the same terms. You use
two rather common terms, "evidence" and "proof." But it is not clear how you
are using them.
Please answer a couple of questions:
#1. What kind of evidence are you willing to entertain? Apologetics deals with
two lines of evidence, historical and philosophical. The former traffics
primarily in testimonial evidence. Do you have any problem with that? The
latter traffics in logic, reasoning and, perhaps most importantly, the
application of common experiential sense (here we get a little help from our
friend, Mr. Science). I assume you have no problem with that, do you?
#2. What is your "standard of proof"? If something can be demonstrated as
"more reasonable than not" or "more probable than not," are you willing to
accept it?
Jim