Nothing made everything....

[ashurbanipal]

He does, so far as I have seen. It gets worse. Be warned.

Thanks. I appreciate it.

This is a bit off-topic, but I've always been a bit puzzled by James' conclusion of religious experience and I don't really know anyone else who's read him, so I'd like to pick your brain on this for a moment if that's ok (since you cited it).

Particularly his second point that "That union or harmonious relation with that higher universe is our true end" seems to be missing out on religious experiences of profound terror and suffering that exist though are not as commonplace as the more transcendent experiences he cites. I'm talking about visions of being taken to hell, or even the experience of whoever wrote Revelation, who obviously was not having a good time. It's been a while since I've read this book, but from what I recall he sort of lumped those experiences into his 'uneasiness and solution' paradigm when they are followed by the more positive transcendent experiences typically had. I found that a little too convenient. Who's to say those experiences aren't telling of "the more" (as James calls it) in and of themselves? What if some aspect of "the more" actually causes pain to those who connect to it?

To be clear, I'm not suggesting there's a real hell. But there seems to be a corner of religious experience James sort of glossed over in his more positive outlook.

Yes, that's one of the standard criticisms of James. It's one with which I agree. Based on my readings in mysticism, which are primarily in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim sources, it seems that the terrible or terrifying experience is not as common, but more common than most people realize--maybe 1 in 4 mystical experiences have a profoundly "negative" valence. The first genuine mystical experience I had scared the living crap out of me, for a couple of reasons--primarily just the strength of the experience itself. I immediately recognized, afterward, when my mind was able to come together enough to think again, that basically everything I had ever thought about myself and the world was incorrect on basically every level. I had expected a kind of vague peaceful experience, and what I got instead was the proverbial lightning-bolt that shattered everything for me, and it took quite a long time for me to put myself back together.

It was also, for me, a very humbling experience. I didn't really realize it beforehand, but I had quite a high opinion of myself. I'm a very smart fellow, and pretty much everyone who knows me always describes me as the smartest guy they know. I'm pretty good looking, in decent physical shape, well-spoken, I can do math, etc. And I was making a lot of money at that time in my life to boot. What I learned then was that all of that was basically worthless, and that while I was trying to be a good person, deep down in the "potbelly" of the self, I had as much dark nasty gunk as anyone. I learned quite a lesson that day...well, I guess I should say I was shown a lesson that day, one that I keep trying my best to learn, conscious that I fail at it regularly. But yeah, it was a very troubling experience for me, and still is sometimes.

Other mystics have reported the same or similar. Dante, in one of his letters, describes a vision he had while leaving Florence for good, standing on the banks of the Arno. This followed on the visions he had recorded in the Vita Nuova, all of which strike me as having been tinged with something of the destructive. I have often wondered whether he was not inspired to write Inferno partially as a result of that--he could have just written Purgatioro and Paradiso, which would have conformed much more to the theology of the day in terms of the visionary experiences of the mystic. His inclusion of the visions of Hell, of the centrality of Lucifer, are a disturbing journey, but one that, as Dante presents it, is absolutely necessary before one can attain the final truth in paradise. I don't know. Just some speculation.

But anyway, yes, you're right. James did not deal with that aspect of religious experience effectively, in my view, and in a lot of people's views. I'm afraid I'm not sure why. Perhaps he genuinely just missed it. Perhaps, given the constrictions on the Gifford Lectures' form and content, he felt he shouldn't include them. Or perhaps, having himself dealt with depression and hopelessness, he wanted to suggest the solution that he had found for himself. Again, more speculation; I doubt anyone really knows why he didn't include those.

 

[Into the Night]

That is news to me. Right now we live in Pascal's Wager, we have evidence that God is just a myth like other gods of the Greek world. Still we believe in a God because we are making a wager that he does exists. It does not really cost much to purchase this lottery ticket. But if humans are born after the second coming, then it is a universal truth that God and Jesus are real. There will not be any faith, because it becomes a given God is real.

Read up on Pascal's Wager.

It is true that evidence exists that no god or gods exist. It is also true that evidence exists that a god or gods exist. It is not possible to prove either way. Faith would still be required. If Jesus Christ came up to you right now, told you who He was, and shook your hand, would you believe Him?

Faith is used to create any theory, including all theories of science. Faith is used to engineer any device. Faith is used to even use the device. Faith is simply another name for the circular argument, which is not a fallacy in and of itself.

 

[Into the Night]

You have heard of writing have you not? Philosophers write down what they reason, Books are created by that means. And from that dictionaries are compiled to give form to these books.

Philosophy is not a book, even though philosophers may write a book.

You really have no clue about philosophy if you think it is just people sitting around do absolutely nothing but reasoning. pathetic.

You are denying philosophy completely.

 

[VINLO]

Yes, that's one of the standard criticisms of James....

Ah ok, glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. Thanks for your input.

 

[Into the Night]

Hmmm...I wonder if you take that attitude with everyone you meet. If so, good luck with that.

Generally. You will find that credentials claimed on forums doesn't mean anything. I also see that you are not familiar with philosophy.

Is that so? Well, here are a few examples I can think of just off the top of my head:

Catherine Elgin's paper True Enough makes extensive use of common ideas in physics, like Boyle's ideal gas law, or Euler's notion of the center of gravity.

Nancy Cartwright cites so much physics in How the Laws of Physics Lie that it's practically half the book.

Ian Hacking argues in The Taming of Chance on the basis of the findings of Quantum Mechanics that the old Laplacean deterministic idea is false.

William James quotes a great many mystics and saints in The Varieties of Religious Experience, including Francis of Assissi and John Bunyan.

William Hasker draws extensively on Calvinist Theology in Providence and Evil.

Alvin Plantinga makes very extensive use of both concepts in science and religion--specifically evolutionary and physics concepts (he defends God's ability to perform miracles on the basis of the findings of QM, for example), and also quotes the Belgic and Westminster confessions, in Where the Conflict Really Lies.

Paul and Patricia Churchland draw on neuroscience with such frequency that I doubt you could find more than one or two essays by them that don't include something from that field.

Elliot Sober argues for a nearly orthodox view of evolution in The Philosophy of Biology--and to do so, he has to cite the findings of biology quite frequently in that text.

And so on...heck, even Plato cites priests and mystics of his day in dialogues like Euthyphro and Timaeus. Practically all the medieval philosophers cite scripture as support for their arguments. Kant cites so much theology in Religion within the Bounds of Reason Alone that it makes up about half the book. Take a look at practically anything by Tim Maudlin, J.D. Trout, Kareem Khalifa, John Hick, Robert Adams, Linda Zagzebski (at least her phil of religion stuff), Michael Rea, Peter Van Inwagen, or Henk De Regt for more examples. I'm sure I could think of others if I wanted to continue. These are all either individuals working in philosophy departments at universities today or recently, or are traditionally recognized as philosophers.

Working in a 'philosophy' department is not philosophy. It sounds to me like none of these people are making arguments of philosophy. Personally, I find that most university philosophy departments aren't worth the soapbox they stand on. No university defines philosophy. I find that most don't teach it either, even those that have 'philosophy' departments.

Sure. What does that have to do with anything?
I have no idea why someone would think this. Why do you?

You just agreed science comes from philosophy, then you go right back to saying philosophy comes from science.

Welcome to your new paradox. Which is it, dude?

No, I mean philosophers who work extensively in philosophy of mind, commonly indicated by the phrase "philosophers of mind."

No such thing.

 

[Into the Night]

Well, about the only way to do it lately is to get a PhD in philosophy and then get hired in a tenure track position at a university in a philosophy department. Theoretically, it's possible to just write books that impress other philosophers enough that they'll start thinking of you as a philosopher, but as with every other profession, there are politics involved. Most unfortunately. I personally hate that side of it.

Lousy place to look. Most universities don't even teach philosophy, including those with 'philosophy' departments. You can write books, but it doesn't matter of someone else thinks you are philosopher or not, if you are presenting arguments of philosophy within it.

Philosophy is not judging other people. Philosophy is not politics (though it may discuss political systems). Philosophy is not a university department.

Anyway, you obviously have the knack for it. Professorial salaries are usually enough to pay the bills and have a reasonable standard of living. And then you have other sources of income as well--writing books, sometimes various testing companies like GRE or LSAT will hire you to write or edit tests, or you can be asked to come give a lecture for an honorarium. Don't expect to make a killing--doctors and lawyers usually make much more. But on the other hand, I get paid to teach classes, read and write about philosophy, and sit around thinking about questions that interest me. Hard to ask for a better life in this world.

I can think of a lot of people that make a heck of lot more money and would say they have a better life on top of it.

 

[Into the Night]

What is accepted science fact, is different than the viewpoints of the majority of Americans. The common man is a uneducated man.

Science is not a fact. It is a set of falsifiable theories. There is no such thing as a 'science' fact. There is just a fact, or not.

I disagree with your use of 'common' man. This smacks of bigotry. People are individuals, each with their own talent, knowledge, weaknesses, and capabilities. There really is nothing 'common' about them.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Generally. You will find that credentials claimed on forums doesn't mean anything. I also see that you are not familiar with philosophy.

Working in a 'philosophy' department is not philosophy. It sounds to me like none of these people are making arguments of philosophy. Personally, I find that most university philosophy departments aren't worth the soapbox they stand on. No university defines philosophy. I find that most don't teach it either, even those that have 'philosophy' departments.

So, I'm curious then, since folks like Plato, Kant, and James (and I could have cited Hume, Descartes, Locke, Hobbes, Leibniz, Aristotle, etc.) are widely acknowledged to be philosophers (even if you disagree that anyone working today is a philosopher), who, then, would you say is a philosopher?

You just agreed science comes from philosophy, then you go right back to saying philosophy comes from science.

Welcome to your new paradox. Which is it, dude?

No. I said that science was indeed invented by philosophers. But religion does not come from philosophy...or rather, I have no idea why someone would think so, and I asked why you think so. Read the post again. The first was science. The second was philosophy.

 

[soylentgreen]

Read up on Pascal's Wager.

It is true that evidence exists that no god or gods exist. It is also true that evidence exists that a god or gods exist. It is not possible to prove either way. Faith would still be required. If Jesus Christ came up to you right now, told you who He was, and shook your hand, would you believe Him?

Faith is used to create any theory, including all theories of science. Faith is used to engineer any device. Faith is used to even use the device. Faith is simply another name for the circular argument, which is not a fallacy in and of itself.

This is absolute nonsense.

Just for once try and be honest in your debate and back what you say.

It is true that evidence exists that no god or gods exist.

Really!!! Can you show us any of that proof? Demonstrate just one. For once do something other than make statements that are complete nonsense.

And no, your superstitions are faith based and the only way you have of making them even appear remotely credible is by falsely accusing every branch of knowledge to have the same fault as a pathetic superstition.

You are attempting to legitimise your faith in garbage beliefs by calling all knowledge faith.

 

[Atheist 2020]

Science is not a fact. It is a set of falsifiable theories. There is no such thing as a 'science' fact. There is just a fact, or not.

I disagree with your use of 'common' man. This smacks of bigotry. People are individuals, each with their own talent, knowledge, weaknesses, and capabilities. There really is nothing 'common' about them.

There is this star, and the earth goes around this star we call the sun. This sun is made up with science, plus the science that keeps the earth going around the sun. Plus we have the moon, and the science of the tides on earth are well defined. This is science, and well understood facts.

 

[Atheist 2020]

Read up on Pascal's Wager.

It is true that evidence exists that no god or gods exist. It is also true that evidence exists that a god or gods exist. It is not possible to prove either way. Faith would still be required. If Jesus Christ came up to you right now, told you who He was, and shook your hand, would you believe Him?

Faith is used to create any theory, including all theories of science. Faith is used to engineer any device. Faith is used to even use the device. Faith is simply another name for the circular argument, which is not a fallacy in and of itself.

If Jesus came to me and shook my hand, and we had coffee when we talked. I can start a new religion, and my only evidence is being a eye witness to this theory. If I start a new religion, and ask people to give me money so I can say the good word from Jesus -- you and others will not believe me.

 

[gfm7175]

This is absolute nonsense.

Just for once try and be honest in your debate and back what you say.

It is true that evidence exists that no god or gods exist.

Really!!! Can you show us any of that proof? Demonstrate just one. For once do something other than make statements that are complete nonsense.

And no, your superstitions are faith based and the only way you have of making them even appear remotely credible is by falsely accusing every branch of knowledge to have the same fault as a pathetic superstition.

You are attempting to legitimise your faith in garbage beliefs by calling all knowledge faith.

He said evidence, he did not say proof... evidence is not proof. They are not synonymous words...

 

[Into the Night]

So, I'm curious then, since folks like Plato, Kant, and James (and I could have cited Hume, Descartes, Locke, Hobbes, Leibniz, Aristotle, etc.) are widely acknowledged to be philosophers (even if you disagree that anyone working today is a philosopher), who, then, would you say is a philosopher?

Anyone making arguments of philosophy.

No. I said that science was indeed invented by philosophers.

You also said that philosophy was invented by science. Still locked in paradox, dude.

But religion does not come from philosophy.

Yes it does.

..or rather, I have no idea why someone would think so, and I asked why you think so.

All religions are based on some initial circular argument (which itself is not a fallacy), then has other arguments extending from that.
Christianity, for example, is based on the initial circular argument that Jesus Christ exists, and He is who He says He is. All other arguments in Christianity extend from that initial argument.

The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. It is also known as the argument of faith.

A religion does not have to be organized. It does not require a god or gods. It does not require a minimum number of people. They ALL require, however, that initial circular argument, and for arguments to extend from that.

...deleted irrational portion...

You still have to clear you paradox.

 

[Into the Night]

This is absolute nonsense.

Just for once try and be honest in your debate and back what you say.

Already have.

It is true that evidence exists that no god or gods exist.

Really!!! Can you show us any of that proof? Demonstrate just one. For once do something other than make statements that are complete nonsense.

Evidence is not a proof. As for evidence that no god or gods exist:
* life itself
* no visible sighting of any god or gods, at least in recent days.
* the theory of abiogenesis
* the theory of evolution
* the theory of the Big Bang

There are evidences, not proofs. It is not possible to prove any god or gods do not exist.

And no, your superstitions are faith based

Religion, actually. Yes. It is faith based. It cannot be otherwise.

and the only way you have of making them even appear remotely credible is by falsely accusing every branch of knowledge to have the same fault as a pathetic superstition.

Faith is not a fault.

You are attempting to legitimise your faith in garbage beliefs by calling all knowledge faith.

Never said any such thing. I said all theories, including theories of science, begin by faith. Theories of science are falsifiable. They have survived tests against their null hypothesis. They have gone beyond the simple circular argument. Nonscientific theories remain the circular arguments they started out as. They remain arguments of faith. Several have become religions.

 

[Into the Night]

There is this star, and the earth goes around this star we call the sun.

Not quite true. The Sun and the Earth orbit around a common point that is not the center of the Sun. The Sun is so massive that it doesn't appear to wobble, but it does.

This sun is made up with science,

No, the Sun is made up of hydrogen and helium, and a few trace elements.

plus the science that keeps the earth going around the sun.

Science does not cause the Earth to orbit.

Plus we have the moon, and the science of the tides on earth are well defined.

Not a science. An observation. The theory of the tides, however, IS science. It is falsifiable. So far, it has not yet been falsified.

This is science, and well understood facts.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not any fact. There is no such thing as a 'scientific' fact. There is only a fact...or not. Science has no proofs. It is never 'settled'. It does not use supporting evidence. It does not use consensus. It does not require an observation. It is not data or an observation. All observations (and the data created by them) are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are evidence only.

 

[Into the Night]

If Jesus came to me and shook my hand, and we had coffee when we talked. I can start a new religion, and my only evidence is being a eye witness to this theory. If I start a new religion, and ask people to give me money so I can say the good word from Jesus -- you and others will not believe me.

So you WOULD believe Him? That act alone requires faith.

 

[Into the Night]

He said evidence, he did not say proof... evidence is not proof. They are not synonymous words...

It's amazing how many people think they are synonyms.

 

[Aberration]

According to special relativity we don’t travel around the Sun, and neither does the Sun travel around a common point. We travel in straight lines, and space is warped by gravity to make it appear like we travel in a circle.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Anyone making arguments of philosophy.

And here I thought that Plato and Kant, at least, had made "arguments of philosophy." And certainly Hume, who cites theologian after theologian in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, or Rene Descartes, who quotes Galileo in The Principles of First Philosophy and also in his Objections and Replies. Or Blaise Pascal (whom you have referrenced previously), who somewhat often makes a point in his Le Pensees by quoting from the Gospel of John.

So your reply is uninformative, and pretty obviously intentionally so. That is, you're being evasive. Give us the name of someone who, in your view, is making "arguments of philosophy."

All religions are based on some initial circular argument (which itself is not a fallacy), then has other arguments extending from that.

What is this relation "based on" about--what does it mean to say that x is "based on" y in this context? What is the initial circular argument on which, say, Old Kingdom Egyptian religion is based? What about ancient Canaanite religion? The Medieval Kaula cults?

Christianity, for example, is based on the initial circular argument that Jesus Christ exists, and He is who He says He is.

How is that an argument? There's no way to derive "Jesus is who he says he is" from "Jesus exists," or vice versa.

All other arguments in Christianity extend from that initial argument.

Why in the world do you think Christianity, and by parity of reasoning, other religions, are, or have, arguments? How does Augustin's argument for original sin derive from this "initial argument"? Or his argument against the reality of time? Show us, if you can, and if you dare, the chain of reasoning that leads from "Jesus exists" and "Jesus is who he says he is" to these arguments of Augustin's.

The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. It is also known as the argument of faith.

What of those religions that explicitly reject faith? What of those that just don't say anything about faith at all?

A religion does not have to be organized. It does not require a god or gods. It does not require a minimum number of people. They ALL require, however, that initial circular argument, and for arguments to extend from that.

So I'm guessing that, in your view, pre-axial Brahmanic religion was not actually religion. Nor are basically any of the ancient cults. Nor Gnosticism. Nor a whole host of others that don't have "initial circular arguments."

You still have to clear you paradox.

No paradox. Here was the exchange, in post 542:

You: Philosophy does not come from science. Science comes from philosophy.

Me: Sure. What does that have to do with anything?

You: Philosophy does not come from religion. It's the other way around.

Me I have no idea why someone would think this. Why do you?

I accept the claim that philosophy invented science. I question the claim that philosophy invented religion. Religion and science are not identical.

 

[soylentgreen]

He said evidence, he did not say proof... evidence is not proof. They are not synonymous words...

Please do not try and be any more ridiculous about this that you can possibly be.

Evidence either means making something very clear or is proof of something.

It is not a semantic word trick for dishonest christians to claim and then piss about pretending they meant something else.

 

[soylentgreen]

Already have.

Evidence is not a proof. As for evidence that no god or gods exist:
* life itself
* no visible sighting of any god or gods, at least in recent days.
* the theory of abiogenesis
* the theory of evolution
* the theory of the Big Bang

There are evidences, not proofs. It is not possible to prove any god or gods do not exist.


Religion, actually. Yes. It is faith based. It cannot be otherwise.

Faith is not a fault.

Never said any such thing. I said all theories, including theories of science, begin by faith. Theories of science are falsifiable. They have survived tests against their null hypothesis. They have gone beyond the simple circular argument. Nonscientific theories remain the circular arguments they started out as. They remain arguments of faith. Several have become religions.

This is not evidence as you have already been told. these are mere assumptions on your part.

True, evidence can also be anything you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.


Believe being the operative word there. Which means all you have in the end is your faith.

Faith is not a bad thing, i agree. Your use of it to pretend all branches of knowledge are faith based is. It nothing more than a dishonest attempt to lower the level of knowledge to your own superstitious faith.

I know what you said. it changes nothing about what i have said. You use faith as a weapon to give your own feeble beliefs in a god more power by pretending that everything is faith based.

And [leases stop trying to give your own false definitions of science or philosophy they are wrong as has been explained many times.

And do try and be honest about this instead of palying semantics. I asked you to show this evidence not give proof. I would not waste my time asking for proof for what is nothing more than a silly superstition. But evidence is what you believe, not proof. And yet all you can do so far is demonstrate that you would rather believe in fairy tales than actually offer evidence.

 

[Into the Night]

And here I thought that Plato and Kant, at least, had made "arguments of philosophy." And certainly Hume, who cites theologian after theologian in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, or Rene Descartes, who quotes Galileo in The Principles of First Philosophy and also in his Objections and Replies. Or Blaise Pascal (whom you have referrenced previously), who somewhat often makes a point in his Le Pensees by quoting from the Gospel of John.

So your reply is uninformative, and pretty obviously intentionally so. That is, you're being evasive. Give us the name of someone who, in your view, is making "arguments of philosophy."



What is this relation "based on" about--what does it mean to say that x is "based on" y in this context? What is the initial circular argument on which, say, Old Kingdom Egyptian religion is based? What about ancient Canaanite religion? The Medieval Kaula cults?



How is that an argument? There's no way to derive "Jesus is who he says he is" from "Jesus exists," or vice versa.



Why in the world do you think Christianity, and by parity of reasoning, other religions, are, or have, arguments? How does Augustin's argument for original sin derive from this "initial argument"? Or his argument against the reality of time? Show us, if you can, and if you dare, the chain of reasoning that leads from "Jesus exists" and "Jesus is who he says he is" to these arguments of Augustin's.



What of those religions that explicitly reject faith? What of those that just don't say anything about faith at all?



So I'm guessing that, in your view, pre-axial Brahmanic religion was not actually religion. Nor are basically any of the ancient cults. Nor Gnosticism. Nor a whole host of others that don't have "initial circular arguments."



No paradox. Here was the exchange, in post 542:



I accept the claim that philosophy invented science. I question the claim that philosophy invented religion. Religion and science are not identical.

Ignoring your denial of your paradox that you created since you won't clear it:

Here you try to undefine 'argument'. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. Religion has arguments. Science has arguments. Philosophy has arguments. Math has arguments. Logic has arguments. A circular argument is one that uses it's own conclusion as a predicate (there may be others).

An agnostic has no religion. There is no initial circular argument. A atheist does. Atheism is based on an initial circular argument with extended arguments, just like Christianity.

The circular argument by itself is not a fallacy. The failure to recognize it for what it is, though, becomes the fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

 

[Into the Night]

Please do not try and be any more ridiculous about this that you can possibly be.

Evidence either means making something very clear or is proof of something.

It is not a semantic word trick for dishonest christians to claim and then piss about pretending they meant something else.

Evidence is not a proof. I am not arguing for or against Christianity.

 

[Into the Night]

This is not evidence as you have already been told. these are mere assumptions on your part.

It IS evidence. Evidence may come from an observation, the existence of a related theory, a math formula, anywhere. Evidence is any factor that may be used as a predicate to an argument or to a counter-argument (the conflicting argument).

True, evidence can also be anything you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.

Partly.

Believe being the operative word there. Which means all you have in the end is your faith.

Not correct. Proofs exist in closed functional systems. They do not exist in open functional systems. Math and logic are closed functional systems.

Faith is not a bad thing, i agree. Your use of it to pretend all branches of knowledge are faith based is.

They are. Even a closed functional system requires a certain amount of faith in the founding axioms that they do actually close the system.

It nothing more than a dishonest attempt to lower the level of knowledge to your own superstitious faith.

Faith does not lower anything.

I know what you said. it changes nothing about what i have said. You use faith as a weapon to give your own feeble beliefs in a god more power by pretending that everything is faith based.

I am not arguing for or against any god or gods.

And [leases stop trying to give your own false definitions of science or philosophy they are wrong as has been explained many times.

They are not my definitions.

And do try and be honest about this instead of palying semantics.

It is YOU playing semantics here. Inversion fallacy.

I asked you to show this evidence not give proof.

And I gave you the evidence you requested.

I would not waste my time asking for proof for what is nothing more than a silly superstition.

Actually, you are. You are even now making an argument of ignorance fallacy.

But evidence is what you believe, not proof.

WRONG. Evidence is any factor that may be used as a predicate to an argument or a counter-argument.

And yet all you can do so far is demonstrate that you would rather believe in fairy tales than actually offer evidence.

I am not arguing for or against any fairy tale either.

 

[gfm7175]

Please do not try and be any more ridiculous about this that you can possibly be.

Inversion Fallacy. This is your problem, not mine.

Evidence either means making something very clear or is proof of something.

Evidence means neither of those things... I noticed that ITN has already offered you a good definition of what evidence is. Evidence concerns what can be used as a predicate to a (counter)argument. It has NOTHING to do with "making something clear", nor does it have anything to do with "proof"...

It is not a semantic word trick for dishonest christians to claim and then piss about pretending they meant something else.

No "word tricks" are being played... the words are very clearly defined...