At the moment your simply aserting this is the case. The actual reality is that there is no evidence for Islam OR Christianity. Both make claims without evidence. Both are unable to backup its claims.
Ok. Firstly, make sure you read this post properly before making another comment on this particular subject.
To begin with, do you mean:
(1) there is no evidence for you personally?
Or you do you mean
(2) there is no evidence at all for anyone?
If you mean:
(1) Then are you saying that you are genuinely looking for evidence? Or have you decided there is no evidence and therefore will not look for, or further consider anything that other people deem to be evidence. I think what you really mean is that you have rejected what other people who do actually believe in Christianity consider to be the evidence
(2) If you mean no evidence for anyone at all, then that clearly is fallacious. I for one think there is evidence for Christianity, and there are clearly millions of people who also believe in Christianity. For a single individual to say that there is no evidence for themselves AND everyone else as well is clearly absurb.
What you can say is that you dont
accept the evidence, you
dont want to believe the evidence or that you are
not searching for the evidence and I expect the later to be more accurate. The question then follows from this position is to turn to you and ask either (i) why you dont accept the evidence, and /or (ii) where have you been looking for the evidence, or (iii) have you even looked for the evidence?
If you are simply dismissing Christianity superficially then the "no evidence" argument is a lazy argument. In fact it's not even an argument.
So, the position that there is no evidence at all is clearly false.
If I said there is no evidence for 5 kilometre high building in the middle of London, then that is clearly false and easily demonstrated to be false. You will also not find one single person on this planet that believes that.
You will find more than one single person who believes in Christianity.
Because the claim of "no evidence" is an absolute statement, then it needs to correspond to reality for this statement to hold as absolutely true.
All absolute statements logically must correspond to reality.
Otherwise, the only logical alternative is for it to be a relative statement and therefore neither true nor false.
It therefore follows for the statement "no evidence for Christianity" to correspond to reality, you would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that:
-all scientific, historical, anthropological, archaeological evidence deemed to correspond to, or in support of a Christian God, The Bible and the accounts of Jesus is false
-all non Christian textual evidence (i.e. Jewish Talmud, Tacitus, Joesephus) that externally validates The Bible is false.
-all personal experiences of
(the Christian) God (including dreams, visions and so) are false
-Christianity, the claims of Jesus Christ and The Bible does not pass the normal rules for establishing historical authenticity and is therefore a false or corrupted text
-any convert from atheism or another belief system to Christianity was false and/or never happened
If you can show that these 4 things all correspond to reality, then the statement "no evidence" (for Christianity) would a true and absolute statement.
If you are honest, the best that you could truthfully do is show that these things are strongly debated!
In the meantime, and until this happens the reality is (whether you agree with it or not) that tens-of-millions of people continue to believe in what they consider to be very real evidence (for Christianity), and so the statement "no evidence for Christianity" does not correspond to reality and is simply no more than an individual subjective perspective on the world in which we live.
Which is fine - and is valid to a point, but holds no real weight in an argument or in any attempt to discredit Christianity which is trying to disprove reality on an absolute and truthful basis for all.
In simple terms, the "no evidence" line of argument is a complete myth.
At best it is a relative and biased term. I can accept "there is no evidence for me personally" - but then it's an argument of choice or preference, NOT evidence!
At worst (and I'm not necessarily suggesting this is what you think) it calls in to question the essential and basic cognitive human abilities of millions of "Christians".
So the real problem for the non-theist is that they end up making absolute claims (such as claims regarding Christianity) when they should only be making relative claims, and in doing this from a minority position (which non-theism is) in attempt to write off the beliefs held by the majority (non-atheist) position with little or no justification or genuine understanding of this position.
So read this through, and then consider what you mean by "no evidence" for Christianity. I would challenge you or anyone to objectively demonstrate that there is "no evidence" for the Christian faith.
In a previous post a few days ago, I set out a number of examples of secular evidence that externally validates the gospel accounts of Jesus. If need be I can outline several more examples of evidence to support a number of Old and New Testament events. I noted that nobody commented on my post containing a direct quote from Tacitus Annals 15:44.....
Therefore, I have already and can continue to provide objective evidence to support my position.
If you do feel you have a strong argument to demonstrate there is "no evidence" for Christianity, then set it out here and back up it with something other than your opinion.
