Well, it’s well nigh two days already and no sight of Loudmouth.
This is not an isolated case, for I have if memory serves met this kind of a development with two posters here - but they turned up afterwards when the discussion went to another direction, some days after.
Okay, dear KTS, suppose you take over and you and I will engage in a sustained exchange on evidence, for as you are an atheist you have a correct objection to God existing, in that you don’t see evidence of His favor.
So, let you and me discuss evidence, what is it, what is its target, and how does evidence hit its target.
Okay, just you in case you want to continue from where Loudmouth leaves off, here are so far the statements presented by yours truly and Loudmouth.
From Pachomius:
My concept of evidence:
"Evidence is anything at all, in our mind (the conceptual realm) and/or in the concrete world of everyday's things, events, people, babies, etc., you get the idea (the objectival realm), by which we humans infer to the certainty of existence of another thing."
My firm conviction on the question God exists or not:
“God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.”
From Loudmouth:
On Loudmouth’s concept of evidence:
"Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim.”
On Loudmouth’s firm conviction on the question God exists or not:
[No statement so far, for definitive inclusion in list of self-declared statements.]
Addendum:
From Pachomiuis, examples of evidence: babies, the sun in the day sky, the moon in the evening sky, stones, the nose in our face, everything in our environment that we live in and move in and have our existence in, in most particular everything with a beginning.
From Loudmouth, his example of evidence:
DNA.
On target of evidence:
From Pachomius, the target of evidence in my cited examples of evidence is God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
From Loudmouth, no presentation of what is the target of his example of evidence, to wit: what is the target of DNA evidence, or what is DNA evidence, evidence to?
Loudmouth waxes eloquent on what is DNA in his one example of evidence, but becomes completely silent and absent when I asked him, "Pray, what is the target of the DNA evidence?"
Again:
It is at that point when I asked Loudmouth, what is DNA evidence to, that he leaves off for now two days already from putting up an appearance in this thread.
Okay, KTS, will you take up the challenge to discuss with me about evidence: what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how does evidence hit its target.
You have the option to continue where Loudmouth takes to his leave of absence, and appropriate the so far only one statement of Loudmouth, his concept of evidence, scil., "Evidence is a set of facts that are consistent with a falsifiable claim.”
Take notice of the term “falsifiable” in Loudmouth’s concept of evidence, I recall that you are a specialist in falsifiability, that makes you a scientist if your being a specialist in falsifiability is falsifiable.
