For those that don't believe the bible is the word of God...

[The Freakshow]

Sorry man, but you kind of thick sometimes.

Were there more than 4 people who saw Jesus walk on water?

Do you have there testimonies?

Again, being thick.

You don't have the originals.  the originals documents (copper papyrus, clay etc..) the gospels were written on.  you have reproduction dated 100 years after they were written.

What a bunch of crap!!!     I'm sure this is from fundy sources.

If you don't have the original you don't know how accurate the copy is.

And even then, can you remember events and words spoken just 10 years ago?   I think not.

No you don't.   eye witness testimony is something you get in court form the person.  Gosh, what world do you live in?

What you have is:

-  Reproductions (written accounts) who's accuracy cannot be verified or originality cannot be authenticated.

It makes them suspect and probable to be inaccurate.  Again, can you tell with 100% accuracy words and events from 10 years ago?  Much less 40 years ago?

You haven't proved a single thing yet.   And you cannot refute the comparison of the Koran and it's eye witnesses to your bible's eye witnesses.

your logic would be laughed at in the court of law and even more by a group of neutral scholars.

Again you are using words in a book to prove the book is true.  No different than greek mythology or the noodle god.

and yes, you don't need to research other religions becuase your afraid of what you will find.

And yes, the bible has many contradictions in it.  It's the Brainwashed folk who have traded in their common sense that will always make excuses for it.

Read these posts, you still haven't address the contradictions of geography.

Why?

Are you afraid?

It's interesting that you discount the manuscripts which are copies of the originals (there is NOTHING to prove otherwise), however, you can't argue the accuracy of the books of the Old Testament because they have been verified against remains of original documents by many sources including the Dead Sea Scrolls. So you are using an argument against the New Testament that was used against the Old Testament before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Unfortunately for you, the DSS proved the Original Texts.

Now you are presented with the most accurate and reliable documents (the Bible) of ANY religion. So out of all religions the Bible has the most provable manuscripts, supported by over 2400 manuscripts.

So you have two choices, one: Believe the Bible claims (over any religion) or, two: Believe that there is no God and that you somehow just came to exsist.

So herein lies your problem, How did you come to exsist? Provide the "original" supporting documentation for the creation of mankind.

I have mine in the Old Testament And there is absolutely no other religion on earth that makes the claims of the Bible backed up by fullfillment.


Now as far as geography, I thought I addressed that. Let me know if there were some still some "so called" geographical contradictions you wanted addressed.

[The Freakshow]

Sorry man, but you kind of thick sometimes.

Were there more than 4 people who saw Jesus walk on water?

Do you have there testimonies?

I would assume that there were more than four. The Bible says that "the Disciples" were in the boat. The Disciples typically consisted of 'twelve' individuals. Also, considering the context of the passage (getting in the boat, coming from the mass feeding where Phillip and Andrew were also mentioned by name), I would surmise that all of the twelve disciples were present. But that's irrelevant. The Gospel writers are enough for me. Again, if Jesus can be murdered publically and rise from the dead publically, then I have no problem believing He walked on water. Especially, since there were eyewitnesses.

Testimonies are in the Gospels.

[OzmO]

It's interesting that you discount the manuscripts which are copies of the originals (there is NOTHING to prove otherwise), however, you can't argue the accuracy of the books of the Old Testament because they have been verified against remains of original documents by many sources including the Dead Sea Scrolls. So you are using an argument against the New Testament that was used against the Old Testament before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Unfortunately for you, the DSS proved the Original Texts.

The DSS is the original documents that Jerimiah wrote on?  that Moses wrote on?  that Danial wrote on?

Back up buttercup.  Those were copies.  all it proves is that in the case of book of Isaiah there has been few changes from the time that book was written until now.

Use some common sense.  DSS were copies of copies.  They were not the originals.  If you still don't get it.  the Declaration of Independence on display in Washington is the original.  that's what i'm talking about.  That's how you know all the copies you see in books are accurate.  get it now?

Now as far as geography, I thought I addressed that. Let me know if there were some still some "so called" geographical contradictions you wanted addressed.

You know what i'm talking about.  Address each of the geographical contradictions with out playing "cut and paste" some obscure article that barley even addresses the issue.  Scroll back up and address each of Trap's assertions.  Stop trying to run from it.  Do you have the courage to face it?

So herein lies your problem, How did you come to exsist? Provide the "original" supporting documentation for the creation of mankind.

I provide science.

(BTW, i believe god created us through evolution) and i have all of science to back me up.  You have a book of fairy tales written by primitive people.

I would assume that there were more than four. The Bible says that "the Disciples" were in the boat. The Disciples typically consisted of 'twelve' individuals. Also, considering the context of the passage (getting in the boat, coming from the mass feeding where Phillip and Andrew were also mentioned by name), I would surmise that all of the twelve disciples were present. But that's irrelevant. The Gospel writers are enough for me. Again, if Jesus can be murdered publically and rise from the dead publically, then I have no problem believing He walked on water. Especially, since there were eyewitnesses.

Testimonies are in the Gospels.

you don;t have everyone's signed statement.   In a court of law to prove something, one may use testimonies.  If you provided testimonies that aren't the original documents the witness gave their statement on they wouldn't be considered evidence at all.

Imagine going to the judge and opposing attorney and saying look, i can't provide live witnesses, i can't provide signed statements, but what i can provide is a copy of a statement that we don't how many times was copied from a witnesses who died 2000 years ago.  You'd look like a complete fool.
 
So as someone earlier was telling just how stupid you were to think of eye witnesses as evidence your position is even more laugh-able as you don't even have the original testimonial documents they wrote their statements on.  all you have is suspect copies.

Try again.

[Wee Laddy]

Mr. Freakshow,

Your arguments that testimonials provide definitive proof is flawed.

I could find hundreds of testimonials from people who have seen UFOs.  What they saw cannot be disproved as not being alien spacecraft.  The existence of aliens cannot be disproved.  You cannot prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy you continually employ ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof ).  On the other hand, those testimonials do not definitely prove that aliens have visited earth.

At the most, your Bible testimonials may pass a "preponderance of evidence" test in civil court.

But, going further, you would not believe "hard evidence" even if it was shown to you.  For example, as a Creationist, I assume that you think the Earth is merely thousands of years old.  However, science conclusively demonstrates that the Earth is billions of years old.

Another logical fallacy that you employ is "God of the gaps" or "argument from ignorance" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps ) with such arguments as:
So herein lies your problem, How did you come to exist? Provide the "original" supporting documentation for the creation of mankind.
Your arguments too often stray into intellectual dishonesty.  I strongly suggest, should you continue to reason the truth of Christianity, to learn the basic ground rules of logic and logical fallacy (  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy ).

[The Freakshow]

I provide science.

(BTW, i believe god created us through evolution) and i have all of science to back me up.  You have a book of fairy tales written by primitive people.

So in other words, you have created a God in your mind that you have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF (even copies), that you are not accountable to in any way.

You heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ and have chosen to deny it because you don't like the God of the Bible that He claims (and proved) He is.

You'd look like a complete fool.

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

If I look like a complete fool, how does that make you look since you have NOTHING to the evidence of the God you say you believe in.

So as someone earlier was telling just how stupid you were to think of eye witnesses as evidence your position is even more laugh-able as you don't even have the original testimonial documents they wrote their statements on.  all you have is suspect copies.

Try again.

"Stupid", very academic. Yeah, what was I thinking, believing the of testimony eyewitnesses that was supported even by Christ's enemies.

Once again I have a book of testimonies that prove that the God of the Bible IS who He says He is, you have nothing documenting the God you have created in your own mind.

BTW, the copies are only "suspect" to you because you don't agree with what they say.

I provided you proof that contradicted the so called geographical contradiction you referenced and you immediately discounted it. Wasting my time proving one point after another to someone that is just going to discount the truth because he's in denial is really an exercise in futility.

Why don't you prove to me that the text is inaccurate by proving that the phophecies that were fullfilled in the Bible didn't happen. Oh wait, I think you did earlier by claiming that Jesus was never really born

[Necrosis]

So in other words, you have created a God in your mind that you have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF (even copies), that you are not accountable to in any way.

You heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ and have chosen to deny it because you don't like the God of the Bible that He claims (and proved) He is.


"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

If I look like a complete fool, how does that make you look since you have NOTHING to the evidence of the God you say you believe in.

"Stupid", very academic. Yeah, what was I thinking, believing the of testimony eyewitnesses that was supported even by Christ's enemies.

Once again I have a book of testimonies that prove that the God of the Bible IS who He says He is, you have nothing documenting the God you have created in your own mind.

BTW, the copies are only "suspect" to you because you don't agree with what they say.

I provided you proof that contradicted the so called geographical contradiction you referenced and you immediately discounted it. Wasting my time proving one point after another to someone that is just going to discount the truth because he's in denial is really an exercise in futility.

Why don't you prove to me that the text is inaccurate by proving that the phophecies that were fullfilled in the Bible didn't happen. Oh wait, I think you did earlier by claiming that Jesus was never really born

do you beleive the earth is only 6000 years old? if so, do you discount hard fatual evidence that it is not, but accept a book written thousands of years ago with some testimonies?

[The Freakshow]

Mr. Freakshow,

Your arguments that testimonials provide definitive proof is flawed.

I could find hundreds of testimonials from people who have seen UFOs.  What they saw cannot be disproved as not being alien spacecraft.  The existence of aliens cannot be disproved.  You cannot prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy you continually employ ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof ).  On the other hand, those testimonials do not definitely prove that aliens have visited earth.

At the most, your Bible testimonials may pass a "preponderance of evidence" test in civil court.

But, going further, you would not believe "hard evidence" even if it was shown to you.  For example, as a Creationist, I assume that you think the Earth is merely thousands of years old.  However, science conclusively demonstrates that the Earth is billions of years old.

Another logical fallacy that you employ is "God of the gaps" or "argument from ignorance" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps ) with such arguments as:
So herein lies your problem, How did you come to exist? Provide the "original" supporting documentation for the creation of mankind.
Your arguments too often stray into intellectual dishonesty.  I strongly suggest, should you continue to reason the truth of Christianity, to learn the basic ground rules of logic and logical fallacy (  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy ).

Actually, the Bible would pass the "proponderonce of the evidence" test in court. Remember, there were eyewitnesses and PHYSICAL evidence at the time these books were written.

I will be sure to go over to Wikipedia and study up on all of the "scientific" proof over there. You realize you can't even reference Wikipedia in a college paper as a source or you will fail right?

[The Freakshow]

do you beleive the earth is only 6000 years old? if so, do you discount hard fatual evidence that it is not, but accept a book written thousands of years ago with some testimonies?

I don't know how old the earth is.

I also have never seen a transitional form from one species into another species. Darwin, the Evolution master never did either. He had fits of rage cause he could never find any explanation for the evolution of the human eye.

But he surely has the answer now

[OzmO]

So in other words, you have created a God in your mind that you have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF (even copies), that you are not accountable to in any way.

You heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ and have chosen to deny it because you don't like the God of the Bible that He claims (and proved) He is.

No, I'm looking at real evidence not stories of primitive men.

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

If I look like a complete fool, how does that make you look since you have NOTHING to the evidence of the God you say you believe in.

You crack me up.  You are the biggest most extreme THUMPER I've talked to ever.  Your arguments are not even on the level of childishness.  You are like a brainwashed dude avoiding any logic even on the most simple things.

"Stupid", very academic. Yeah, what was I thinking, believing the of testimony eyewitnesses that was supported even by Christ's enemies.

Once again I have a book of testimonies that prove that the God of the Bible IS who He says He is, you have nothing documenting the God you have created in your own mind.

BTW, the copies are only "suspect" to you because you don't agree with what they say.

I provided you proof that contradicted the so called geographical contradiction you referenced and you immediately discounted it. Wasting my time proving one point after another to someone that is just going to discount the truth because he's in denial is really an exercise in futility.

you run like a scared boy.  Are you afraid of what you might find freak?

You run from what witnesses are in relation to proving things.

You run from DSS being copies of copies and not original documents.

You run from addressing geographical contradictions.

Sorry if it offends you, but you are what atheists talk about when they say religion is for the ignorant and weak minded.

A long as you are happy, and feel safe, more power to you.

You are now on the THUMP THUMP list.    

[OzmO]

Actually, the Bible would pass the "proponderonce of the evidence" test in court. Remember, there were eyewitnesses and PHYSICAL evidence at the time these books were written.

Yeah, you are living in a fairy tale, your own little world.............

THUMP THUMP

[Wee Laddy]

Actually, the Bible would pass the "proponderonce of the evidence" test in court. Remember, there were eyewitnesses and PHYSICAL evidence at the time these books were written.

I will be sure to go over to Wikipedia and study up on all of the "scientific" proof over there. You realize you can't even reference Wikipedia in a college paper as a source or you will fail right?

You are too cute by half. You may have a great deal of knowledge and fact at your command, but your skill in logical reasoning is hurting your cause. A little formal education in logic would help you greatly.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

[The Freakshow]

You are too cute by half. You may have a great deal of knowledge and fact at your command, but your skill in logical reasoning is hurting your cause. A little formal education in logic would help you greatly.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

To be honest, a "little" formal education probably wouldn't hurt me. But I could use "a lot" of formal education. Which I agree would definitely be beneficial to me.

However, a 'fallacy' truly is a falsehood or untruth, nonfactual. To argue that reasoning would make something a fallacy or not is really a philosophical approach. I truly have no interest in philosophy. There really are no 'absolutes' in philosophy, it's abstract.

My argument is presenting the facts which are supported by as much data as is available (which happens to be significantly more than the counter argument that the God of the Bible is not the true God).

Based on the definition of arguments provided in the article you provided (excerpt below), my argument's conclusion must be true! At worst, the conclusion is likely to be true.

However, the counter argument is based purely on a belief that the evidence is a lie.

A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.[/quote]

[Necrosis]

To be honest, a "little" formal education probably wouldn't hurt me. But I could use "a lot" of formal education. Which I agree would definitely be beneficial to me.

However, a 'fallacy' truly is a falsehood or untruth, nonfactual. To argue that reasoning would make something a fallacy or not is really a philosophical approach. I truly have no interest in philosophy. There really are no 'absolutes' in philosophy, it's abstract.

My argument is presenting the facts which are supported by as much data as is available (which happens to be significantly more than the counter argument that the God of the Bible is not the true God).

Based on the definition of arguments provided in the article you provided (excerpt below), my argument's conclusion must be true! At worst, the conclusion is likely to be true.

However, the counter argument is based purely on a belief that the evidence is a lie.

A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.[/quote]

your insanse, what evidence do you have for god. if it was a factual as you think no one would be arguing. im sorry but testimonies are not evidence, and can be swayed a subject to bias. thats why testimony is on the bottom run of the hierarchy in medicine etc.....

its not acceptable as evidence and i havent even read enough this thread to argue specifics, but no one can prove a negative, your asking people to provide this type of evidence is indicative of your ignorance.

[The Freakshow]

No, I'm looking at real evidence not stories of primitive men.

You crack me up.  You are the biggest most extreme THUMPER I've talked to ever.  Your arguments are not even on the level of childishness.  You are like a brainwashed dude avoiding any logic even on the most simple things.

you run like a scared boy.  Are you afraid of what you might find freak?

You run from what witnesses are in relation to proving things.

You run from DSS being copies of copies and not original documents.

You run from addressing geographical contradictions.

Sorry if it offends you, but you are what atheists talk about when they say religion is for the ignorant and weak minded.

A long as you are happy, and feel safe, more power to you.

You are now on the THUMP THUMP list.    

  Childishness

"You run" You run" "Are you afraid" "Are you scared"

You do realize the earth was created in "primitive" times, right??? What kind of evidence would be legitimate, obviously the type that dates back farther than any of your evidence.

You say I "run from addressing geographical contradictions", however I provided you with evidence that the contradiction was false (now this is what the third or forth time i"ve told you) and you dismissed it. There's no dismissing it. The land is where the Bible said it was and the hill slopes into the water, just like the Bible says, I EVEN GAVE YOU A PICTURE!

If a Thumper is someone who believes the truth when presented with it, then add me to the list!

you run like a scared boy.  Are you afraid of what you might find freak?

That would be BIG boy to you.

What do you think I would be afraid of??? That makes absolutely no sense. Isn't the TRUTH the most important thing? Why would it matter to me if God were disproved? All that would mean is that I'm not accountable to anyone and would be left with no answer to how I was created. There are many people that live without answers.

I don't believe in God because of any rewards I get or what I can get out of it. I believe in God because I believe He's the Truth. Plain and simple.

Calling me names like Thumper, yada yada yada....... I could care less.

You're arguments are in fact VERY WEAK! You are confronted with evidence and discount it because you don't want to believe it. I have always just been in search for the truth. You on the other hand ignore the truth.

[Wee Laddy]

However, a 'fallacy' truly is a falsehood or untruth, nonfactual. To argue that reasoning would make something a fallacy or not is really a philosophical approach. I truly have no interest in philosophy. There really are no 'absolutes' in philosophy, it's abstract.

Really, grasp what a "logical fallacy" is.

It's all philosophy.  Everything you know about God is in the abstract, simply for the fact that no man can know the thoughts and face of God.  The Bible does it's best to describe Him and His Kingdom in abstarctions that man can try to comprehend.

I've long ago given up reasoning God into or out of existence.  It's pointless.  Smarter and more educated men than I am have been both atheists and believers.  I can never learn enough to come to any logical absolute that refutes the giants on either side.  In this area, I've come to the conclusion that ONLY anecdotal evidence is persuasive evidence.

[OzmO]

Childishness

"You run" You run" "Are you afraid" "Are you scared"

You do realize the earth was created in "primitive" times, right??? What kind of evidence would be legitimate, obviously the type that dates back farther than any of your evidence.

You say I "run from addressing geographical contradictions", however I provided you with evidence that the contradiction was false (now this is what the third or forth time i"ve told you) and you dismissed it. There's no dismissing it. The land is where the Bible said it was and the hill slopes into the water, just like the Bible says, I EVEN GAVE YOU A PICTURE!

If a Thumper is someone who believes the truth when presented with it, then add me to the list!

That would be BIG boy to you.

What do you think I would be afraid of??? That makes absolutely no sense. Isn't the TRUTH the most important thing? Why would it matter to me if God were disproved? All that would mean is that I'm not accountable to anyone and would be left with no answer to how I was created. There are many people that live without answers.

I don't believe in God because of any rewards I get or what I can get out of it. I believe in God because I believe He's the Truth. Plain and simple.

Calling me names like Thumper, yada yada yada....... I could care less.

You're arguments are in fact VERY WEAK! You are confronted with evidence and discount it because you don't want to believe it. I have always just been in search for the truth. You on the other hand ignore the truth.

THUMP THUMP



At some point you'll realize what people here are trying to tell you.  But maybe not becuase something that obvious may be too much for you.

[loco]

THUMP THUMP



At some point you'll realize what people here are trying to tell you.  But maybe not becuase something that obvious may be too much for you.

How about addressing his post instead?

[OzmO]

How about addressing his post instead?

There's no point in doing that.

[Wee Laddy]

There's no point in doing that.

Why hang out in the Religious Debates section if you don't want to debate religious fundamentalists?

Go find some atheists board if you want to circle jerk with like minds.

[Necrosis]

How about addressing his post instead?

loco why does god want everyone to die. and as a fundamentalist do you agree that everyone who works on sunday should be put to death. i mean you dont question gods wisdom do you?

[OzmO]

Why hang out in the Religious Debates section if you don't want to debate religious fundamentalists?

Go find some atheists board if you want to circle jerk with like minds.

No.  there's just no point in responding to his post.  Everyone else is a different story.  Look around, i post quite a bit here.  (It's far and away a better circle jerk) 

PS  I'm not an atheist.   

[Necrosis]

You are too cute by half. You may have a great deal of knowledge and fact at your command, but your skill in logical reasoning is hurting your cause. A little formal education in logic would help you greatly.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

a great deal of fact?

[Hedgehog]

First, you throw around the word "liar" quite easily. That's not very respectful.

It's interesting how people on this board will call people disrespectful names and make all kinds of character assassinations. Even the hardest core gang members in Compton would not say something like that to my face.

You don't call HUNDREDS of EYEWITNESSES to His post resurrection life "evidence" How about even his enemies stating that His body is NOT in the "Guarded" tomb??? How about the testimony of the man His enemies "paid" to lie and say that His disciples stole His body???

No. I would call that testimonials.

Anyone I know would call it testimonials.

They could've been THOUSANDS. Still wouldn't made them "evidence". Still would be eyewitnesses giving testimonials.

You claim to have evidence of God.

If eye witnesses like these are your "evidence", I think we all can agree (except you maybe) that you do not have any evidence of God, you cannot prove that he exists, and that your belief in that you can, is a faulty one.

Time to re-evaluate your POV on God perhaps? And view a few episodes of "CSI" (they work a lot with "evidence" there)

How about the fact that there is NO "evidence" that He did NOT rise from the dead???

There is no "evidence"  either that Jesus didn't turn into 300 feet high giant, and walked around the world in 5 seconds. No "evidence" that Messiah didn't return for one night as Michael Jordan, and shot 63 one night against the Celtics.

 Should I have to disprove that?

The burden of proof is obviously on those who claims feats of Jesus.

It is only human to experience doubt. In fact, I think God allows that doubt to encourage deeper investigation. He knows that the deeper we investigate the more convinced we will become. That’s what happens, TRUTH is pretty convincing!

If there were evidence, there would be no room for doubt.

We have evidence that the world is round. We have evidence that babies are born from the mother. We have evidence that cars need fuel. We have evidence that 20 lbs of iron hurts more on the toe than 20 lbs of cotton would. That allows us to not doubt those facts.

We don't experience doubts in the above facts. Because we can see the evidence.

Bump for answer from Freakshow!

[The Freakshow]

No. I would call that testimonials.

Anyone I know would call it testimonials.

They could've been THOUSANDS. Still wouldn't made them "evidence". Still would be eyewitnesses giving testimonials.

You claim to have evidence of God.

If eye witnesses like these are your "evidence", I think we all can agree (except you maybe) that you do not have any evidence of God, you cannot prove that he exists, and that your belief in that you can, is a faulty one.

Time to re-evaluate your POV on God perhaps? And view a few episodes of "CSI" (they work a lot with "evidence" there)
 
There is no "evidence"  either that Jesus didn't turn into 300 feet high giant, and walked around the world in 5 seconds. No "evidence" that Messiah didn't return for one night as Michael Jordan, and shot 63 one night against the Celtics.

 Should I have to disprove that?

The burden of proof is obviously on those who claims feats of Jesus.




If there were evidence, there would be no room for doubt.

We have evidence that the world is round. We have evidence that babies are born from the mother. We have evidence that cars need fuel. We have evidence that 20 lbs of iron hurts more on the toe than 20 lbs of cotton would. That allows us to not doubt those facts.

We don't experience doubts in the above facts. Because we can see the evidence.

Bump for answer from Freakshow!

"EVIDENCE" as defined in Webster's Dictionary:

Main Entry: 1ev·i·dence 
Pronunciation: \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a: an outward sign : indication b: something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2: one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
— in evidence
1: to be seen : conspicuous <trim lawns…are everywhere in evidence— American Guide Series: North Carolina>
2: as evidence

[loco]

loco why does god want everyone to die. and as a fundamentalist do you agree that everyone who works on sunday should be put to death. i mean you dont question gods wisdom do you?

God does not want everyone to die.

Nobody who works on Sunday should be put to death.  That is not God's wisdom.