”O Evidence, Evidence, where art thou Evidence?”*

You think you are open minded…but you show no evidence of any kind of open mind. You won’t accept any evidence because quite simply you don’t believe that there can be any evidence. If that is not true please tell us what evidence you would accept?

  1. Arkenaten

    Your comment is awaiting moderation. This is a preview, your comment will be visible after it has been approved.

    Again, I have not been presented with any evidence so how can I decide what would convince me?
    You are a devout believer so let’s start with the evidence that convinced you, David.
    That can’t be difficult at ll.
    Fire away …


Do you think David will tell me the ”evidence” that convinced him?

”Dammit Ark, stop playing with the Christians and come and eat your dinner!”


*With apologies to Bill S.

69 thoughts on “”O Evidence, Evidence, where art thou Evidence?”*

  1. Ask him if he believes in a flat Earth too. I read somewhere (looking it up) that the majority of Flat Earthers are Christian. That would explain everything….would it not Ark ? 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

      1. By rights, Robertson and all evangelicals should be flat-Earthers, like @ProlapsedColon. Flat-Earth references are in the Bible, after all. But the ‘vangies weasel their way out of that one. They’re canny enough not to venture TOO far outside the realm of scientific consensus — on certain topics — when it suits them.

        But evangelism and honesty always did make for incompatible bedfellows.

        Liked by 2 people

    1. Stationary Chief. Stationary. Start there.

      But I’m of the opinion that it speaks more to others lack of tolerance- than it does to they who hold ‘strange views.’

      But it’s a bonus that scripture presents a still Mt Everest with a firmament above.

      Pure science reveals the same thing, using the standard tools of logic, things testable, and repeatable, something a ‘Balled theory’ has never done.

      Water does not lie. Mountains do not move. Railways cars do not travel upside down across a planed surface.

      Ants can walk around a soccer ball. It would take a rather large ‘ball’ to test my balance skills, but rest assured, no man can walk like an ant on a ceiling.


      1. I hosed myself laughing when I read his responses to you!
        Even a pompous, ignorant evangelical Arsehat like Robertson reckoned you were so far off the chart he struggled to find a remark asinine enough.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Oh, the gods… not off hand. It would take ages to trawl through all Robertson’s posts.
            It wasn’t that long ago.
            Ask Colorstorm, perhaps he can remember the post?


          2. Robertson and his groupies are almost foaming at the mouth.
            One of them thought they would do the apologist number on me by suggesting I watch Dillahunty get creamed in this video.
            I watched it a few weeks ago (recommend it ) and if Dillahunty got creamed then there is no hope for these poor fundamentalist fools.
            The Scrivener bloke was reduced to almost dribbling by Dillahunty on several occasions. Scrivener foolishly introduced Hitler and I know you’ll like the way Dillahunty had him over a barrel.

            Liked by 3 people

          3. For someone who cries for evidence mr z- it’s surprising it is not you who is evangelizing to wake up to the FACT of a still earth.

            As it is, there are ASSUMPTIONS only, theories on paper, assertions that can not meet the common sense text- nor pass the muster of true science, and truth be told, propjj oh e of all stripes- be they atheist or Christian- Hindu or voodoo- have not spent a day in their life examining the fraudulent geography and cosmology they cling to.

            Try telling mother robins that her nest moved a thousand mikes over night. I’m not quite so bold.


          4. Ah ha, I see your problem now. You haven’t taken into account that you are moving independent of your actual motions. In your mind, if the planet is rotating at 1,600 km/p then you believe you should be able to jump up (losing contact with the earth) and find yourself 200+ meters down field half a second later. That’s not how it works, you can experiment on a moving train, but I’m glad I’ve finally figured where you’re going wrong.

            Liked by 3 people

          5. Yeah, geez john, like I NEVER thought of that before.

            A man would be a fool to plan the Burj Kalifa if the very foundations were subject to endless gyrations, upsetting the stability of concrete and steel.

            No such calculations are EVER considered in the world of reality. Even the British railway company admitted no such curvature is factored into the building of rails traversing a horizontal surface.

            It’s embarrassing to cling as u do to fiction. And btw, unlike others, I have no ill will to they who are steeped in thoughtlessness.

            The Suez Canal john. 100 miles of level water- a fact IMPOSSIBLE on a ball.

            You do like facts right? Are you willing to change your mind based on facts?


          6. So, can you explain then how if you jump up on a moving train you don’t end up flying into the carriage door?

            I look forward to your answer…


          7. First things first. Your question is so simple/

            How is the SUEZ canal dead horizontal on a ball?

            Answer that and your other concern is quite simple.


          8. So, can you explain then how if you jump up on a moving train you don’t end up flying into the carriage door?

            I look forward to your answer…


          9. Most uncomfortable for you eh mr Z, to enter a conversation you cannot control.

            Rest assured, the cosmology of the earth was long settled before Copernicus was in diapers- and long before there were airplanes to lump in.

            And oh while I’m here- the state of Florida in the USA is perfectly horizontal- you may want to check the miles that are smiling at your frustration, as there is NO BEND on the middle of the state which your balled theory demands.

            As I said, I have true science and facts on my said, and I am also happy to tell you that scripture agrees.


      2. There are times when I think, this is an intelligent man, spouting this nonsense. And I wonder just how much yanking of the chain you indulge in, if only for your own amusement.


      3. CS, you are a strange strange man. I simply cannot believe anyone with your intelligence could espouse a flat earth, it’s right up there with lightbulbs causing cancer if you turn them on during the day…I think you’re funnin’ us.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Judy- write a blog post explaining YOUR personal experience on a moving ball.

          Tell of your understanding based on things observable, testable, and repeatable. Theories will not be accepted as evidence. Assumptions will also summarily be rejected.

          Write of your proof- explain how Planes fly in four directions with no loss or gain of speed.

          Explain how skilled marksmen DO NOT account for a single inch of curvature when firing.

          Explain WHY railroads are made on a horizontal datum line with NOT ONE government agency making allowance for ASSUMED curvature.

          It’s a shame we even have to discuss this/ but it proves how low ‘modern science’ has degreased from facts and logic,

          A 66 thousand mile per hour orbit eh? While simultaneously ‘spinning?’ Ha!

          I do not live on an amusement park ride Judy. My senses confirm what my brain knows. Write that post/ and I’ll visit you at your place.


    1. ArkenatenFEBRUARY 13, 2020 AT 11:23 AM
      I have answered. I said: at this point I don’t know.
      And I have not ”demanded” anything, I merely asked you to tell me (present) the evidence that convinced you and perhaps it will convince me as well.
      So why do you refuse to tell me of the evidence that convinced you to become a Christian?

      theweefleaFEBRUARY 13, 2020 AT 1:17 PM
      Because its a waste of time. If you are unable to say what evidence you would accept, my assumption that you wouldn’t accept any, is correct….so why waste my time. If someone closes their eyes and then asks for evidence to be shown there is not much point…


    2. @ProcessedCheese parades his literary prowess, for everyone to admire:

      1) “…the common sense text” [sic]

      2) “…propjj oh e [sic] of all stripes”
      (Can someone translate this from gibberish into English, please? On second thoughts, don’t bother).

      3) “Try telling mother robins that her [sic] nest moved a thousand mikes [sic] over night [sic]. I’m not quite so bold.”
      (No, but you have no inhibitions when it comes to mangling English. Are you sure it’s not simply your head that’s flat?)

      Liked by 1 person

      1. ‘Common sense test.’
        ‘People of all stripes.’
        ‘Robins nest.’

        Typos Chris. Auto correct is useless on phone. But try to see the points instead of straining at a gnat.


        1. Why don’t you get your grammar and spelling straightened out before you post?

          Poor literacy doesn’t strengthen your case. Even gnats know this.


  2. Hell, I’d settle for a supernatural end to childhood hunger tomorrow as good evidence for me. If it’s not too much to add to it, I’d also like a signature of sorts to let us all down here know which deity finally got off its ass to do something.

    But really, Ark, the guy’s just signalling to other people on his blog why he wants to give up evangelizing you. There’s no right answer once he claims to know what’s in your mind. He’s going to blame you no matter what.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Oh, I know that SB. But the more he spews forth his vacuous ”righteous” invective the more he reveals that there are more gaping holes in his reasoning than a Galilean fisherman’s net.

      If he has the readership his site claims there may be one or two who wonder why he is constantly so hostile and rude to people like me.
      The comments posted on several YOutube videos he’s uploaded indicates there are a fair few believers who see him in the same light as I do.


  3. Ha ha!
    When pressured on the specifics, or something concrete, Robertson retreats to his default argument: our minds are closed to the “evidence”; we refuse to “see”; and so on. He’s essentially in the same business as the craven politicians who refuse to answer interview questions, unless it’s solely on their terms.

    And yet, Robertson demands subservience to his puny little God, and his ‘vangie followers are full of dire threats about being answerable to said god come Judgement Day.

    What an effing joke.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. There is evidence, it’s just not evidence for the Jesus/Yahweh/Jehovah/Elohim/Holy Ghost quinrtet. If David were to consider anything solely on evidence it would have to go to shamanistic practices and animistic beliefs that had several common threads through the remotest of regions of the world. Funny they’d never heard of the god of Abraham until it was forced upon them. A universal truth is one that develops naturally over time, which it did.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Ark,

    Pastor of Fleeing Flees of Wee-bitty Robertson literally lives in a proverbial Pleasantville, AU—or wherever tha vile flatulence he resides. With his highly censored/moderated blog and his intolerant posture toward anyone, anything different than HIS own (taught, inherited) faith-world view… he sees everything and everyone strictly in black and white, and HE and those like-minded to him have EVERYTHING all figured out for eternity… like the acclaimed 1998 film portrays thru profound allegory…

    Seriously, if one never immerses them self into a DIFFERENT culture, paradigm, and evolved refined method of progress, then there is NO TRUE PLUM, litmus-test to compare, check/verify, or contrast your own formulas of life, people, animals and bio-systems, let alone death and what occurs (or doesn’t) afterwards!

    Robertson shows time and time again he has no use for modifications, refinements, or precise corrections. He has it all! 🤣

    Liked by 2 people

      1. SHAME on you for even remotely questioning the inerrant word of the Koran! You have eyes but can not see! When Allah places you into Hell after you die with all other infidels, atheists, puppy-haters, leftist whackos, and people who think silly putty really isn’t so silly, THEN you will see as hell-fire rises up to tickle and burn your tushy and your belly button! OUCH!!! Dats gonna hurt! HA! HA!! Who will be laughing then, infidel?! WHO??!!! Hahahahahahahahaha!!!! $Allahu Akbar$


        1. Read any bit of it. It is packed with unsubstantiated myth, unreasonable restrictions, horrible retributions (for ignorance, sometimes) and provides no answers for The Meaning of Things. It makes Allah out to be a thoroughly nasty entity. It contains numerous impossibilities and contradictions. Inerrant? Methinks Mohammed was high on something when he took down that alleged dictation.


  6. Re “You won’t accept any evidence because quite simply you don’t believe that there can be any evidence.” So, this guy knows you so well that he can determine your thinking and motivations from afar. Call the Church Miracle Authentication Squad!

    Liked by 2 people

  7. I expect that this is not an exhaustive list, Ark,
    but it’s as comprehensive as I can make it:-
    Evidence for God:
    • Universe
    • Family
    • Law
    • Wisdom
    • History
    • Redemption
    • Church



      1. The Universe is just a claim, Ark?
        I resubmit its existence as evidence, along with the other categories.


          1. Since you mention the once-formidable concept of the aseity of the universe, John,
            let’s stick with that for the moment.

            1. The notion of an eternal universe that’s ‘just there’ has taken a battering since the discovery that there must have been a beginning.

            (Two remnants of the old doctrine remain but whether or not they will yet add up to a substantial defence of atheism remains to be seen.)
            2. That the nothing before the something produced by the Big Bang was a different kind of nothing is neither as daft nor as feeble as it sounds.
            3. The Hawking Doctrine — that gravity must have been the same on either side of the Big Bang singularity — could be termed gravitational aseity.
            (Positing the aseity of the universe as a rival to the doctrine of the aseity of God had the effect of silencing the ubiquitous and tiresome ‘Who made God?’ jibe. You can’t seriously declare to be nonsense the concept of an ‘unmade maker’ when you’ve for so long believed in an eternal universe. Similarly, the need and right to argue that the nothing before the something was a different kind of nothing rules out just dismissing the Christian insistence that the God of the Bible is ‘a different kind of god’ from those gods of the gaps that none of us believes in. Furthermore, even the title of A Brief History of Time suggests that the Big Bang is at least a different kind of gap.)

            Two corollaries of the observed non-aseity of the universe ought to be presented as evidences:-
            4. Probability virtually dictates that the primary cause of an event is bound to be simpler than the event itself. (The Simplicity of God is a major part of the doctrine of the Aseity of God and — not realising that — Richard Dawkins bases his God Delusion probability argument on a supposed divine complexity that the Bible denies. It would (probably) be unfair to dub a probability statement that factors in God’s simplicity as ‘the Dawkins proof for God’ but the probability arguments make the attribution of simplicity to God evidence anyway.)
            5. Cosmic entanglement — for which we have (at least some of) the numbers — is predicted by tracing the expansion of the universe back to its putative beginning. (Entanglement makes more understandable how an omnipotent God brought these universal processes and objects into being with a word and especially how he apparently did so in mid-process.)

            6. As atheist dependence on the doctrine of an aseitic ‘just is’ universe has waned, the threat (to atheist complacency) of a Goldilocks ‘just right’ universe has loomed large. (At the very least, taking refuge in science fiction-inspired m-theory to explain away the improbability of it all makes it ludicrous to accuse believers that God made everything of dishonesty.)
            7. As is famous, the search for a ‘Theory of Everything’ gets some of its drive from the conviction that formulation of such a theory would remove the need for an hypothesis of God’s intervention to fill the gap. What is not so well-recognised is that the underlying reason for thinking that there is a theory of everything waiting to be formulated comes from belief in the simplicity of God. There is a consistency about the evidence for the Glory of God that the universe demonstrates. It can be argued that atheistic secularists would have got there quicker if they’d been there but they weren’t and they didn’t. (In a corresponding ‘Theology of Everything’ we would explain that God took six days to create the world because his Word is a teaching Word as well as a Word of power.)



          2. 1. Sorry John, I don’t know what pseudo-scientific apologetic claptrap you’ve been devouring, but no cosmological model says there must have been a beginning. None. I’m guessing you’re thinking the BGV, which deals with Inflation (nothing before Inflation) and it’s critical to note it doesn’t even use QM, rather classical Newtonian physics. If you knew anything about the BGV you’d know then that Borde, Guth and Vilenkin stress that, for this very reason, it cannot explain the universe. Indeed, after being misrepresented so often by apologists Vilenkin himself answered the question, Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning?

            “No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time.”

            See what he says: Inflation has a beginning.

            And perhaps you weren’t aware, but Vilenkin himself moved on from the BGV years ago. He is now working with Anthony Aguirre, who said:

            “Given eternal inflation, the universe may be free of a cosmological initial singularity, might be eternal (and eternally inflating) to the past.”

            He is also working with Jaume Garriga, stating:

            “[We are] exploring a picture of the multiverse where the BGV theorem may not apply.”

            So, no John.

            Simply put, the universe did not have a beginning. It had a change of state.

            2. There was never nothing.

            3. See 2.

            4. The probability of this universe existing is 1:1

            5. Are you trying to say “quantum entanglement”?

            6. An aseitic universe is no more an atheist argument than gravity is a white man’s argument.

            7. Babble.

            So, to recap:

            There was never nothing. The universe is aseitic.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. As I said, John,

            Two remnants of the old doctrine remain but whether or not they will yet add up to a substantial defence of atheism remains to be seen.

            I believe the ‘different kind of nothing’ part came from Lawrence Krause and the ‘Hawking’ part speaks its own origin. Thank you for the attempt to trace the development of my thinking but I think Krause and Hawking in their different ways present a better case than that provided by the withdrawal from a probably badly-stated position by one of its three original proponants after some Christian apologists tried to leverage it. (If that’s what happened. I’m reading that into your account.)
            Contrary to your certainty, Krause says the debate isn’t over and Hawking popularly demonstrated a beginning not of inflation, but of Time itself.
            That was enough to severely damage the old doctrine of the aseity of the universe — which I associate with Bertrand Russell — but if that wasn’t enough to stop the debate then the severely-trunkated Hawking version is hardly likely to either.
            (And I did mean ‘cosmic’ entanglement.)


          4. John, again, there was never nothing. Waves, not particles, underpin reality, and a non-wave function (the fabled ‘nothing’) in a set that balances out to zero is in a superposition. We exist in a zero-energy universe. A gravitational field has negative energy. Matter has positive energy. Calculations reveal that the sum total of both is zero. What this means is that there was never “nothing,” which is what the likes of Kraus are talking about when they say “a universe from nothing.” “Nothing” is an imaginary state. It never existed. The universe is a brute fact. As Sean Carroll said:

            “So the universe exists, and we know of no good reason to be surprised by that fact.”


          1. That’s right, Ark,
            the claim is that God made it (and sustains it) but the existence of the universe is evidence. The only possible response to the implied claim that there can be no evidence is to list everything as evidence; which makes for a sterile debate but it’s your choice.


          2. the claim is that God made it (and sustains it) but the existence of the universe is evidence

            No, it’s not.

            The universe is evidence for the existence of the universe. Period.

            And as the universe is aseitic, there’s no mystery.

            Liked by 2 people

  8. You asked, Ark:

    As you are punting the Christian god, Jesus, what evidence do you have to support this claim?

    and I suppose the best thing to do is to give you a taste of what I’m working on right now.

    Here’s the question I asked myself:-

    Given the general first century insistance on having firsthand, primary source, eyewitness accounts why does The Gospel of Matthew delay giving an account of the call of Matthew until Matt. 9:9-13?

    The a. b. c. d. c’. b’. a’. structure of Matt. 1:1-9:13 indicates the author’s intention to give a testimony-augmented, firsthand, primary source, eyewitness account of the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. As it happens, the divisions of the text virtually comprise a compendium of recent discoveries that clarify the evidential nature of the Gospels; and these discoveries make the old, lazy, liberal consensus — of a text concocted by the not-so-early church to meet their needs — look increasingly silly.

    a. [Matt. 1:1-17] The passage of the Messianic birthright from the call of Abraham down to Joseph expressed as a genealogy.
    b. [Matt. 1:18-2:23] Joseph’s story explained by five prophetic allusions or quotations that would not be applicable were it not for Joseph’s Davidic connections and authority.
    c. [Matt. 3:1-17] John the Baptist — ‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness …’ — as remembered by those who went out to see him, both followers and critics.
    d. [Matt. 4:1-11] The Temptation (witnessed by angels.)
    c’. [Matt. 4:12-7:29] The Sermon on the mount. The primary example of the power and utility of collective memory.
    b’. [Matt. 8;1-9:8] Seven testimonies about the authority of Jesus over illness, his followers, the weather, demons and forgiveness of sin.
    a’. [Matt. 9:9-13] The call of Matthew elegantly makes use of Peter’s account of the conversion of Levi, tax collector and son of Alphaeus — Mk. 2:14 — who made quite a stir in Capernaum by entertaining Jesus along with several other tax collectors and a few ‘sinners’ to boot. Local corroboration would have more readily associated the scandalous assembly with Levi because it took place at his house but changing ‘his house’ to ‘the house’ and swapping the names is enough to provide an introduction for Matthew in a gospel that consists of his particular comparison of Jesus with Moses.



  9. Not so, Ark,
    I said:

    the divisions of the text virtually comprise a compendium of recent discoveries that clarify the evidential nature of the Gospels.

    To which you replied ‘So , no evidence then.’ (This denial in spite of the fact that you have at least touched on all seven areas of this analysis to demonstrate your belief that the gospels are unhistorical documents.) In your own blog you can maintain the illusion that refuted evidence-against is no part of evidence-for but I don’t think you would be able to sustain that in the real world.
    Anyway our total disagreement over what constitutes evidence is itself evidence that presenting the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the same today as it was in the first century. Paul testified to the Corinthians — [2 Cor. 2:14-17] —

    But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance of death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God’s word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.

    I know I’m not sufficient for these things but you do seem to put a lot of faith in your own sufficiency.


    1. You seem to have no idea what evidence is, and your convoluted attempt at exegesis simply leaves me shaking my head.
      Or you do understand what evidence is and are simply being disingenuous.

      Furthermore, verification of certain archaeological finds is not evidence of the veracity of the gospels and their content any more than mention of London and MI5 is evidence of James Bond.

      If ever you are able to put aside your obvious christian indoctrination and exercise a modicum of critical thinking you may realise where you have been going wrong all this time.
      I strongly recommend you read testimonials from former Christians – the Clergy Project is a good start.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Most evidence is cumulative, Ark,
        and you have plundered every one of the categories in this sequence at some time or another to manufacture a ringfence of reasons not to consider the ungainsayable eyewitness testimony recorded in the New Testament as evidence that Jesus Christ risen from the dead was seen by hundreds of people.
        To pretend that a sequence of events has evidential significance when viewed one way but is of no consequence when viewed from a different perspective is gaslighting. But if you are familiar with the 1944 film Gaslight there is a much more pointed application to be had: The alternative explanations for the flickering of the gas lighting are that the duped wife is delusional or that her husband somehow gets into the sealed-off attic. I’m pretty sure that any gaslighting effort on your part has been unintentional but your seeming conviction that I am delusional would be a lot more convincing if you’d ever had the courage to just look properly ‘in the attic.’


        1. the ungainsayable eyewitness testimony recorded in the New Testament as evidence that Jesus Christ risen from the dead was seen by hundreds of people.

          Curious, if it was ‘witnessed by hundreds,’ then can you explain why there’s no contemporary record of this event.


        2. @JK
          Nope. The gospels are simply tales.
          Claims that you have yet to substantiate. If it makes you feel any better. No one else has ever offered evidence of their claims either.
          Feel free to offer evidence.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s