But it would be far from proof that I had anything to do with it.
Why would it not be proof? If we were talking in terms of a court of law, such proof is considered just as good as if somebody actually saw you breaking the window. When it comes to validity of proof, direct evidence is just as good as circumstantial evidence. Similarly, in science, circumstantial evidence is as good as direct evidence. For example, up until recently, we could not actually observe planets in other solar systems. However, we could deduce that those planets existed because we could measure the effect that their existence had on the stars that they orbited.
How would you define "proof?"
Evidence is not proof, it is just evidence. Any "evidence" which contradicts the Bible is proof only of the satanic origin of that evidence
So, bats are birds, then? Several posters in the past have pointed out that the Bible says this. Where's your "proof" that the Bible is correct?
Remember that.
Literalist interpreters of the Bible have done a very good job of turning me off of Christianity.
To help you back (if you're interested, of course) just remember the following quote - and repeat it often, if necessary. "There is no cause so right that you cannot find an idiot following it."
Drew Garrett
Really?
What about the thousands of other people out there wearing exactly the same sneaker as me? What is it that makes it impossible for one of them to have broken that window?
Both your rushing to judgement, and your inability to consider alternate possibilities, are patently obvious, and are without a doubt a large part of how you shape your flawed opinions.
Thank you for clarifying for us your limitations.