Well, let’s talk about evidence. First, who determines what is “evidence”, and what is not? If the claim is that we have this “definition” in common, we reject that claim, on the basis of our doctrine. So, to insist on it is to beg the question in your favor. Second, what is meant when we speak of evidence? To the materialist, valid evidence consists purely of material evidence. To the immaterialist, evidence consists of only immaterials. When we speak of evidence, we are not speaking of evidence as if it is something self-existent. Everything has a context; a sense in which it fits into one’s presuppositional commitments concerning the nature and meaning of reality.
As such, to speak of evidence is to speak of evidence as it is seen from your own worldview; from your own framework of presuppositional commitment which determines the meaning of the facts in question. Since this is so, we seek to point out that the *meaning* of fact is what is at issue, just as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow. Evidence presupposes your final authority; that is, your final authority will determine what you consider to be evidence, and what that evidence means. Our response is to say that evidence has preconditions; preconditions which must be met in order for your worldview to meaningfully speak about evidence in an intelligible way. Evidence presupposes the existence of God, and His revelation of what the “facts” we deal with really are, and what they mean. The unbeliever cannot account for the intelligibility of evidence; the Christian can. This is why we won’t simply “give you the evidence” – because we need to address whether meaning is even intelligible in your worldview, and show that it is, in ours, first. In Christianity, everything whatsoever is evidence for the truth of Christianity. Apart from God, “evidence” is an impossibility.