Oops, sorry about that last one.

I expect this has been picked up by someone but I didn't find it just now. Steve Shaw, In the space of less than an hour you say two wildly different things. Do you concur with the Carrollian dictum that a word means whatever you want it to mean?

Quote: What I want is evidence. I ask for this and never get any. Not witness or hearsay or tradition or myth. Evidence. Show me someone who can prove they existed in a former life. You just can't, because there isn't anybody (except for people making ludicrous claims that we're all supposed to respect and believe). I promise you, I'll believe anything that's supported by evidence. 7:05

For about the eleventeenth time, I am not interested in proof. Nothing we are talking about will ever be susceptible to proof one way or the other. I really wish we could get that out of the way once and for all. If you think there's a power beyond all understanding (which means a power that sidesteps all the laws of nature, etc.), then I'm very interested but I require proof. 7:40

Well, the very last word in all that lot was a mistake - I meant "evidence." I'd already typed "proof" twice and it must have suggested itself to me again. It got past the proofreader of course (Sorry, Jon, you picked me up for it before but I didn't connect). As for the rest, I'm not going to admit to any inconsistency there at all. If you want to persuade me that there is a God I require evidence. If someone wants to persuade me that they existed in a previous life I require proof. There is a difference. If you want to persuade me that George Washington had existed in a former life I'll have to settle for evidence, but it had better be good. If you make an unusual personal claim to something or other I think I'm entitled to ask you to prove it.