(June 9, 2015 at 9:26 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: "In the absence of evidence to the contrary" refers to the reliability of the people...not the message or events they testify to.
IOW, if I know you to be a shady character, criminal past, drug use, etc...or you are shown to be lying under oath, etc., then that is evidence to the contrary that you are a reliable person.
OTOH, if I know you to be of sound character and reputable in other matters, I will have a tendency to believe you on the basis of your reliability.
So, if a person exhibits all those negative attributes you mention, but believes the same as you, do you have less tendency to believe them if they claim to have an experience with your god?
Or what about the opposite situation.
A person has impeccable honesty, and reputable character, yet they claimed to have an experience with a different god than the one you believe in. Do you give their claims any credibility?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
