(November 7, 2010 at 9:12 pm)tackattack Wrote: Without objective evidence faith can never be validly evident to everyone. Subjective evidence can be indicative of subjective belief based in reality. You're presupposing faith has no evidence. That it's reasoned without experiential evidence and therefore a delusion. From your perspective it seems perfectly valid, because you've had no experiential data to factor into the equation. However, from my perspective, I experience something then try to reason why and how I came to experience it. I don't limit evidence to only the material, nor do I care about it's objectivity. I'm not trying to prove it to anyone. I'm merely trying to validate what's true to me. I believe in the existence of God based on a trust that experiences I can't explain and can't measure lead to the inclination that God exists and is working and has been revealed in my life. Luckily I know lots of other people who have had the same experiences and reached the same conclusions independently, lending even more credence to my own subjective, indicative evidence; thus overcoming the threshold for reality for me.But where do you draw the line and on what basis? A number of serial killers claim to have had experiences of god ordering them to murder. Certainly according to the OT this wouldn't have been the first time god would have sent such an order. In my view it doesn't lend credence to their experience or the truth or reality of all such experiences. Infact don't we all just dismiss it (using our own humanistic inclinations) and ridicule these people as wackos. However if you allow one experience as any form of evidence then you open the door to them all.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
