(September 11, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(September 11, 2015 at 1:14 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: He has "evidence" but not the kind that can be shared, examined, or questioned, thus indicating that he either really doesn't understand what evidence ordinarily means or he is redefining it to suit his own interests. He has met and knows God personally but when asked what non-trivial fact he can present about this acquaintance that can't be found in the Bible, he refers me to the Bible as the sufficient source of this "knowledge". He takes as factual givens what are nothing more than fanciful, uncorroborated allegations he read in a collection of old books, calls it faith (yes) but goes further and calls it "knowledge".
I know you're a fellow traveler of his, but seriously, CL, what part of any of that do you associate with honesty? In what way is he not torturing the language?
Well maybe he has evidence for himself. Like, maybe he experienced something that has given him grounds to believe what he does. It isn't something he can necessarily "show" to someone else.
I'm well aware that this is where he is coming from. However, it's not unreasonable to wonder about these experiences. How often does it happen that a believer has "experiences" they interpret as encounters with the god of their religion after the belief is already in place? Would these alleged experiences have been interpreted as equally persuasive that another religion is true if experienced by, say, a Muslim. Would the believer having the experience also find it compelling evidence of another religion's god if he/she actually practiced another religion. Etc.
