Once again: HOW can faith have any bearing on the existence of God?
Don't just tell me that it does.
Any you say that the bible is internally consistent and say no one has proved that it isn't.
Well it doesn't need to be proved that it isn't untill you've given any evidence that it IS internally consistent.
Add some substance to your positive claims. You say the bible is internally consistent: How is it? You say faith has bearing on God's existence: How does it?
You say that God is 'true for you'. But then you say that he is true but some just don't see it. So there aren't you suggesting that he isn't just 'true for you' but true in reality? It's just 'some don't see it'. In which case: Where is the evidence?
If you are supposed to have some ability to see God that we can't. Then you can't merely assert to us that belief in God shouldn't require evidence like every other belief. You have to give evidence. If you can't and just say that we can't 'see it'. Then you can't expect us to accept the idea that the existence of God should be treated as a special case and not treated the same as the existence of anything else. Or that 'faith' somehow has any bearing without showing how on earth it possibily does.
How exactly does 'belief without evidence' have bearing on the existence of God? If we can't 'see it' as you so claim; don't expect us to simply trust you on that and treat the existence of God as a special case. The existence of God should require evidence like any other existence claim.
Personally; if I heard God's voice and/or felt really inspired and/or felt some /presence or 'saw God'. I would think I was hallucinating, hearing voices, etc.....
OR merely misinterpretting the beauty of the natural world and reality as it really is; as something Godly - and for example: seeing a designer where there isn't one.
The pathetic 'argument from beauty' and the destroyed 'argument from design', etc.
Don't just tell me that it does.
Any you say that the bible is internally consistent and say no one has proved that it isn't.
Well it doesn't need to be proved that it isn't untill you've given any evidence that it IS internally consistent.
Add some substance to your positive claims. You say the bible is internally consistent: How is it? You say faith has bearing on God's existence: How does it?
You say that God is 'true for you'. But then you say that he is true but some just don't see it. So there aren't you suggesting that he isn't just 'true for you' but true in reality? It's just 'some don't see it'. In which case: Where is the evidence?
If you are supposed to have some ability to see God that we can't. Then you can't merely assert to us that belief in God shouldn't require evidence like every other belief. You have to give evidence. If you can't and just say that we can't 'see it'. Then you can't expect us to accept the idea that the existence of God should be treated as a special case and not treated the same as the existence of anything else. Or that 'faith' somehow has any bearing without showing how on earth it possibily does.
How exactly does 'belief without evidence' have bearing on the existence of God? If we can't 'see it' as you so claim; don't expect us to simply trust you on that and treat the existence of God as a special case. The existence of God should require evidence like any other existence claim.
Personally; if I heard God's voice and/or felt really inspired and/or felt some /presence or 'saw God'. I would think I was hallucinating, hearing voices, etc.....
OR merely misinterpretting the beauty of the natural world and reality as it really is; as something Godly - and for example: seeing a designer where there isn't one.
The pathetic 'argument from beauty' and the destroyed 'argument from design', etc.
