(September 19, 2017 at 5:08 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:(September 19, 2017 at 3:52 pm)SteveII Wrote: Wait, what? Are you saying that some testimony is evidence? I really can't follow you. You just clearly said that "No one here (except Road) accepts premise 1." There is a name for creating an exception for things without justification...it's coming to me...damn, lost it.
I could have sworn we'd talked about this. Testimony, by itself, is only evidence that a claim is being made, and I have said as much. No one here is disputing that Christianity makes claims. It is not evidence for the truth of those claims. And the more extraordinary the claim (such as those that defy what we know about the laws of physics and biology), the better the evidence should be in support of that claim. Do we often accept low risk and inconsequential testimony in the absence of corroborating evidence? Sure. We have to live daily life, after all.
Yep.
We live our lives, for the most part, using inference and induction. Today is very much like yesterday, this week is very much like last, etc. We humans are very good at it. It is an evolved part of our survival mechanisms.
Problems start to arise, however, when we try to use those tools on existential and supernatural claims. Seems that most theists, try to continue to use inference and induction, where they don't work. Where the best tools are demonstrable facts and deduction.
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.
