Personal evidence
November 1, 2017 at 10:50 pm
(This post was last modified: November 1, 2017 at 10:50 pm by Silver.)
Many theists tend to state that their belief in god is dependent upon personal evidence which seems to be intertwined with religious faith, but I am not discussing religious faith at this point.
Rather, I want to focus on this "personal evidence". Here we have something that is personal, something developed from within to lead an individual to a particular belief that by the very definition of "personal" cannot be experienced by anyone except the individual person experiencing it. Then there's the "evidence" part; of course, so long as the theist claims it is "personal" the definition of "evidence" can be altered to fit that person's experience.
The problem rises when we have a bunch of people who believe the same thing, claiming to believe in the same god, having evidence all of them agree upon, yet in the end it's still "personal evidence" which cannot logically be compared with others since every one's personal experience of the world and how it is viewed is completely different, right?
No. There are things upon which we can all agree when we view them. A rock is a rock to everyone, a tree is a tree to everyone. God cannot be held to this standard, which makes religious belief as a community false if the only evidence that can ever be provided is "personal" and merely within that individual person experiencing it.
Those who believe in something that actually exists can get together and point at it, touch it, see it, etc, in order to understand collectively that it is the same thing being experienced. The same cannot be stated for god, for there is no empirical evidence upon which to agree. All there is for the religious person is a personal unnecessary need for something that does not exist.
Rather, I want to focus on this "personal evidence". Here we have something that is personal, something developed from within to lead an individual to a particular belief that by the very definition of "personal" cannot be experienced by anyone except the individual person experiencing it. Then there's the "evidence" part; of course, so long as the theist claims it is "personal" the definition of "evidence" can be altered to fit that person's experience.
The problem rises when we have a bunch of people who believe the same thing, claiming to believe in the same god, having evidence all of them agree upon, yet in the end it's still "personal evidence" which cannot logically be compared with others since every one's personal experience of the world and how it is viewed is completely different, right?
No. There are things upon which we can all agree when we view them. A rock is a rock to everyone, a tree is a tree to everyone. God cannot be held to this standard, which makes religious belief as a community false if the only evidence that can ever be provided is "personal" and merely within that individual person experiencing it.
Those who believe in something that actually exists can get together and point at it, touch it, see it, etc, in order to understand collectively that it is the same thing being experienced. The same cannot be stated for god, for there is no empirical evidence upon which to agree. All there is for the religious person is a personal unnecessary need for something that does not exist.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
~ Erin Hunter
