He doesn't point out that our faith is weak by demonstrating that we can't move mountains. He says we need faith for that, he hasn't shown that.
The fact we can't move mountains doesn't demonstrate that our faith is weak. Because he is yet to demonstrate that strong faith can move mountains. Because if we could move mountains, who says we'd even need the faith? We can't move mountains. So what is his point?
Either moving mountains is an impossibility or it is some kind of vague metaphor for a difficult task. 1. Difficult tasks us humans can do, 2. literal mountains however we can't move. We can do '1' so who says we need faith anyway, we can't do '2', and in that case - how does he know faith would make any difference anyway? And if we have faith that we can do '2' and it doesn't work (obviously, it's a mountain), how does he know that it's got anything to do with a 'faith deficit'?
EvF
The fact we can't move mountains doesn't demonstrate that our faith is weak. Because he is yet to demonstrate that strong faith can move mountains. Because if we could move mountains, who says we'd even need the faith? We can't move mountains. So what is his point?
Either moving mountains is an impossibility or it is some kind of vague metaphor for a difficult task. 1. Difficult tasks us humans can do, 2. literal mountains however we can't move. We can do '1' so who says we need faith anyway, we can't do '2', and in that case - how does he know faith would make any difference anyway? And if we have faith that we can do '2' and it doesn't work (obviously, it's a mountain), how does he know that it's got anything to do with a 'faith deficit'?
EvF