(October 27, 2009 at 1:20 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: If their directions are telling the truth and are correct, then it's evidence based and not faith-based. If they aren't telling the truth of have got the directions wrong, then my belief in what I think to be evidence is mistaken so my belief is actually faith-based.
What I think to be evidence and whether it's actually evidence or not are two different things.
And as Adrian says, as most people tend to give directions only when they know the truth, it usually is evidence, but not always. I could be mistaken, or I could correctly notice they were bizarrely lying for some reason, etc.
So in general it is evidence. But not always. It is not absolute because it can be evidence, it cannot be proof. Matters such as these aren't knowable enough to be absolutely proven. And even evidence isn't certain.
EvF
That is what I thought you would say from some of your other posts. I do not think that is how people usually use the words. I think of the words more like Adrian and I think others do also. But all that doesn't matter as I really wanted to understand your point of view.
Based on your point of view then would I be correct in saying that the reasons I have for believing in God would really constitute evidence should they prove to be correct some day and your reasons for not believing in God would really be faith-based should they prove to be incorrect some day? (I know you do not think it will turn out that way but I am asking hypothetically.)
