I have to say that this is perhaps the second most annoying apologist response to unbelievers, that they know Christianity is true regardless of the evidence. Does it make any sense to say that one's knowledge of the existence of God is properly basic?
Proponents of this tend to claim that it is on the basis of the "witness of the Holy Spirit" that they know Christianity is true. And that this gives them a self-authenticating way of knowing Christianity is true, even if in some "historically-contingent" circumstances the evidence is not in its favor (William Lane Craig).
Proponents of this tend to claim that it is on the basis of the "witness of the Holy Spirit" that they know Christianity is true. And that this gives them a self-authenticating way of knowing Christianity is true, even if in some "historically-contingent" circumstances the evidence is not in its favor (William Lane Craig).
