(February 10, 2010 at 2:45 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I, as an agnostic, believe that knowledge cannot be absolutely known... - as far as I know - and something either is or isn't true, either is or isn't "knowledge" whether it is believed or not. Not all belief is true and hence "knowledge" but all knowledge requires belief.
If you saw someone come up to you and slap you in the face... you wouldn't say "I believe that person just slapped me in the face" BECAUSE that would be saying that you weren't sure. No, you'd say "I know that person just slapped me in the face". Get off your absolutes bandwagon - it doesn't apply here.
(February 10, 2010 at 2:45 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:Quote:Christians aren't 'enlightened' just living out the belief and so can experience what is said to be true.
How does believing it make their belief any more valid? Isn't that kind of circular reasoning? Well surely it is - until there is actually a valid reason to it being the case. HOW does their belief help them understand better in anyway - can you evidence this? Or are you just going to answer with "it just does" - which is kind of circular isn't it? "It does because it does?".
If you think, having never driven a car, what driving a car is like, it isn't the same as actually driving a car. People can tell you what it's like, and you can be prepared given that information.
Same with actually believing in God and trying to think what believing in God might be like. I can tell you how great and wonderful it is, and how everything suddenly makes sense, but you can't actually know that until you believe yourself.
(February 10, 2010 at 2:45 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:Quote:You said (in another thread) that me telling you something was so was evidence enough for you to consider it valid evidence.If you have good reasons to trust someone then that's evidence that they're trustworthy - whether valid or invalid, it is evidence to you.
Whether you are telling the truth or not on this God matter... I certainly do not consider that at all evidence that God actually exists because that does not logically infer in anyway as far as I can tell (I think).
So it's evidence EXCEPT when it applies to God? Why the exception?