Perfection!

[fr0d0]

---

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.

It does apply actually. I was using "knowledge" in the technical philosophical sense of course. If we are to use it in the colloquial usage like you seem to be alluding then that's way too vague - it's confusing with belief. You mean it like subjective "knowlege" as in, someone is really really sure or absolutely certain they "Know" - but that doesn't mean they really know anything because what they think they know could easily be absolute bullshit.

---

You're using knowledge to mean belief ...I'm separating the two. Let's stick with the colloquial/ standard usage then we know where we both are. If you're now saying you were using knowledge: believe a lot ..then that just muddy's the water. Same with the 'absolute' diversion. It becomes semantics.

What we need to do is focus on the problem and not get diverted. I know you love philosophy and philosophical language... I think you need to be clearer and state when you aren't using plain english in the interest of conversations getting anywhere.

---

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.

Indeed.

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.

How is this the same at all? Driving a car is part of the natural world than is demonsratable, naturally - and how the car works is understood by science. You wouldn't doubt all evidence like that....

God however... you've got your own personal experience to go by but he is unverifiable to others, unknowable, outside science - why don't you doubt your experience? Why don't you think that you could easily be delusional because personal experience is insufficient evidence in science let alone The Supernatural.

Why is personal experience itself evidence to you? It doesn't matter what the experiences are - why is ANY experience evidence? Surely it is completely insufficient?

That is unverifiable is a sign of weakness, not strength, is it not? And the fact that something Supernatural requires more evidence, not less, is another sign of weakness, is it not?

So false analogy I say. Riding a car is something natural that can be demonstrated and tested by science, it is verifiable. An unverifiable, personal, experience - For God's existence... is a different matter. Because it doesn't matter what the experience is - the evidence needs to be stronger than that does it not?

EvF

---

It's a metaphor is isn't supposed to be identical.

I'm talking about relating an experience to someone who has no knowledge of that experience. This is comparable to someone who believes relating the experience to someone who has no knowledge of the belief.

God isn't unknowable. We can't know everything about God is the stance.

---

Where exactly do you observe logic in your fabulation?

The peer review occurs between those sharing the same belief. We can check if what either of us concludes is in line with both our understanding, and logically conclude if either of us is acting within acceptable parameters.

When considering the root of faith, or our own faith, and our reference for that faith as inherited in biblical text.