(May 14, 2014 at 7:13 pm)bennyboy Wrote:(May 14, 2014 at 3:31 pm)Tea Earl Grey Hot Wrote: I wrote this really to counter the common notion that evidentialism is "self defeating" as in "what's the evidence for evidentialism?". Supposedly there is no evidence for evidentialism but I think I've shown this not to be the case.
I think most of the misunderstanding about an evidentialist thesis is thinking that "evidence" is only empirical evidence. Supposedly I must be able to point to physical proof of evidentialism but this is obviously impossible. Understanding however evidence as really being experiences then I can support evidentialism without contradiction.
No?
No. Your experiences don't serve as evidence unless you can share them with others.
They serve as evidence to myself which is all that matters in a discussion of "how does one know things" (versus "how does one convince others of things.")
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
