(February 10, 2010 at 3:27 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: 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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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