he gave you the example - the man coming out of the woods and telling you what he experienced. this is second-hand. it is subjective testimony
The telling is subjective, but the beginning point was still objective. At the beginning of the chain is something objective and empirical, or at least possibly so.
however, after long re-considerations of re-considerations, i have come back to one my first conclusions about this thread. this isnt about your question at all. it's all about getting RAZD caught in a trap. you wanted to use this thread to get him to trip over some detail in a different subject/thread whatever. you are repeatedly trying to get him to make a mistake, to miss a freethrow. he has stated that he doesnt want to get into that stuff here. he has seen through your deceit and refuses to fall for it. you keep asking him to shoot 10,000 freethrows in the hopes that he will miss one and you can lick your lips and move in for the KILL!
My interest in this thread, and I assume many others' as well, is that we find RAZD to be one of the best posters on this forum, effortlessly chopping creationists up with grace and skill. Yet he claims to believe in, which means asserts the actual existence of, a deity that is inherently unknowable. This seems very strange and I want to know where the disconnect is. How can he be such a rational, logical person when it comes to others' sincerely held beliefs, yet can't be so when it comes to his own? I find it perplexing, but I try and stay out of these conversations, to a degree, because I do respect that he doesn't want ot talk about it, as frustrating as that is.
Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.