Over at the “Why so friggin confident?” thread there became apparent a superficial but nevertheless significant split in the hardcore Christian position.
There were those that considered their theistic beliefs to be ultimately founded in objective, physical, empirical evidence (Bertot, Buzsaw?)
And there were those who considered internal, subjective “God has revealed himself to me personally” type “evidence” to be at the root of their faith (John 10.10, ICANT).
Each side claimed that there was no conflict between the two positions and that any differentiation was irrelevant because the objective evidence supported their internal “knowledge” (or vice versa).
But this split in claimed starting position and emphasis between the two camps was undeniably present.
The aim of this thread is to provide an opportunity for that discussion to continue but with slightly more focus on this (perceived?) split in the theistic perspective.
So I ask of our hardcore theistic contingent: (ICANT, Bertot, Bailey, Iano, Buz, John 10:10, Jaywill? Etc. etc. etc.)
QUESTIONS1) Which came first for you personally (honestly) - Belief in God/Jesus/Bible or knowledge of the empirical evidence that you consider to support this position?
2) Are your beliefs the result of rational and objective conclusions based on physical evidence which have been confirmed by your relationship with God OR are your beliefs based on your relationship with God which you deem to have been confirmed by the objective physical evidence available? Which way round is it?
3) Could you maintain your faith in the absence of any objective empirical evidence that supports this position? (I.e. how faithful are you?)
4) If the objective empirical evidence which you deem to support your beliefs were present but the relationship with God side of your faith was absent would you still believe as you do? (I.e. is the empirical evidence alone enough to maintain your position?)
5) Is empirical evidence or subjective knowledge of God's presence the root basis of your beliefs?
END QUESTIONS
SUMMARYUltimately I am trying to determine whether those advocating the more extreme Christian position think that it is possible for anyone who does not, and never will have, a personal and subjective relationship with God to draw the same conclusions that they have from the empirical evidence alone? Or is a degree of irrational belief essential?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.