Remember Phat, the Bible itself describes man, plain old human type man, correcting God. We've been over this more then once IIRC.
The Bible itself describes God as unsure, insecure, frightened by the prospects of plain old humans, unable to defeat a plain old human even by using deceit and trickery...
Why do you insist on placing the God YOU create above the God other folk create?
Are you thus claiming that every "religious" or spiritual believing person who claims to have allowed the Spirit of the Living God into them is thus delusional and crazy?
No, rather asking "How do you know and what is the evidence to support your claim? What is the 'Spirit of the Living God' and what is the test for its presence?"
You cant really tell me that someone is a myth when I have already met them.
And what evidence is available to support your claim to have met them or that they even exist?
Phat writes:
And of course I judge the integrity of the authors making the claims rather than the raw facts presented in the arguments.
And when the author or authors are totally unknown what model, method, mechanism, process or procedure is used to determine the integrity of the author(s)?
Phat writes:
As PT Barnum was quoted, There is a sucker born every minute.
what we say about evidence rather than what you claim we say about evidence
Phat writes:
Many Christians, myself included, would argue that we have satisfactory evidence based on our personal experience but our critics, you among them, would counter with the idea that subjective personal experience is not evidence--that evidence must be objective.
Not quite yet again Phat. We don't say it is not evidence but rather it is only evidence that you believe what you claim.
There is no way your personal experience can be evidence that can be tested or validated or reproduced or duplicated by all others.
Personal experience is evidence but evidence of little or no value beyond the individual involved where other evidence, evidence that can be tested and confirmed independently is of value beyond just the individual.
Re: what we say about evidence rather than what you claim we say about evidence
Phat writes:
But scripture even alludes to the fact that not all will understand, whereas the evidence based skeptics claim that in order to be valid, the understanding must be seen by all.
Oh good grief!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That too does not even rise to the level of word salad. It's at best a classic Harold Hill parody.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
