We are not talking about science, but we are talking about reality.
Talk about an obvious display of disingenuousness and equivocation.
In reality, humans can be fooled by false correlations.
The only disingenuousness and equivocation I have seen is your posts trying to make the subjective into objective and the unverified into verified.
1 Like
Personal feelings, tastes or opinions were not expressed in the accounts I have related.
Since you like definitions from law:
Unverifiable witness testimony is subjective evidence.
2 Likes
I don’t think you ever can get away from the subjective dimension of interpreting reality. The discussion about the cause of the universe, metaphysics proper, really does begin with the presupposition of objectivity. Not everybody presupposes this, but they don’t take it to the logical conclusion.
And even by figuring out the ontological and cosmological arguments work, it doesn’t necessarily prove God apart from oneself. But no one wants to believe that, at least as far as I can tell.
Or consider the “therefore know for certain” from Acts 2:14-36, it’s based on OT prophecy, eyewitness testimony, and a self-evident work of the Spirit.
I will again submit that Rich Stearns’ account is verifiable, as is mine. You may disbelieve or dismiss them as well as the others, but that will not change the facts on the ground. (A witness’ testimony, including from expert witnesses and from those investigating a scene, is considered permissible and counted as evidence. That is why perjury is a felony.)
Your claim that these events are too improbable without divine intervention is subjective.
1 Like
My claim is that they are evidence. I can not make a horse drink.
With no statistical testimony.
Evidence is evidence. It does not have to be scientific nor statistical for it to be factual and true. The righteous George Müller’s testimony of God’s providence is going to be denied next.
How many crime scenes does it take to establish an M.O. statistically?
Another account referred to earlier, with some facts presumably still verifiable:
Is it me, or does acknowledging objective and verifiable eyewitness testimony, create a crisis of belief for the agnostic atheist? Jamie Smith may call this cross-pressure. And rather than to live with this crisis, they must cast doubt on the evidence, the problem is, even at this time in modern history, the evidence is absolutely overwhelming.
1 Like
It’s you. (And in case you’re not aware, I’m a practicing Christian.)
2 Likes
Fellow Christians mischaracterizing evidence is actually one of the things that made me initially start to question my faith and it eventually led me to leave the church.
4 Likes
Just like it’s me when I see the contradiction of positing an infinite number of things?
It’s sounds like it was a faith that was received, and God began to test it. Be glad that it’s not over with yet.
(My point about their verifiability was that they were third party verifiable at the time. The facts in the accounts I have reported – I am not talking about miraculous healing, please note – the facts were external and not resulting from anyone’s subjective feeling or mere opinion, like “It’s my opinion that someone was miraculously healed.”)
It seems to me that the effort expended here has little to do with whether the facts are true or not, but how we label them. If we can label them as subjective, ta da, then we do not have to pay any attention to them.
I have no clue on that subject
That’s not what you said before