Originally posted by twhitehead
And my point is that a theist faith is often at least partly based on some personal 'spiritual' experience they have had. The problem is that they take any such experience as evidence of far more than is actually justified by the experience.
For example suppose you feel the loving presence of someone near you. This is not evidence that it is the God of t ...[text shortened]... It doesn't prove that what else he tells you about God or heaven or anything else is valid.
Yes and nobody on this site has been more strident than me in pointing out exactly the points you are making.
I have talked at length about the difference between evidence FOR something and evidence not inconsistent
I have pointed out the inadequacies of the evidence given for god and why personal experience is the least
convincing evidence possible even for the person who has the experience.
I have made all these points and more at length many times.
Why are you making them to me?
I mean I don't disagree, but I was never suggesting anything that contradicted what you are saying.
The claims I was talking about that the Vulcan's/Jedi having powers require vastly less evidence than a god
because they are vastly less powerful.
If a guy claims to have the power to magically levitate me (or anything else) and throw me across the room
and then he does it, and can do it consistently on demand, that's fairly convincing evidence that he has that power.
It doesn't tell you how or why, and I would want to do lots of controlled experiments to try to determine where and
how he has that power and to make sure it isn't a con of some kind.
But that's very different from trying to prove the existence of an omnipotent creator god.
Even in the example I gave above about a giant figure in the sky parting the clouds and warning of impending natural
disasters wouldn't qualify as evidence FOR an omnipotent god.
And I was very clear that what this mysterious figure who predicted disasters would gain over time is TRUST based on
their past consistency and accuracy. Not blind faith that they would always be right.
You are quite correct with your example that the paltry 'miracles' of JC in the bible that they are no evidence of or for god
or JC's divinity.
However if the claim is more mundane, if the claim was that he had the power to feed 5000 people with two fish and he
does it then that is fairly strong evidence that his claim has substance.
It's extrapolating beyond that to divinity (or any further powers not yet evinced) where it goes wrong.
(and of course in that case there is in reality no evidence that the event ever actually happened)