Well, obviously that is true as otherwise we would be believing the claims if every Tom, Dick, and Harry.
So what else does a person need?
You already know what I consider to be evidence but it was not sufficient for you so you will have to stipulate what would be sufficient, and not something that is impossible to procure, something realistic.
You convincing yourself that the claim is accurate does not count as evidence.
What I would consider evidence would be clear and unambiguous scientific knowledge that could not have been known by the people of the time. If Mr B had spoken of quantum mechanics, that sort of thing. Also a clear an unambiguous prophecy. For example, if Mr B spoke of the sinking of the Titanic, or World War 1, since both of those happened after his death.
No, it is just asking you to think about it because that thought process could lead you to think about possibilities you had not thought of before.
Irrelevant. I would still need some way to determine which was the correct one though, wouldn't I?
It is obvious why people agree on material things like the length of a rope, because we an see and measure them. They are verifiable, so how could people disagree?
Exactly!
Now, we have already determined that things which are verifiable, like the length of a piece of rope, are agreed on by everyone who examines the evidence. Surely if religious faith was verifiable there will also be agreement. And yet there is widespread disagreement. Thus, we can conclude that religious faith is not verifiable in any objective manner.
Agreed?
That is completely illogical. Just because there are different interpretations of a religion that does not mean that the religion is made up and that it contains no objective truth.
True. But it does mean that we are totally unable to determine which - if any - parts are objectively true.
Just because there are different interpretations of a religion that does not mean that one interpretation is not correct as I pointed out in my previous post. One or many interpretations of a religion could be correct.
I disagree that there could be many interpretations that are true. If something is objectively true, then there is only one correct interpretation. There are not, after all, several different interpretations about how long a piece of rope is.
And as I've said, even if there is a correct interpretation for a particular religious faith, we have no way of determining which interpretation that is. Or even if there is a correct interpretation at all.
There is no way the objective facts about a religion will ever be viewed the same way because people are different so they will view them differently. Religion is not as simple as something we can see and measure like the length of a rope or any other scientifically verifiable thing.
So we can not conclude that any religious faith is objectively true, and we agree that religious faith cannot be verified.
So what? There was a reason I said it ans I did not deny it.
Well then, since you admit you were making a declaration, let's not go with the old, "I'm just stating my beliefs, not making any claims" excuse anymore, okay?
