Quote:
Originally Posted by friendly hardline atheist
Of the vast spectrum of experiences people have claimed, how do you know additional insight must always exist to reconcile them all? Earlier in the thread it came up that the burden of evidence is on the party making the claim. Am I correct in thinking that you are saying that there must always be additional insight to reconcile seemingly contradicting experiences? If so, what is your basis for saying that?
On a separate note, I like how this thread is going.  |
I am saying it worthy of further inquiry. I don't apply the absolutes of "must always" here. That would be akin to creating a new law. While there are contradictions, it seems to me that the contradictions are on the lower end of the value scale when compared to the experiential similarities.
If you take a dogmatic approach, and insist that because men call God by many names, than of course the various names of the gods are contradictory in themselves. Person A attributes an experience to Yahweh, and person B has a similar experience that they attribute to Moneto. I'm not so dogmatic that I am absolutely convinced that any of us have His name right. I lean towards the concept that God is God, and there really is not a name by which He needs to be called other than that.
Blessings