Posted: Jan 30, 2012 4:41 am
Lion IRC wrote:No further evidence perhaps.
Or no scientistic, empirical, God-under-a-microscope type evidence perhaps.
But I simply dont think that it can be properly said of someone like him that he has no need for evidence.
William Lane Craig is the master of double-speak. His website and his most famous book is titled "Reasonable Faith", suggests that he holds reason in high regard. But in his very book, he claims he has no need for reason. "We can know the truth, whether we have rational arguments or not." On public debates against atheists, he will claim that he is very much rational and evidence-based, but when pressed on, he will admit that he has no need for evidence, as he has already known the truth.
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith wrote:Not every disciple needed to see the holes in Jesus' hands. It is possible to get to a point where you say...OK I think I have enough evidence now to make a decision. And the weight of evidence persuades on balance.
Which way the balance swings to depends on whether or not you have a priori accepted God.
"Even though we are given no good reason to believe, and many persuasive reasons to disbelieve, even then the disbeliever has no excuse. Because the ultimate reason he does not believe is that he has rejected deliberately God's holy spirit."