What does that mean, "related factually"?
I think that's wrong. A priori it may be a coin toss, but the existence of evil and the absence of God from everyday life lowers the probability that God exists.
But there is more than that. There is consistency. For example, I think that is immoral to allow an innocent child to die from preventable causes. I suspect you believe the same. But innocent children do die from preventable causes. So you must factor this data into your belief set. A Christian, then, can do more than just have his experiences; he can reflect on them and ask what the best explanation for the events in the world around him is.
No, I don't. I meant that, a priori, the existence of God is a probabilistic wash. The statement "Either 2+2=4 or it does not" is a true either/or, but it is not a wash.
Why would you say that?
I have no experience of 2+2=4 (only physical things making larger set of things, which is different), but I know it's true. It is well-known that you cannot derive all of our beliefs experientially for philosophical and psychological reasons. We need to be able to interpret experience, and I'm appealing to those interpretive abilities which state that we must do our best to have coherent, consistent beliefs. The lowered standards of evidence you have for Christianity is inconsistent with the standards of evidence you have in everyday life.
What choice? I didn't choose to interpret children with Down's syndrome being tortured to death from an intestinal blockage as evil. It happens, and is evil, and anyone who could stop it ought to stop it. I don't know how my ability to choose impacts this data in the least.
Do you believe you've talked to angels?
I agree, with the amendment that this deaf person was once a participant in the opera.
Do you? In what way?
What does it feel like? How do you know when he is influencing your person and circumstance from those times he is not?
In what way did you meet him? Be explicit, and explain how you knew it was God.
The only way in which I am cut off from your experience is if you refuse to introspect and tell me what you experienced.
It's not just an echo; it's a reflection of the worldview. And the more unreasonable things you have to accept counts as mounting evidence against the worldview. Every person who has not come into contact with an angel has a de facto reason to disbelieve Christianity. My claim is not that it alone is enough to discredit the believe, but factored into the equation along with things like evil, the progress of science in explaining where humans came from and why we believe what we believe, we have a comprehensive case against Christianity.
My claim is not that men do not believe the Christian story. My claim is that if they were not unfairly treating this part of their life they would not believe it. It is not an uncommon thing; human's give preferential treatment to what family members say, they protect their values (like tastes in music or art) even if, on the whole, they are being irrational in doing so.
