All knowledge comes to us via the senses (let’s leave aside direct revelations from God at the moment). So, when I observe the natural world, I use my senses, and when I read a book I use my senses. The problem for the “scripture is my axiom” folks, as I often point out, is that if you completely distrust the senses as a source of knowledge (an epistemology)… if you can’t trust any knowledge you get from your senses, then you can’t trust the Bible either, since it comes to you via the senses.
But does that put our senses on par with scripture? Do you mean, my senses are as authoritative as scripture? A friend claimed this is what I was saying: “Since we can trust our senses to read scripture we can trust them for observations on the natural world, and the conclusions that come from it.”
Continue reading
A very common objection to God’s existence is that there is no evidence, and never has been any evidence for his existence. “I’m waiting! I’m open to the idea,” the skeptic claims, “but no one has ever presented evidence!” This objection, however, is either spawned from pure ignorance, or a terribly narrow definition of “evidence.” Most of the time it comes from people who define evidence as direct empirical measurement. In other words, something a physics lab could detect – evidence that in principle could be seen, touched, tasted, smelled, or heard. But that means to count as evidence, “God” would have to be physical, material, a force, a field, a body. Whatever else God might be, he wouldn’t count as God if he were any of those things. So, claiming that evidence must fit the criteria of physics or chemistry just begs the question. 
