SusanDoris the millstone

1101113151634

Comments

  • Ohher wrote: »
    For whatever it may be worth, the two characteristics which annoy me about SD's one-track posting is her notion that the "faith" underlying believers' discussions is somehow different from her own "faith"
    While I hesitate to widen again the gap between yours any my thinking, I think I'll just come in here to say that I say it Is different. All the things/facts I have faith in have an objective backing. Not of course a 100% solid, immovable, unchangeable, irrefutable backing, but none of them relies on faith alone. I have partial faith in those which remain as uncertain, or don't knows, and don't need to worry about whether they will become more objective during my remaining years.
    How would you say that your religious belief, specifically belief in god, living Christ, etc, is based on anything objective? And if I have misunderstood your actual beliefs, please put me right on that. -
    ... that the apparent operations of material universe need no further examination
    I have never said that and if you have inferred it, I can assure you that is an incorrect inference.
    ...and can be taken as given.
    That would be just daft.
    Her claims that beliefs are "all in people's minds" (without ever acknowledging that her own position is likewise a product of her mind) really grates on me.
    Of course beliefs are all in the mind, but faith beliefs are based on previous and other faith beliefs. I challenge you to find one which is based on a fact, even a 99.9% one.
    The other issue is that steely "upbeat attitude," which comes across as proceeding more from tooth-grinding determination in the face of real adversity (commendable, perhaps, but a bit off-putting in terms of ordinary human intercourse) than from any genuine human feeling on SD's part. That's why I actually appreciated her statement, quoted earlier, to another poster to "shut up" about the unpleasant assessment of SD's character. It's the first time I've seen her express ordinary human irritation with another Shipmate, and the first time I saw SD give us a chance to see "into" SD herself.
    Once, long ago, I was faced with the need to reply to a very, very nasty letter. I consulted the solicitor, who recommended a reply which was approx: 'Thank you for your letter. If you change your mind about this, please let me know' This was effective and I have always tried to remember the basic principle here.

    Doesn't work every time of course, but it suits me well enough.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Sounds fine, except that you really aren’t dealing with any kind of nasty here. We are folks of goodwill.

  • SusanDoris wrote: »

    Of course beliefs are all in the mind, but faith beliefs are based on previous and other faith beliefs. I challenge you to find one which is based on a fact, even a 99.9% one.

    My faith is based on the fact that God is real.

  • There is a delicious irony in the use of the word 'secateurs', as this thread could certainly do with some pruning.

    On reading
    It's the non secateurs that really boil my oil.
    I thought I'd come across a really neat bit of word-play....

    IJ
    Can we have a small tangent here?! It doesn't happen so much now - people are much more aware of the necessity of keeping hedges cut back - but when I used to go on my regular walk, I would, if necessary, send a letter the next day to the resident of a property asking if they would be kind enough to cut back hedge/overhanging branchwaving brambles/etc and explain the reason for the request. It was always effective and I'd write a note of thanks. Sometimes, when my sight was less impaired, I'd go back later in the day with a pair of scissors - no secateurs -- a bit dangerous for me, those! - and snip them off. / I saw my very first re-hab lady the other day and she says she has advised several people to do the letter-writing!

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »

    Of course beliefs are all in the mind, but faith beliefs are based on previous and other faith beliefs. I challenge you to find one which is based on a fact, even a 99.9% one.

    My faith is based on the fact that God is real.

    Except that cannot be demonstrated to actually be a fact. As we've said before. Your conviction that it is true, in and of itself, is evidence for absolutely nothing beyond itself.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Sounds fine, except that you really aren’t dealing with any kind of nasty here. We are folks of goodwill.
    Exactly, which is why I refrain from quick, sharp come-backs and I'm no good at thinking of them anyway!

  • agingjb wrote: »
    Nothing undermines my sympathy for the claims of Christianity more effectively than the vicious, obscene, and disproportionate attacks on SD by Christians. "Incandescent terror" indeed.

    I'd have a fair bit of sympathy with that view if all the Christians here were dog-piling SD.

    They aren't.

    A lot of folk are cutting her considerable slack.

    Even her most vociferous opponents have done that to some extent.

  • Boogie wrote: »
    Sounds fine, except that you really aren’t dealing with any kind of nasty here. We are folks of goodwill.
    The Hell we are. One this thread, I's say mostly, but not perfectly. On the Ship, mostly with a few massive exceptions.

  • Raptor Eye wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »

    Of course beliefs are all in the mind, but faith beliefs are based on previous and other faith beliefs. I challenge you to find one which is based on a fact, even a 99.9% one.

    My faith is based on the fact that God is real.

    I'm curious as to what might falsify that. For example, I might say that it's a fact that stars are very hot, e.g., the sun. Can this be falsified? Yes, obviously by looking for stars that are not hot, e.g., brown dwarfs. Over to you.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    Ohher wrote: »
    For whatever it may be worth, the two characteristics which annoy me about SD's one-track posting is her notion that the "faith" underlying believers' discussions is somehow different from her own "faith" that the apparent operations of material universe need no further examination and can be taken as given.
    I cannot know SD's mind, but the principals are different.
    One is that everything has a principal of operation, a practical how it works. This is evidenced by the expanding knowledge we gain as we explore, study and observe. We might never know how it all works, but the concept that it follows rules is drawn from experience.
    Faith, on the other-hand...well the word says it all. Might as well call it magic. It is an unknowable, by definition, black box with no evidence that there is anything inside.
    Does that mean one should not believe? No. It is just ridiculous to put them on the same plane.
  • And the so-called material operations are not fixed in stone. For example, gravity, surely one of the core physical forces, remains unexplained. Well maybe SD thinks that no further examination of gravity is needed, but a hae ma doots.
  • And the so-called material operations are not fixed in stone. For example, gravity, surely one of the core physical forces, remains unexplained. Well maybe SD thinks that no further examination of gravity is needed, but a hae ma doots.
    Fortunately, even if people, certainly not me, think that gravity needs no further examination, physicists will keep on adding more information about it and thus increase understanding.

  • Well Ohher seems to be saying that for atheists and non-theists, knowledge about the physical universe has been settled, and we can sit back and say, job done. I claim a large straw man, in fact, a wicker man.
  • FFS, physicists are working on the idea that light can be used to create matter - how is this saying that we don't to examine the universe now, and everything is settled?
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Sounds fine, except that you really aren’t dealing with any kind of nasty here. We are folks of goodwill.
    Exactly, which is why I refrain from quick, sharp come-backs and I'm no good at thinking of them anyway!

    Thing is, SusanDoris, in Purgatory, you’re sometimes doing your polite, dismissive ‘Thank you for your post,’ when people are taking the time to engage with you in a genuine, friendly way, and so there is also no need for a sharp come-back, and you have the opportunity to also engage in a genuine way back. While I totally agree it’s a great response to show people you’re not going to engage with them when they’re being nasty, it seems a bit odd when people are being friendly and open with you.

  • And I shall probably be dead and gone before they find out ... now that is very annoying! Did you know that approximately 4,000 carbon 14 atoms in each of our cells change into something else every second? Now that is mind-bogglingly, stunningly amazing.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    ... In fact gratitude would be in engaging rather than telling other posters that you are grateful or saying that you will get back to things later then dodging questions.

    OK so it's not personal. Good to know.

    It's all good with me SD. So far, we get along OK even though we don't agree, and I think that's the best an atheist and a Christian can hope for.

    AFF

  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    Indeed it is, and thank you for sharing the information with us.

    I wonder who invented that process?

    I'll get me coat.

    IJ
  • On the bias thing, I can't say I've noticed anyone trying to dodge the acknowledgement of bias.

    Perhaps I'm too biased to notice ...
  • Guessing the connections between posts is, well, fun.
  • Surely, it's well known that carbon 14 was invented by Ahura Mazda.
  • Guessing the connections between posts is, well, fun.
    Note to self: Always quote the post.. responded to!
  • Well, yes. Guilty as charged, m'Lud...
    :blush:

    IJ
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »

    Of course beliefs are all in the mind, but faith beliefs are based on previous and other faith beliefs. I challenge you to find one which is based on a fact, even a 99.9% one.

    My faith is based on the fact that God is real.

    Except that cannot be demonstrated to actually be a fact. As we've said before. Your conviction that it is true, in and of itself, is evidence for absolutely nothing beyond itself.

    SD put out the challenge to find a faith which was based on a fact. My Christian faith is based on a fact which I am convinced of, having used and continuing to employ my human senses and reason. I accept that my conviction of its truth is not sufficient to convince anyone else. Nevertheless, to me it remains as a fact on which my faith is based.

  • Raptor Eye wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »

    Of course beliefs are all in the mind, but faith beliefs are based on previous and other faith beliefs. I challenge you to find one which is based on a fact, even a 99.9% one.

    My faith is based on the fact that God is real.

    I'm curious as to what might falsify that. For example, I might say that it's a fact that stars are very hot, e.g., the sun. Can this be falsified? Yes, obviously by looking for stars that are not hot, e.g., brown dwarfs. Over to you.

    That's a good question. The existence of God cannot be demonstrated on demand by human beings, nor perhaps can anyone demonstrate the non-existence of God.


  • Raptor Eye wrote: »
    SD put out the challenge to find a faith which was based on a fact. My Christian faith is based on a fact which I am convinced of, having used and continuing to employ my human senses and reason. I accept that my conviction of its truth is not sufficient to convince anyone else. Nevertheless, to me it remains as a fact on which my faith is based.
    If you are going to insist on using a word incorrectly, don’t be surprised that people will contrast it to the real meaning. Especially when you are so dismissive of other people’s facts.

  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Indeed, the only fact-like thing in @Raptor Eye's post is that xe has an internal conviction.

    Besides that, xyr only contribution is a demonstration of how very poorly xey understand what facts are.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Well Ohher seems to be saying that for atheists and non-theists, knowledge about the physical universe has been settled, and we can sit back and say, job done. I claim a large straw man, in fact, a wicker man.

    No, not saying that at all. Nor do I, er, believe that. Rather, I was suspecting that of SD when she was going on about discovering how safe it is to venture across my street on the basis of its having been done repeatedly before.
  • Raptor Eye wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »

    Of course beliefs are all in the mind, but faith beliefs are based on previous and other faith beliefs. I challenge you to find one which is based on a fact, even a 99.9% one.

    My faith is based on the fact that God is real.

    I'm curious as to what might falsify that. For example, I might say that it's a fact that stars are very hot, e.g., the sun. Can this be falsified? Yes, obviously by looking for stars that are not hot, e.g., brown dwarfs. Over to you.

    That's a good question. The existence of God cannot be demonstrated on demand by human beings, nor perhaps can anyone demonstrate the non-existence of God.


    Well, I'm suggesting that the existence of God is not a fact, as it cannot be falsified.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Ohher wrote: »
    For whatever it may be worth, the two characteristics which annoy me about SD's one-track posting is her notion that the "faith" underlying believers' discussions is somehow different from her own "faith" that the apparent operations of material universe need no further examination and can be taken as given.
    I cannot know SD's mind, but the principals are different.
    One is that everything has a principal of operation, a practical how it works. This is evidenced by the expanding knowledge we gain as we explore, study and observe. We might never know how it all works, but the concept that it follows rules is drawn from experience.
    Faith, on the other-hand...well the word says it all. Might as well call it magic. It is an unknowable, by definition, black box with no evidence that there is anything inside.
    Does that mean one should not believe? No. It is just ridiculous to put them on the same plane. (2nd emphasis mine)

    Yes, many/most aspects of science are indeed based on careful, accurate, repeated observations, both direct and indirect, and yes, we infer from these repetitions that the material universe "follows rules" and we attempt to formulate what these rules are. Further, we often then extrapolate from these rules to other, possibly-related questions in efforts to confirm or refute previous/existing formulations and observations we made.

    Other aspects of science, though, deal with more theoretical matters -- issues we either can't make observations about at all (universe origins, for example), or issues we have to piece together from assorted and scattered and occasionally contradictory bits of evidence (ancient geological events and specific paleological or evolutionary progressions, for example). Our investigations of these usually proceed from our earlier assumptions that, whether or not we've discerned them, these phenomena too follow some sort of order. I mean, how could it be that there's a single material universe which operates partly at random and in unpredictable ways and partly in an orderly fashion which we're able to piece together, however gradually and incompletely? Makes no sense at all, does it? Not to our cocky, incessant human drive toward organization and patterns and order which we can perceive and manipulate and perhaps even control.

    That's the part which, to me, rests on faith. It's our faith -- or our arrogant conceit -- in ourselves and our human need to impose our limited understanding (whatever that entails) on all that surrounds us. Because we're innate perceivers of order (part of our survival traits), we believe that the order we see in the material universe is really there, outside ourselves, part of some objective reality which many believe derives from God, and many others believe is "just there."

    But what if the order we think we see isn't actually there at all -- that the order is all, as SD might claim, in our own minds, and we are projecting that order on a universe which actually has a very different character? I know the enormity of what I'm saying: How could we possibly deceive ourselves so completely, and in such numbers, and over such enormous stretches of human history? What if the strange, apparently anomalous qualities of dark matter / dark energy are actually indicators of how disorderly and contrary our "orderly" universe really is?

    If we can deceive ourselves into holocausts and crusades and genocides and racism and the mass murder we call wars, deceive ourselves into the notion that this planet can support billions of us despite our destruction of the ecosystems which provide us with breathable air and food and potable water, and (possibly) deceive ourselves into (as SD might claim) the mass delusions of religion, then isn't it also possible we're deceiving ourselves about our orderly, predictable, "scientific" universe?
  • PatdysPatdys Shipmate
    I think a lot of people like cunning linguists.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Ohher wrote: »
    For whatever it may be worth, the two characteristics which annoy me about SD's one-track posting is her notion that the "faith" underlying believers' discussions is somehow different from her own "faith"
    While I hesitate to widen again the gap between yours any my thinking, I think I'll just come in here to say that I say it Is different. All the things/facts I have faith in have an objective backing.

    I understand that you believe you do. For me, the problem is that I'm not sure I buy the idea of an "objective reality." Even if I did, I'd say you have a faulty understanding of what "faith" consists of if you're basing that on "facts" (whatever those are).
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    How would you say that your religious belief, specifically belief in god, living Christ, etc, is based on anything objective?

    I wouldn't. Frankly, I'm appalled that, on the 13th page of a thread where several posters have repeatedly objected to this very question, you are asking it again. There neither is, nor can be, anything remotely objective about a belief, by definition, so why, for fuck-almighty's sake, are you asking me to answer this same everlasting stupid moronic repetitive goddamn pointless sophomoric water-torture question? STOP IT. Nobody here, with the possible exception of Raptor Eye, thinks there's anything "objective" about religious belief. Just about everybody here has said as much. That's your answer, and it's a perfectly reasonable one, so that part of this conversation can now be closed. Take the fucking answer, shut the fuck up with the !@%$#!! question, and MOVE THE FUCK ON.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    Ohher wrote: »
    this same everlasting stupid moronic repetitive goddamn pointless sophomoric water-torture question?

    I'm just admiring the adjectives.

    [bows, waves a hand]

    Carry on.

  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Ohher, we are not worthy. Thank you.

  • @Ohher
    Apologies if this sounds dismissive, but I don't think you countered what I said in the slightest. The bits we don't know, aren't taken on faith, but taken as unknown.
    As I've said numerous times before, it is a category error to compare science and religion.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    Well Ohher seems to be saying that for atheists and non-theists, knowledge about the physical universe has been settled, and we can sit back and say, job done. I claim a large straw man, in fact, a wicker man.

    No, not saying that at all. Nor do I, er, believe that. Rather, I was suspecting that of SD when she was going on about discovering how safe it is to venture across my street on the basis of its having been done repeatedly before.
    The belief "The future will resemble the past in sufficiently predictable and useful ways" (or something like it) is an axiom we all rely on, but it cannot be proven or even meaningfully defended. We need it to be true, so we assume it is. Crossing the street is just one example.
  • Well, I'm suggesting that the existence of God is not a fact, as it cannot be falsified.
    Karl Popper invented the word "fact"?
  • Raptor Eye wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »

    Of course beliefs are all in the mind, but faith beliefs are based on previous and other faith beliefs. I challenge you to find one which is based on a fact, even a 99.9% one.

    My faith is based on the fact that God is real.

    Except that cannot be demonstrated to actually be a fact. As we've said before. Your conviction that it is true, in and of itself, is evidence for absolutely nothing beyond itself.

    SD put out the challenge to find a faith which was based on a fact. My Christian faith is based on a fact which I am convinced of, having used and continuing to employ my human senses and reason. I accept that my conviction of its truth is not sufficient to convince anyone else. Nevertheless, to me it remains as a fact on which my faith is based.
    Ah, yes, point taken! :) I should have specified an objective fact about God.

  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »

    Of course beliefs are all in the mind, but faith beliefs are based on previous and other faith beliefs. I challenge you to find one which is based on a fact, even a 99.9% one.

    My faith is based on the fact that God is real.

    Except that cannot be demonstrated to actually be a fact. As we've said before. Your conviction that it is true, in and of itself, is evidence for absolutely nothing beyond itself.

    SD put out the challenge to find a faith which was based on a fact. My Christian faith is based on a fact which I am convinced of, having used and continuing to employ my human senses and reason. I accept that my conviction of its truth is not sufficient to convince anyone else. Nevertheless, to me it remains as a fact on which my faith is based.
    Ah, yes, point taken! :) I should have specified an objective fact about God.
    Having now read subsequent posts, I see that other points have been made.

    Also, there was a post with an interesting list of adjectives, complaining that after 13 pages I ought to know an answer. Well, this is a good opportunity to point out that when I respond to a post, I am responding to that particular post, as I cannot go back through and check who said what when. My memory still functions pretty well, but not to the extent required for that, I'm afraid!

  • mousethief wrote: »
    Well, I'm suggesting that the existence of God is not a fact, as it cannot be falsified.
    Karl Popper invented the word "fact"?

    Well, no. I'm trying to find out what Raptor Eye means by a fact. Normally, this is based on observation, and there can be new observations, which contradict the old ones. I don't think you can do this with God. But this only matters if you think God's existence is a factual matter, and I assume most theists don't.
  • @SusanDoris Ohher did quote your question of "How would you say that your religious belief, specifically belief in god, living Christ, etc, is based on anything objective?" which I am leaving in quote form below (as evidence for the sighted among us):
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    How would you say that your religious belief, specifically belief in god, living Christ, etc, is based on anything objective?

    When Ohher answered with her comment with all the adjectives, she was answering this question, the gist of her answer being that most Christians do not think that faith is based on anything objective, that's why it's faith, because it is a subjective belief. I'm leaving that quote below:
    Ohher wrote: »
    I wouldn't. Frankly, I'm appalled that, on the 13th page of a thread where several posters have repeatedly objected to this very question, you are asking it again. There neither is, nor can be, anything remotely objective about a belief, by definition, so why, for fuck-almighty's sake, are you asking me to answer this same everlasting stupid moronic repetitive goddamn pointless sophomoric water-torture question? STOP IT. Nobody here, with the possible exception of Raptor Eye, thinks there's anything "objective" about religious belief. Just about everybody here has said as much. That's your answer, and it's a perfectly reasonable one, so that part of this conversation can now be closed. Take the fucking answer, shut the fuck up with the !@%$#!! question, and MOVE THE FUCK ON.

    The way this software quotes hides them if they are embedded after a couple of layers and I've wondered if your software is reading the quoted sections too. If it is the case that it is not it is likely that your answers are more stilted as you are not hearing the full text that we are seeing.
  • When theoretical physicists reasoned the existence of the Higgs Boson particle, did that make it a fact?

    I think most would probably say no.

    When various experiments produced results consistent with the expected properties of the particle, did that mean it became a fact?

    It is complicated, isn't it?

    For a start, few of us are competent to understand what the physicists are talking about or how to interpret the results - but from the outside I think most would probably just say that particle physics is hard and if they say such and such about the Higgs Boson, then we are not going to contradict them.

    In practice, the vast majority of us are not able to parse whether the Higgs Boson is a fact or not. We've not conducted the experiments personally, we don't understand the theory, we haven't experienced the debates.

    --

    I don't think it is altogether different with a discussion about the existence of the deity. Just as a non-physicist is probably never really going to have the mental tools to appreciate and assess the evidence for the Higgs Boson, maybe there are some who will never accept that the deity is a fact - even if the standards of proof are higher than those accepted for other common phenomena, even if others accept it as settled fact.

    The status of ideas and proof is not just as simple as saying that they are "proved" and therefore fact or "unproved" and therefore fiction.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    SusanDoris, there was something I was thinking of asking you yesterday. I wasn’t sure if it would be a daft question or if I’d missed something, so I hesitated, but in the light of the more recent comments, I will go ahead.

    Given that no one here is claiming that they can prove God, or that faith is an objective fact, what exactly is it that you are wanting us to discuss and debate?

    Because - and I may be misunderstanding you - it generally seems like you are continually asking us to discuss how our faith can be proven and what objective facts we have about God. And I’m not sure how we can discuss this, as we have continually been telling you (not just in this thread but in all the Purgatory threads too) that we can’t prove God or faith, that this is not what faith is about, that proof would contradict the entire concept of faith, etc.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    No, I believe that the 08:55 train to Sheffield will depart from Chesterfield at or shortly after 08:55. This is based on entirely objective timetables, station announcements and experience that trains are very seldom cancelled this close to their departure.

    Evidence, note, not proof.

    I really don't see how the definition of belief logically precludes objective evidence. Clearly a belief can be held without (or even in the face of) objective evidence, but that is not inherent in belief.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    Karl, I admire your faith in the British railways :wink:
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Karl, I admire your faith in the British railways :wink:

    I knew someone would say that. But the point stands.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    I think there might be a confusion of terms here.

    There are some things which are informed by (relatively) objective evidence, for which past performance is a pretty good indication of the future and for which predictions based on past evidence are often correct.

    But many/most faith positions are not informed by that kind of thing.

    Because humans are humans and because of confirmation biases and the power of story etc and so on.

    Religion/truth is subjectivity as Kierkegaard confusingly and maddenly taught.

    By which I think he probably meant that there are things the truth of which can only be experienced, rather than theorised about.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Well, I'm suggesting that the existence of God is not a fact, as it cannot be falsified.
    Karl Popper invented the word "fact"?

    Well, no. I'm trying to find out what Raptor Eye means by a fact. Normally, this is based on observation, and there can be new observations, which contradict the old ones. I don't think you can do this with God. But this only matters if you think God's existence is a factual matter, and I assume most theists don't.

    A fact according to my Oxford dictionary is 'a thing that is known to be true, to exist, or to have occurred: truth, reality.'

    I can see that there are various online dictionaries which add qualifiers to this, including the one which speaks of being falsified, but afaiac a fact is what is the truth.

    I accept that this is based on subjective rather than objective observation. I see that SD has now altered her challenge accordingly.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    However in this case it appears to be that you're saying "I know God is real because God is real"
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    However in this case it appears to be that you're saying "I know God is real because God is real"

    Not really.

    He is saying that the deity exists because he (Raptor Eye) has experience him (God).

    There are of course a range of reasons why he (Raptor Eye) could be wrong, but I'm not sure this statement is much different to stating that one has "met" anyone.

    I could say that I know a specific person exists because I've met them. You could counter that there are no records of any such person, nobody has ever heard of them, nobody else has ever said that they met them and so on.

    But then (perhaps) it turns out that they're a person with another name. Or something.

    An eyewitness account to the existence of a person might not be overwhelming evidence, but it is also not no evidence at all.
This discussion has been closed.