What basis does apparent human insight and knowledge have in proving the concrete, non-ambiguous and absolute proof of a reality - other than their own views?
The world can see an event one way, and you different - which version is truth to you?
Interesting point and what I was pointing out. We can see a different side of the truth. At least we see it, not told it can only be seen by believers.
Knowledge is very important, what do you mean by insight, because it can mean anything.
I shouldn't have to believe to see it. There should be the opportunity for me to go and view the "truth" myself. It shouldn't be a version of the truth, that contradicts itself, or later people have turned around.
Proof of reality, is the key. It has to be real to be true. Something I can check before I accept it as the truth.
Truth. Jesus lived. Was he the Messiah of the Jews as prophesied? He wasn't able to convince them. So should a son of god, a Messiah, Saviour, do better?
Garden of Eden, did it exist 6,000 years as written? Not true. This might get deleted as it's blasphemy. So read it quickly. The evidence is overwhelming, even Christians accept it and only the die hards believe it.
And here's the cruncher. Are all religious men, good, true and never lie, mislead, do bad? True. So now we have to ask questions when people say it's "God's Will".