caedes:
Doogie, argumentum ad populum tsk tsk
easy, tiger. maybe i didn't make myself clear...
i wasn't personally making any argument. i was just saying that "observation" alone can't be considered objective evidence since observation is merely in the eyes of the beholder. you're right though, as far as objective evidence of god's existence goes, billions of people saying that they've observed god's hand carries no greater weight than one person "observing" him.
if all we had for evidence of the Earth's rotation around the sun was observation of the sun rising every morning, belief in a revolving earth would be faith based as there would be no mathematics showing why it does this (without math, who knows why the sun rises every morning? it could be a revolving earth just as easily as it could be a revolving sun. the observation would be functionally the same in either case).
however, we have detailed equations and measurements showing that the Earth orbits the sun and not vice versa, so faith in an orbiting Earth is not required. if a tribesman with no access to those equations and measurements still came to the conclusion that the earth revolves around the sun, his belief would be faith based even though he's right because he simply believes his subjective evidence (observation of the sun rising every morning)...just like a man who has no idea how his TV remote works but uses it wth confidence anyway (i.e. 'me') or the man that believes in god(s).