The alternative view is that the question that the worthy gentlemen and clerics are attempting to answer is an absurd question. “The question ‘what is God?’ is impossible” (Rosenzweig). The biblical and other stories that seem to depict a simply personal God likewise could be said to traffic in impossibilities and, strictly speaking, falsehoods, but the prophet, the priest, and the believer escape the indictment, since applying a “strict” standard, or a philosophical standard, is merely another version of the same supposed error, or is the reverse error, and the only error, the error from the presumption that the words were uttered, or written, or are recited as though referring or ever possibly referring to the merely possible, rather than, employing the inherently inadequate logical forms, in regard to the ground of possibility, or that which precedes possibility, or that which makes possibility possible, questioning possible, or any “what” whatsoever a what at all ever. In the linked post, Fr Kimel begins with the tentative assertion that “We all know what human persons are,” but that assertion is unacceptable because fully prejudicial to the inquiry or circular (circulus in probando): It is not just a dubious assertion, it is the assertion of the answer to the same question, or the claim already to have demonstrated that which is yet to be demonstrated. The inquiry into what we mean when we invoke the name of the deity would both determine and be determined by the result of the inquiry into what we mean when we refer to ourselves. They are nearly the same inquiry, or two different aspects of a single inquiry, which is at the same time an inquiry into inquiry – the possibility of inquiry at all and the point of inquiry at all. Put differently, to presume we know who we are, what knowing is, what what is, what is is, is already to presume possession of the answer, and to circumscribe and pre-determine the interpretation that would tell us who we are, what knowing is, what what is, what is is.
Usually translated as “evidence of“: Here’s a link to some alternative translations: http://www.biblestudytools.com/hebrews/11-1-compare.html
It’s a useful passage in this context. I’m not sure what causes you to perceive me to be expressing a particular difficulty on my own, or for that matter any reference to the state of my personal beliefs or experiences of belief.
Faith is evidence, in things not seen, I’m surprised that would be a difficult notion for you to absorb,