I read the entire article several times, and the author demonstrates there is a very real difference between knowledge and belief.
His figure one illustration is in a court setting. There is a difference when a witness says, “I KNOW the defendant was at the scene of the crime” from “I BELIEVE the defendant was at the scene of the crime.”
This is why knowledge ALWAYS outweighs belief. As he says, “The court does not care what you believe; its concern is on what you know.”
He also points out “knowledge” can either be independently verifiable or it cannot be - but just because it can’t doesn’t make the knowledge statement false.
The example he gave in Figure 1 is:
“if Mary testified that Mark told her he was the one who stole the money but he then refused to confess to investigators; that ‘non-replicability’ is inadequate to disprove Mary’s claim.”
As a Christian, I can honestly say I KNOW God exists. I don’t believe he exists - I know he exists. I have this certainty because I’ve felt the Holy Spirit within me - I’ve felt God’s very presence. I’ve never seen him and no saint or angel has ever appeared to me. I can never prove my witness to anyone else. But I KNOW he is real.
This is why I was so happy to see his Figure 3! He clearly differentiates the core perspectives of theism and atheism.
I suggest you take the time to read his article again because this is a fantastic tool for any Christian who wants logical support for their faith.
“I suggest you take the time to read his article again because this is a fantastic tool for any Christian who wants logical support for their faith.”
Have you considered circumstantial evidence? The ground is dry before you go to bed. When you wake up the ground is covered in snow. You didn’t see it snow, but it did.