Question for the Arguers for Faith

[Drich]

I'm wonder why those with faith argue things such as the following.

Why would you argue in favor of anybody that shared your faith but did terrible things?

Because in truth we all have done terrible things. To judge another man's 'things' too terrible for redemption means you think you are better. In doing so makes you worse.

Wouldn't it be easier to dismiss them as an out-liner or “nutter” and move on.

Easier.. yes.

I understand the “no true Scotsman” but clearly there are crazies in all parties and most that are brought up fit that bill.

No true scotsman does not apply because their aren't a list of requirements to being a scotsman. However their is indeed a list an official list of requirements to be a christian.

Why would you argue anything that is disproved by modern science?

Because one does not preclude the other.

Creationism comes to mind, claims against evolution in all their forms. The “it's just a theory” argument is so thin why even bring it up?

YEC's are the only one effected by that 'theory.'

Why argue personal or inner circle experiences of god?

Because this is what God offeres as 'proof' for anyone who seeks it.

It's subjective and selective.

says who?

Why bother trying to say what happened to you is evidence of anything when you know it can be easily rejected and you have limited if any evidence that is objective?

Because again, this is what God offers as 'proof' to each and every single one of us. My experience may be different that what you experience, but what you will experience will be unique to you and be exactly what you need to establish and maintain your belief.

Why argue small sample size?

Again what makes you think this would be a small sample size when God clearly states He offers the Holy Spirit yo everyone who believes?

Why argue history?

Because it can generally be denied.

There are so many examples of faith gone wrong in history why even bring it up?

Bad examples of faith are often times more telling that good examples.

I'm sure there a many other areas that shouldn't even be approached by somebody arguing for faith.

like...?

Rather I'm curious why you would argue the ones above and others that don't have a firm footing in reason?

lol.. Because 'reason' is subjective and often times manipulated and controlled by peer conformation.

Would it be more productive to start from the known fact that 84% or so of the human population have some kind of faith and work backwards from there?

Not according to Christ.
He said the faith that is required is that of a mustard seed and all we must do is take this tiniest bit of faith and plant it where He has told us, and it will grow into a mustard 'tree.'

I dunno, I don't have any degrees or anything and haven't studies much. But it seems like starting from a position that is supported by some actual data would be wiser.

for who?

Theology with a non believer is discussed on one or two different ways. from a scientific perspective and or from a philosophical perspective.

You approach seems to be from a scientific starting point. this point is philosophically flawed. In that the very definition of God puts God out of reach of the tenements of 'science.' If God were 'known' the way science vets what it knows of the known universe, then by definition God would cease being God.

In the 'scientific method' we are expected to form a hypothesis, experiment, draw data and repeat the experiment with the same predictable outcome.

If God is the Alpha and Omega then this method of verification would not work unless He made a portion of Himself available to this method of collecting data. Which He hasn't. Rather we are told to Humble ourselves before God and He will lift us up or after we do what we are told he will provide us with 'proof.'

Which is the basis (the why) it makes sense to 'argue' the existence of God in all the ways you have deemed foolish. It's Because (just in case you did not know) those arguments are typically philosophically based. and when approaching a philosophical argument any method of validation trumps 'i said so.'