Do Christians have faith in oxygen/air?

[SteveII]

What exactly do you mean by "proven"? It seems there are different kinds of proof.

* Scientific proof
* Historical proof
* Logical proofs (both deductive and inductive)
* Proof resulting from personal experience

There also also different thresholds of proof:

* Possible
* More likely than not (preponderance of the evidence)
* Beyond reasonable doubt
* Absolute certainty

These lists result in 16 different combinations alone (and I'm sure I missed some). Notice that my list would consist of different combinations of these. What combination(s) do you think is the minimum necessary for a basic belief to be reasonable? See, that's the crux of this whole debate: proof is demanded but atheists typically use the wrong combination of kind/threshold or move the goalpost just enough so they can claim--"see, no proof".

Okey dokey lets go through them one by one then, and lets satisfy ourselves that we have reached a point where any of your claims is true, in regards to it being accumulative evidence.

1. Person of Jesus is compelling.

Why do you find this evidence, or proof ?

---

I can show that anything on my list is "supported by demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument, and/[OR] valid/sound logic" -- according to an appropriate application of kind/threshold of proof mentioned in my post just above.

Sound logic to whom ?

I don't mind talking about high-level concepts on someone else's thread, but I'm not going to hijack this thread with a NT argument, sorry. Feel free to start a new thread.

---

Of course the main reason I consider you an idiot is because you profess to believe in such silly shit without any evidence at all.  I hope you are able to grasp that simple fact.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Steve would fail freshman philosophy.  And I'm not saying that to be snarky, or as a joke.  His entire framework of belief is simply a lattice of various fallacies.  And it's exasperating that he's unable or unwilling to see it.  I mean, from the above:

Jesus is compelling - that's a personal assessment and non sequitur.  Some people find the life of Kim Kardashian compelling.  So what?
The NT describes actual events - except, there's no proof of miracles or magic, and the claims of such things don't somehow make them true.
God works in people's lives today, changing people + miracles - again, no proof of miracles happening, and what does 'changing people' even mean?  And can it only happen through Christ? (hint: no, people can change - for good or bad - for a variety of reasons)

The rest of it is simply begging the question nonsense.  There's no reason to believe that morality is objective, or that the universe is fine tuned.  There's no way to claim that the Christian god is the best answer for any of it.

It's amateurish at best.  A lot of fluff and jazz hands to distract from the fact that none of what he writes is even remotely intellectually sound.  It's not a series of reinforcing arguments, but rather a scattershot collection of post hoc justifications to justify already existing belief.

Where did you get that any of this are my arguments? I said nothing of the kind. When I posted the list, I even said "These are NOT the arguments..." {emphasis in the original}. 

I have defended every one of these at various times here and am willing to do it again. I'm not hijacking this thread. Start a new one.