Do Christians have faith in oxygen/air?

[SteveII]

---

What you seem to be saying Steve is that unless I can demonstrate what i don't believe you have provided evidence for to be false, then your default position wins. This is not how evidence usually works. Normally you make a claim, then provide sufficient evidence for that claim, it really is simple. You seem to be making a long winded god of the gaps argument with a bit of sparkle and noise to distract.

Not at all. I will paste the original list since it has been several pages.

Why is it not pure faith? Well there are good rational reasons to believe: 

1. Person of Jesus is compelling.
2. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus
3. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.
4. The natural theology arguments: 
  a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
  b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
  c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
  d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
  e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

These are NOT the arguments, they are the conclusions of a series of arguments.


I have evidence and argumentation to support all of these reasons I have for my belief in God. Because of this, I am saying my reason are, by definition, rational unless you can provide some evidence they are false. Not "God of the Gaps" in any way. 

No most of them are faith positions Steve, and I believe that you know that, you presume way too much with your statements. If they were provable the argument about the presence of a god would be long over, instead it seems to be going the other way in academic and scientific circles.

No, none of these are "faith positions". They are reasons that I can defend with pages and pages of information and arguments. I never said this was a provable list (at least to the standard of proof where everyone who heard the whole argument behind the reason would have no choice but to believe). We have been going on of a couple of pages now discussing that my list is rational because I can defend it and there are no facts that contradict it. I have been very clear that I don't have proof. Please understand this point. 

First, there are many claims about God that can be falsified--for example, the whole Jesus/NT thing. Second, something that cannot be falsified is not necessarily "faith". There are many many things that are neither. Falsificationism just differentiates between a scientific/empirical statement and a non-scientific/empirical statement. Philosophy of Science itself is not falsifiable--but is absolutely required to do "science". So something like the statement that "God exists" itself might not be falsifiable, but the reasons that support that statement can be. And that would close the loop back to my list.

Of course the claims of the NT are unfalsifiable, they are supernatural claims and by nature unfalsifiable, but Christianity is not alone here there are other religious characters like Mohamed, Joseph Smith  who claim miracles and special revelation. Do you for instance believe that Mohamed went to heaven on a winged horse, or that he spilt the moon in two, or that Joseph Smith was given special revelation from an angel, of course not.  They are outrageous claims that have no evidence and are not possible in the universe as we understand it, just like the NT.

No again. The NT consists of a series of claims that happened in the physical world. Rebuttal witnesses would be the simplest way to prove the claims are false. Therefore the series of claims contained in the NT are very much falsifiable. What is not falsifiable is the existence of the supernatural--when it interacts with the natural world, those interaction are certainly falsifiable. 

The NT and the claims of Mohammed and Joe Smith have nearly no similarities. One catalogs public events and witnessed by thousands over decades while the other two are events that happened to one person with no physical evidence. 

But just like you many Muslims and Mormons believe these things happened and will put your refusal of them to a lack of belief on your part, or claim that you require too much evidence, or not listening to the evidence they present (which i suspect like me you will find oddly unconvincing) It's basically your claims about atheists, you do exactly the same.

Like I said, the body of evidence for the Jesus' claims is not even comparable to the evidence of what went on on one man's head. 

I think I already answered the falsificationism question, but regarding "then faith wins". I don't think so. The successful defense of my list would only get me to a rational belief --not a "win". I didn't conclusively prove anything. I don't think that atheism is irrational either--it's a reasonable position to hold.

That's the problem, Christians claim to be sure of their faith but don't admit it's faith and  often when cornered on a particular subject they go from rational argument to scripture and claim that 'it's not meant to be rational' or 'gods ways are not our ways' or perhaps 'foolishness to the Greek' and unless you can prove what I believe  is false then i will carry on believing it. The problem with that is it could cover literally any supernatural belief.

It could, but that is not what I have done at all. My faith is backed by evidence and reasoning. My list does not include any "just because" or "well, it's in the Bible" or even what keeps coming up: "I have no good reasons, but you can't prove otherwise". 

Not "likely to be false" is not the burden of proof standard for myself. I was merely pointing out that my reasons to believe don't have other explanations that I am ignoring to preserve a low-probability argument because it fits with the rest of the reasons. 
Christians do provide evidence and reasons.

Reasons and evidence really are two different things, I for one don't doubt you believe your reasons any more than I doubt you are genuine in your faith.
 

By definition, an atheist has not found any they have heard to be convincing. After you solve all the definition problems with 'evidence' and 'proof', all an atheist has the right to say is that there is no evidence or proof that is convincing to them. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest (or to struggle with definitions of words like 'evidence' and 'proof'. 
Good conversation, I'm enjoying it.

Firstly I'm glad you are enjoying it, that's what discussions are for.

To say that by definition atheists don't find the evidence convincing is right, but when you make an incredible claim about an incredibly powerful, loving and interactive god who wants all men to be saved and his name and grace to be spread to the world.  and then your evidence for this mighty being is simply a few sentences of sophistry and a bold claim, you can perhaps see why people shake their heads. 

Well, that and the chronicled three years of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. 

Of course if the excuse is simply that you feel as if you have present enough evidence, and it's reasoned then I invite you to go test your claims at a university or scientific institution. But of course when your counter claim is that 'by definition you wont believe' then it matters not how little evidence , or even none, you can still walk away with your head held high.

But that clearly is faith.

I have heard every professional argument any atheist has ever made against Christianity and the rebuttal arguments.  You overestimate the atheist position and/or underestimate the Christian one. There are Christians in every field of study and in every endeavor of science--their beliefs are not a problem. You seem to want to make this a matter of "faith" without evidence/reasons. That is not what Christianity is. You may have encountered many that couldn't defend it and fell back on "faith", but that just means they were ill-equipped.