The meaninglessness of the Christian god concept

[Norfolk And Chance]

I'm classifying God as non empirically provable because that is the definition of that God (the Xtian God). If you wish to address a god that is empirically evidenced, then that's another subject (ie not the Xtian God).

Who says that the xtian defintion of god is true? xtians say it - other than that we have nothing. It is utterly convenient to state that he is invisible, unmeasurable if you're trying to convince a gullible person that he exists when you have zero evidence.

How do I know this God is not empirically evidenced > from the definition Xtianity proposes for this God.

You just said that and I just answered.

I believe in God, correct. I do not know empirically that he exists, because that would be logically impossible. I believe through faith, and not blind faith.

It is only logically impossible for you to know he exists empirically, if we know that the christian non-empirical definition of him is true. We don't know this, and to a rational person there is no sound basis to believe it. We can always just knock all of this out of the equation and get back to the basics - prove he exists! You can't? I can guess why!

---

Faith:

Being persuaded and fully committed in trust, involving a confident belief in the truth, value, and trustworthiness of God. When it comes to Christianity, 'faith' is defined by three separate but vitally connected aspects (especially from Luther and Melancthon onwards): notitia (informational content), assensus (intellectual assent), and fiducia (committed trust). So faith is the sum of having the information, being persuaded of its truthfulness, and trusting in it. To illustrate the three aspects: "Christ died for ours sins" (notitia); "I am persuaded that Christ died for our sins" (notitia + assensus); "I deeply commit in trust to Christ who I am persuaded died for our sins" (notitia + assensus + fiducia). Only the latter constitutes faith, on the Christian view.

Consequently, notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind and therefore not faith. This shipwrecks the egregious canard that faith is merely a blind leap. Faith goes beyond reason—i.e., into the arena of trust—but never against reason. From the Enlightenment onwards, faith has been subject to constant attempts at redefining it into the realm of the irrational or irrelevant (e.g., Kant's noumenal category); but all such attempts are built on irresponsible straw man caricatures that bear no resemblance to faith as held under the Christian view: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

---

You state that there isn't a god. A bold claim. On what evidence? A: Because you say so.

No, not because I say so but because there is no evidence to support the existence of god and no reason to believe in a creator either. Normally the simplest explanation is the best one - no evidence = no god - I can state that reasonably boldly in a debate with a theist without worrying about being shown up. The burden of proof is always going to be on the believer, and billions of you have no proof, again it tells it's own story.

I'm sorry: not good enough. This life is what you've got and you ought to face up to it rather than theorise about what might have been.

I can't believe a theist has just said that to me. With a straight face.

Back at you, my fantasy believing new chum!

We have a choice and that's how it works in this reality.

Yes WE (Atheists) have a choice, theists seem not to. You're told to believe from an early age, this is not a choice. The choice given by god (believe in me as your saviour OR go to hell and suffer) is not a choice, it is an instruction to do something or pay the price.

I'll pay the price every day of the week rather than worship that mentalist.