Science and religion

[The Reality Salesman01]

@jstrodel
The amount of scientists believing in God is a bit irrelevant. This is an apeal to a majority/authority argument, but i'm sure you've realized that. If 65% of americans didn't believe you existed, would that make it more likely? Of course not! Secondly, the "central tenents" of Christianity that cannot be disproven are no different than the central tenents of any other religion that are unfalsifiable. Christianity is no more true than mormanism. If I told you I have an invisisble leprechaun in my pocket that only I can see. In what way would you begin to apply the scientific method to my claim? There is no reproducible data with this claim. It is simply a claim. There are thousands of claims around the world that are no different. They are all unfalsifiable hypotheses. It doesn't make them plausible, probable and it especially doesn't make them true. They are claims not grounded in any sort of evidence or reproducible data. There is no reason to welcome science into the challenge of disproving your "central tenents" as they are ever changing and adapting to what feels right to the believer. No matter how much you may think it makes sense, without data or measurable results, all you have as an opinion.

What you are saying is true in some sense that many parts of Christianity are not falsifiable. There are many good arguments for God's existence, however, as well as evidence from prophecies and history.

As a practicing Christian, you have a great deal of evidence that God is real. What you call an "opinion" is a very controversial scientism that is extremely political. There is no reason to accept this epistemology, which basically give all the power in societies to universities using scientific models of knowledge.

Alvin Plantinga, a well known epistemologist wrote several large books defending an epistemology in which Christianity is said to have warrant. There are many people that disagree with you and you have no provided evidence for accepting your scientism.

Referring to your metaphysical position as opinion was not intended to be degrading to your position. It was just the most accurate word to describe it. I know you have said there is good evidence and good arguments for God, but I have yet to see any, and honestly, faith requires no evidence and is kind of the cornerstone of your beliefs. Key word "belief". By using this word you are actually admitting a level of agnostism. You are admitting a possibility of being wrong. You may have strong reasons for your own personal conviction and to you it may very well seem as though those are enough for others to hold your same position. However, if you are to enter this conversation with the intent to logically debate the subject, your own personal feelings cannot be used as arguments or evidence to strengthen your argument. Until you provide good argument or factual data of some kind in support your your beliefs, they will remain only an opinion held by you. I would be happy to engage in a logical debate with you, and because I do not think it neccessary to explain to you what it means to switch the burden of proof, I will assume that your request of evidence from me was satisfied by this reply and not a request to provide any evidence that your claim is false but more a request to understand how it is that I could not be swayed by your standard of knowledge and can see now why it is necessary for epistemology of the sort I have described to be based on actual data. Here is an example of what is going on here:

One example of the error that lies in the justification you have provided for your claim that God is a fact Vs. Opinion:

Bob: I need a loan to purchase this house. It's a 5 million dollar house.

Bank: I need to see your credit score and evidence of your worth.

Bob: I am rich. Don't worry about that.

Bank: Show me your credit and proof of your wealth.

Bob: I have a job and a nice car. I feel rich, and I am comfortable in life.

Bank: That's nice sir, but if you do not provide me with evidence of this, I will not be able to give you the loan you require as I have not yet been convinced that your claims are true. Can you produce any of the required data I have requested to confirm your claims?

Bob: I do not need to show you that stuff. I FEEL rich. I know it in my heart that I am. What more evidence do you need?

Bank: I am sorry sir, but we are going to be unable to process your loan at this time. Have a nice day sir.

...I hope this illustrates where we are right now. Between you and I that is. So, if you have any sort of good argument or evidence. Please share it.