Q: do you, Christian, claim that God exists, rather than you believe that he exists?

[discipulus]

It is the short version of his position, however; you can't claim to respect science while still rejecting its conclusions based on personal preference.

He does not reject science, but rather, he, and I as well, reject some of the conclusions of SCIENTISTS.

Big difference. Scientists are men and women just like you and I and as such are fallible. Scientist's conclusions have been flat wrong on several occasions in the past. You know it, I know it. It is these wrong conclusions we reject, not the scientific method.

No, I actually haven't; the argument from popularity is still in effect, as "many people accepted this," is a shaky ground to even entertain the possibility that such a thing is true.

He did not say that the supernatural existed because many intelligent people believed in the supernatural. So he has not committed the fallacy you say he has.

you should be evaluating the positions of every claim that you come across, not merely the popular ones. That's just due diligence.

That is your opinion.

If I sit down and say to myself: "I want to get to the bottom of these religious claims and to start with, I will examine the claims of the most popular religion i.e. Christianity first, and then find through investigation that Christianity is in fact true, then my pursuit is finished. I need not search or evaluate any other claim. For I have what I set out to find, the truth. The crux of the matter is this: Is Christianity true? If it is then it necessarily follows that all other religions that contradict Christianity's central truth claims are false. This is simple logic, nothing too difficult.

Also, what you're talking about there is reason and evidence, so to disregard the determinations of science- which is made of reason and evidence- in favor of the supernatural merely because it was widely believed is fallacious reasoning.

I love science. I am enthralled by what science has given us in the way of knowledge of the material world we live in. I also happen to believe science has its limits. When I have a question outside the realm of science, I take up other disciplines and learn even more. I am not an empiricist and I hope you are not either!

Actually, you're right there, I think I misread Lek's post a little. Sorry about that, Lek.

No worries!

Look, I'm so tired of hearing this line of crap. You don't get to put your god beyond the reach of any form of testability or detectability and then complain when I say that nobody has justified their magic claims over him. Just saying "oh, there can be no evidence for miracles or god," doesn't suddenly mean that you're all absolved of the burden of proof. What it means is that you have formulated a position that can never be rationally justified, and therefore should not be believed.

I have yet to complain about anything here. Nor do I put God beyond the reach of any form of testability or detectability. It is the methodological naturalist/empiricist/materialist that puts God beyond their reach, for they eliminate the possibility of His existence before they even begin their investigation!!!!!!

You sure did state that it's self refuting.

Of course, when you did so you failed to take into account that we can compare the kinds of things we'd have to believe if we removed this expectation of at least some empirical support, versus those things we would believe if we retained it. What you'll find is that the former position, where you'd have to consistently lower your standards of evidence in order to accept things without empirical backing, leads to the acceptance of mutually exclusive, contradictory positions, as suddenly you'd have to accept all religious claims, not just your own.

Anyway you slice it, empiricism is self-refuting and too limiting a theory of knowledge.

We accept a truth claim as being true if and only if it actually corresponds to an actual state of affairs in the world (correspondence theory). There are several ways we can come to know a truth claim is true. It simply does not follow that since empiricism is untenable that therefore we must accept all religious truth claims as true. That is a non-sequitur.

If Christ died for our sins and rose on the third day, then Islam is false as well as every other religion that denies the divinity of Christ. Christ could not have both died and not have died, it is either or. To maintain otherwise would be to violate one of the laws of classical logic. In this way it is shown that WE CAN distinguish between contradicting religious truth claims.

Meanwhile, no such logical inconsistencies exist within a position that accepts empirical evidence alone, which is evidence enough, I would say, that empiricism works. Since the other position in this binary leads to contradictions, it cannot function. This is support in favor of the statement ""We should only take a proposition to be true if it can be scientifically proven."

Now, I'm not a strict empiricist in the sense that I'd need complete scientific proof, because that's a useless concept. I would, however, require evidence that leads to the proposition under consideration.

I am glad you are not an empiricist, but you still demand empirical proof which, if you are a naturalist, you deny even exists a priori!

Are you a naturalist?

Which is a perfect way to cover up a lie! "Oh, I could tell you the truth, but you wouldn't believe it. Oh, you just won't accept my evidence because you don't want it to be true!" Simply a wonderful way to avoid considering the prospect that maybe your evidence isn't as convincing as you think, merely by reinterpreting everyone's motives so that they just hate your evidence. It's not you, there's something wrong with them!

I am very convinced. Other brilliant minds have also been convinced by certain lines of evidence for the existence of God. Anthony Flew, the once outspoken atheist turned theist comes to mind.

My point remains, I cannot furnish any evidence that cannot be explained away by them that are unwilling to accept it.