Debate with a Christian

[*Deidre*]

Some additional thoughts.

In fact, it is recognized that certainty is an impossible standard to meet which actually serves to support my argument.

Hardly. It serves to demonstrate that your reasoning, without corroborating evidence from reality (and sorry, anecdotal testimonials do not constitute as reliable sources for determining the deeper principle underlying the specific claims), is insufficient in reaching the conclusions you do.

Deidre, truth claims in order to be true, must have support or corroborating evidence. Christianity, which is what we are discussing, makes certain truth claims and relates these claims to us in a historical context. You say there is no evidence or proof that Christianity is true. If by proof you mean a proof that is so strong as to exclude any and all doubt i.e. certainty then yes you are correct. We cannot be certain without a doubt that Christianity is true. But as I have demonstrated, certainty is an unreasonable expectation.

Shifting from absolute certainty, which no one can offer, to reasonable certainty (which hopefully Deidre meant), does not help you at all. It is a demand that Christianity cannot even meet on the mere basis of the New Testament writings and subsequent "Christian" experiences (otherwise all other faiths would pass your "critique").

What you should say is that you do not believe Christianity has any reliable or credible evidence to support its truth claims.

Correct...

To which I would respond, yes it does.

In fact, a proof in a philosophical sense is a series of statements which serve as premises from which a conclusion can be drawn based on the rules of logic. Those premises don't need to be known with 100% certainty. Maybe they'll just appear slightly more plausible than not or perhaps they'll have a great deal of plausibility. But nevertheless, if we have more reason to believe the premises than their negations and together these premises imply by the rules of logic a conclusion then we can say that that conclusion is proved by this argument. But it doesn't require anything like 100% certainty.

A conclusion can be reached that is logically sound but unless it explains something that is corroborated by objective experimental evidence, it is nothing more than conjecture or semantics.

I think you need to understand that asking for certainty regarding God's existence is unreasonable.

Yes...

If certainty is not a prerequisite for you when determining whether secular truth claims are true, then you should not make it a prerequisite for religious truth claims.

Yes...

You have yet to give a good argument as to why you would make such a distinction.

What he/she should have said is that there is not any experiential or experimental evidence that demands attribution to God, and coupled with plenty aspects of faith itself and the specific claims regarding the Christian conception of God, there's plenty of evidence and reason against it, including the sheer inconsistency contained within biblical theology.

This does not mean we therefore are justified with being total skeptics.

Not to the point of Solipsism at least, but certainly we should be total skeptics with regards to the paranormal, supernatural, "non-physical." Why? Because they cannot all be true--probability alone tells us that any particular miracle/God claim, as incredible as it is and not grounded in sufficient evidence (again, subjective testimony is not evidence), is wrong.

(I'm a 'she' lol) And can you take over for me now?

You articulated this a bit better than me. Very well said!

Perhaps we (Pickup and I) both could debate you together, discipulus? :p