Proof of Christianity

[John V]

All those other things can be scientifically explained which god cannot.

So what? We're not discussing explanation, we're discussing proof. We can have proof of something's existence before we have a scientific explanation for it. That's largely what science does - investigate and explain things which we already know to exist through our senses.

[John V]

It's kind of a fine balance; there's a metric involved with apportioning belief to various things.

Can you define this metric? Frankly, I'm suspicious that this line was just some bs trying to hide an ad hoc position.

Not testimony alone, or at least, not for every claim.

OK, which claims are good on testimony alone, and why? What additional support do other claims need?

Claims vary in terms of believability, in accordance with what we know about the universe.

This is circular. The blind man only "knows" that color is part of existence because he believes others' testimony.

If you believe people's claims that god exists, then god is part of known existence, and so claims regarding god are more believable. This is the same thing, and you presumably see the circularity in this case.

But at the same time, the reason I opted to go with the box test as opposed to just repeatable personal testimony was to remove as much subjectivity as I could; given enough time to familiarize themselves with the boxes by touch, any blind person could be shown that nothing differentiates the boxes aside from some additional perceptual thing they don't have, and the sighted person would be displaying knowledge that only the blind person should have, were they identical. It's a fairly objective test, and no, the blind person wouldn't be taking the sighted person's word for it regarding colors, because I propose using no references to color at all: just number the boxes. The sighted person will be able to identify what object is in what box by color, and relay that back using the numbers, or any other identifier one could imagine.

The blind person must indeed take the sighted person's word regarding color. Heck, the sighted person could claim to be blind himself and claim that the boxes give off sounds or smells that the blind person can't detect, then supposedly prove his claim, although he was really relying on visual cues.

[Drich]

The problem with your analogy is that we can actually see colours. We cannot see your god.

The color blind can not see color, what of that segment of the population? are they to stand on faith that the rest of the population is not trying to trick them? At what point do the color blind say maybe I simply can not see what others see?

Just because I am made aware of the Loch Ness monster, does not automatically mean i believe it exists. This is how all sceptics operate. We need actual evidence before we go believing in something. We can't help it, thats just the way we are.

Then A/S/K It is not the job of a Christian to provide you with 'proof.' That is the task of God Himself.

[CleanShavenJesus]

The problem with your analogy is that we can actually see colours. We cannot see your god.

The color blind can not see color, what of that segment of the population? are they to stand on faith that the rest of the population is not trying to trick them? At what point do the color blind say maybe I simply can not see what others see?

You haven't made your analogy any less false. Unless, of course, you've actually seen the Christian God himself.

Notice the italics. Don't go Godschild on my ass.

[fr0d0]

"proof of Christianity" = proof that the God of the bible exists, that the Jesus of the gospels i.e. the supernatural Jesus who died and rose exists, that the holy spirit exists, that angels and demons, that sin exists, that heaven and hell exists. something to "exist." How do you know whether something exists or not?

These questions don't address Christianity, because Christianity never addresses existence. Existence and it's proofs reside firmly in the physical, scientifically testable realm.

Do you mean to ask what reason is their to believe in the Christian God?

The only reason for belief is to achieve the best life possible.

If you were to be convinced that God existed, you would still be as far from Christianity as any atheist. "Satan knows that God exists".

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

The only reason for belief is to achieve the best life possible.

Pascal's Wager? Really?

[fr0d0]

No never. The deal is imminent, not a distant empty promise.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

No never. The deal is imminent, not a distant empty promise.

Must you always speak in riddles?

[Jackalope]

No never. The deal is imminent, not a distant empty promise.

Must you always speak in riddles?

You must be new here.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

fr0d0 do you have any sort of reason at all for believing in christianity that you think a person, if he/she were fully rational would find convincing? Can you express yourself in clear, specific, terms too?