Do Christians have faith in oxygen/air?

[Mister Agenda]

I do not find that a series of unconvincing assertions becomes a convincing argument through accumulation. A series of justified probabilistic inferences can support a conclusion, but you don't seem to be presenting that kind of case (like five causally unconnected things reasonably supported to be over 50% likely that all point to the same conclusion, which conclusion can be inferred to be, say, 75% likely to be true based on the fact that multiple lines of evidence show that it is more probable than not).

[Brian37]

A Christian might more cogently say that God is like the wind in that you can't see the wind, but you can feel it. Many claim that experiencing this feeling is how they know God is real.

Of course I'm an atheist and would point out that those Christians who take that tack are putting more weight on a feeling than it can support.

That's why I constantly say it's a cumulative case. I have posted this before:

People come to the place where they are willing to believe in God/supernatural for all kinds of reasons. Most are wired with something. Some are raised that way, some have events happen in their life (bad and good things), some encounter people who's testimony is compelling, and some read and find the person/message of Christ compelling (or a combination of any of these or something else I haven't thought of).

Why is it not pure faith? Well there are good rational reasons to believe: 

1. Person of Jesus is compelling.
2. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus
3. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.
4. The natural theology arguments: 
  a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
  b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
  c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
  d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
  e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

These are NOT the arguments, they are the conclusions of a series of arguments.

IMPORTANT: it is the cumulative case for Christianity that is rational. Atheists like to pick a component and claim--that's not convincing enough...so therefore your belief is irrational. That is simplistic and disingenuous.

Bullcrap.

Your pet deity claim is as much a naked assertion and gap answer as Allah and Yahweh and Brhama. 

That is not a neutral argument, it is an apology. It is a sales pitch.

[drfuzzy]

A Christian might more cogently say that God is like the wind in that you can't see the wind, but you can feel it. Many claim that experiencing this feeling is how they know God is real.

Of course I'm an atheist and would point out that those Christians who take that tack are putting more weight on a feeling than it can support.

That's why I constantly say it's a cumulative case. I have posted this before:

People come to the place where they are willing to believe in God/supernatural for all kinds of reasons. Most are wired with something. Some are raised that way, some have events happen in their life (bad and good things), some encounter people who's testimony is compelling, and some read and find the person/message of Christ compelling (or a combination of any of these or something else I haven't thought of).

Why is it not pure faith? Well there are good rational reasons to believe: 

1. Person of Jesus is compelling.   The person of Batman is much more compelling.
2. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus    Not true.  And Hogwarts is real because we know Harry Potter went there.
3. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.  Not a single "miracle" has been conclusively proved to date.
4. The natural theology arguments: 
  a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.    Zeus is the best explanation why anything at all exists.    
  b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.    Ahura-Mazda is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
  c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.   Brama is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.  
  d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.   Mithra is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness. 
  e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.   Odin is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.  (Actually it's evolution . . . )

These are NOT the arguments, they are the conclusions of a series of arguments.

IMPORTANT: it is the cumulative case for Christianity that is rational. Atheists like to pick a component and claim--that's not convincing enough...so therefore your belief is irrational. That is simplistic and disingenuous.   Christianity is definitely not rational.  Even Paul said so in multiple verses.  Best known: 1 Corinthians 1:18

May the FSM have mercy on your non-existent little soul.

[SteveII]

I do not find that a series of unconvincing assertions becomes a convincing argument through accumulation. A series of justified probabilistic inferences can support a conclusion, but you don't seem to be presenting that kind of case (like five causally unconnected things reasonably supported to be over 50% likely that all point to the same conclusion, which conclusion can be inferred to be, say, 75% likely to be true based on the fact that multiple lines of evidence show that it is more probable than not).

Well, it is your opinion that many or all of my list of reasons are unconvincing to you. None can be shown to be false (or even more likely to be false) so they are all rational beliefs. If one surveys a series of rational reasons for belief that, in their opinion, range from makes-sense to more-likely-than-not to compelling, then one has a cumulative case that increases the probability of their belief (in this case, belief in God). 

For example, say I tell my daughter than an old army buddy is coming this afternoon for a visit (she has a belief). If a man strange man walks up the drive after lunch, is there more reasons to believe my statement? What about if the man looked to be about my age? What if he had on an army jacket or hat? What if he had all those things and flowers (for my wife)? The original belief can be strengthened by more facts that are not themselves conclusive but fit the framework. Cumulative.

[Brian37]

I do not find that a series of unconvincing assertions becomes a convincing argument through accumulation. A series of justified probabilistic inferences can support a conclusion, but you don't seem to be presenting that kind of case (like five causally unconnected things reasonably supported to be over 50% likely that all point to the same conclusion, which conclusion can be inferred to be, say, 75% likely to be true based on the fact that multiple lines of evidence show that it is more probable than not).

Well, it is your opinion that many or all of my list of reasons are unconvincing to you. None can be shown to be false (or even more likely to be false) so they are all rational beliefs. If one surveys a series of rational reasons for belief that, in their opinion, range from makes-sense to more-likely-than-not to compelling, then one has a cumulative case that increases the probability of their belief (in this case, belief in God). 

For example, say I tell my daughter than an old army buddy is coming this afternoon for a visit (she has a belief). If a man strange man walks up the drive after lunch, is there more reasons to believe my statement? What about if the man looked to be about my age? What if he had on an army jacket or hat? What if he had all those things and flowers (for my wife)? The original belief can be strengthened by more facts that are not themselves conclusive but fit the framework. Cumulative.

If I say Angelina Jolie is giving me a hummer as you read this, it has to be true by default. 

THAT is what your logic sounds like to the sane.

[RoadRunner79]

Well, it is your opinion that many or all of my list of reasons are unconvincing to you. None can be shown to be false (or even more likely to be false) so they are all rational beliefs. If one surveys a series of rational reasons for belief that, in their opinion, range from makes-sense to more-likely-than-not to compelling, then one has a cumulative case that increases the probability of their belief (in this case, belief in God). 

For example, say I tell my daughter than an old army buddy is coming this afternoon for a visit (she has a belief). If a man strange man walks up the drive after lunch, is there more reasons to believe my statement? What about if the man looked to be about my age? What if he had on an army jacket or hat? What if he had all those things and flowers (for my wife)? The original belief can be strengthened by more facts that are not themselves conclusive but fit the framework. Cumulative.

If I say Angelina Jolie is giving me a hummer as you read this, it has to be true by default. 

THAT is what your logic sounds like to the sane.

Are you saying; that I should assume everything from you is B.S. by default...... Done!!!

[SteveII]

If I say Angelina Jolie is giving me a hummer as you read this, it has to be true by default. 

THAT is what your logic sounds like to the sane.

Are you saying; that I should assume everything from you is B.S. by default...... Done!!!

I wonder if he has connected it in his head that his angry atheists disjointed thoughts are counterproductive to his cause in a thread where a believer is questioning her faith. I'm going to go with "no".

[possibletarian]

I do not find that a series of unconvincing assertions becomes a convincing argument through accumulation. A series of justified probabilistic inferences can support a conclusion, but you don't seem to be presenting that kind of case (like five causally unconnected things reasonably supported to be over 50% likely that all point to the same conclusion, which conclusion can be inferred to be, say, 75% likely to be true based on the fact that multiple lines of evidence show that it is more probable than not).

Well, it is your opinion that many or all of my list of reasons are unconvincing to you. None can be shown to be false (or even more likely to be false) so they are all rational beliefs. If one surveys a series of rational reasons for belief that, in their opinion, range from makes-sense to more-likely-than-not to compelling, then one has a cumulative case that increases the probability of their belief (in this case, belief in God). 

For example, say I tell my daughter than an old army buddy is coming this afternoon for a visit (she has a belief). If a man strange man walks up the drive after lunch, is there more reasons to believe my statement? What about if the man looked to be about my age? What if he had on an army jacket or hat? What if he had all those things and flowers (for my wife)? The original belief can be strengthened by more facts that are not themselves conclusive but fit the framework. Cumulative.

*Bold mine

The thing is it's your opinion that these claims are true, and are conclusions  of arguments that by your own admission none of which are provable fact'


Surely you would agree that claims have to be proven to be true, I could claim there is an invisible yellow jelly baby who rules the moon, and if you only you had faith you too would believe, and as you cannot prove it not to be untrue then can I claim it rational ?  I find it amazing that Christianity is relying more and more on ''you can't prove it's not true'' type of defence.

As for your second example to compare it would be more like you saying you had an old army buddy coming round, then in the afternoon you say ''oh i hear the doorbell' when no one else did. You then go to the door open and invite your friend in (who no one else can see, hear, smell or touch)  and then carry on a conversation with an seemingly empty chair.   And then claim ''see all the facts cumulate''.

The more I chat with Christians here it seems the weaker and weaker the arguments get.

[Simon Moon]

I do not find that a series of unconvincing assertions becomes a convincing argument through accumulation. A series of justified probabilistic inferences can support a conclusion, but you don't seem to be presenting that kind of case (like five causally unconnected things reasonably supported to be over 50% likely that all point to the same conclusion, which conclusion can be inferred to be, say, 75% likely to be true based on the fact that multiple lines of evidence show that it is more probable than not).

Well, it is your opinion that many or all of my list of reasons are unconvincing to you. None can be shown to be false (or even more likely to be false) so they are all rational beliefs. If one surveys a series of rational reasons for belief that, in their opinion, range from makes-sense to more-likely-than-not to compelling, then one has a cumulative case that increases the probability of their belief (in this case, belief in God). 

For example, say I tell my daughter than an old army buddy is coming this afternoon for a visit (she has a belief). If a man strange man walks up the drive after lunch, is there more reasons to believe my statement? What about if the man looked to be about my age? What if he had on an army jacket or hat? What if he had all those things and flowers (for my wife)? The original belief can be strengthened by more facts that are not themselves conclusive but fit the framework. Cumulative.

Bold mine.

That is not how beliefs are deemed to be rational. Beliefs are determined to be rational if they are supported by demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid/sound logic.

Not if they can't be shown to be false.

If that is your method you use in order to believe your beliefs are rational, then I can list an endless amount of claims that can not be proven to be false, that I am sure you don't believe.

[Minimalist]

Perhaps xtians should stop breathing.  That would solve many problems.