Do Christians have faith in oxygen/air?

[SteveII]

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.

...

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. 

What exactly do you mean by "proven"? It seems there are different kinds of proof.

* Scientific proof
* Historical proof
* Logical proofs (both deductive and inductive)
* Proof resulting from personal experience

There also also different thresholds of proof:

* Possible
* More likely than not (preponderance of the evidence)
* Beyond reasonable doubt
* Absolute certainty

These lists result in 16 different combinations alone (and I'm sure I missed some). Notice that my list would consist of different combinations of these. What combination(s) do you think is the minimum necessary for a basic belief to be reasonable? See, that's the crux of this whole debate: proof is demanded but atheists typically use the wrong combination of kind/threshold or move the goalpost just enough so they can claim--"see, no proof".

[Minimalist]

2. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus

Of course the main reason I consider you an idiot is because you profess to believe in such silly shit without any evidence at all.  I hope you are able to grasp that simple fact.

[SteveII]

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.

I can show that anything on my list is "supported by demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument, and/[OR] valid/sound logic" -- according to an appropriate application of kind/threshold of proof mentioned in my post just above.

[RoadRunner79]

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".

I was first going to point out, that while ignoring your actual points,  he is interjecting an argument of his, that you are not making; which he then proceeds to tear down.   But then I realized that this would be pointless, because with this poster, he most likely wouldn't have addressed my points either, but would have gone off on another unrelated diatribe.

I am attempting to respond less to these types of posters, but couldn't resist myself here.

I would agree with your assessment,  this subject, it seems hard to get some past a very simple black/white thinking (which is as you said counterproductive to their cause).  I think that it is cognitive dissonance, that prevents them from having a rational discussion about the issue.  The other thing, I don't think many realize; is that if they show that, they are willing to lie to win an argument, it doesn't help them.  This is because in order to win the argument, they have to admit that they where lying, and then there is good reason, to not believe them in the future.

[possibletarian]

*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. 

What exactly do you mean by "proven"? It seems there are different kinds of proof.

* Scientific proof
* Historical proof
* Logical proofs (both deductive and inductive)
* Proof resulting from personal experience

There also also different thresholds of proof:

* Possible
* More likely than not (preponderance of the evidence)
* Beyond reasonable doubt
* Absolute certainty

These lists result in 16 different combinations alone (and I'm sure I missed some). Notice that my list would consist of different combinations of these. What combination(s) do you think is the minimum necessary for a basic belief to be reasonable? See, that's the crux of this whole debate: proof is demanded but atheists typically use the wrong combination of kind/threshold or move the goalpost just enough so they can claim--"see, no proof".

Okey dokey lets go through them one by one then, and lets satisfy ourselves that we have reached a point where any of your claims is true, in regards to it being accumulative evidence.

1. Person of Jesus is compelling.

Why do you find this evidence, or proof ?

---

I can show that anything on my list is "supported by demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument, and/[OR] valid/sound logic" -- according to an appropriate application of kind/threshold of proof mentioned in my post just above.

Sound logic to whom ?

[KevinM1]

2. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus

Of course the main reason I consider you an idiot is because you profess to believe in such silly shit without any evidence at all.  I hope you are able to grasp that simple fact.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Steve would fail freshman philosophy. And I'm not saying that to be snarky, or as a joke. His entire framework of belief is simply a lattice of various fallacies. And it's exasperating that he's unable or unwilling to see it. I mean, from the above:

Jesus is compelling - that's a personal assessment and non sequitur. Some people find the life of Kim Kardashian compelling. So what?
The NT describes actual events - except, there's no proof of miracles or magic, and the claims of such things don't somehow make them true.
God works in people's lives today, changing people + miracles - again, no proof of miracles happening, and what does 'changing people' even mean? And can it only happen through Christ? (hint: no, people can change - for good or bad - for a variety of reasons)

The rest of it is simply begging the question nonsense. There's no reason to believe that morality is objective, or that the universe is fine tuned. There's no way to claim that the Christian god is the best answer for any of it.

It's amateurish at best. A lot of fluff and jazz hands to distract from the fact that none of what he writes is even remotely intellectually sound. It's not a series of reinforcing arguments, but rather a scattershot collection of post hoc justifications to justify already existing belief.

[Brian37]

SteveII doesn't like us pointing out that there is no such thing as magic babies or magic men with super powers.

[SteveII]

What exactly do you mean by "proven"? It seems there are different kinds of proof.

* Scientific proof
* Historical proof
* Logical proofs (both deductive and inductive)
* Proof resulting from personal experience

There also also different thresholds of proof:

* Possible
* More likely than not (preponderance of the evidence)
* Beyond reasonable doubt
* Absolute certainty

These lists result in 16 different combinations alone (and I'm sure I missed some). Notice that my list would consist of different combinations of these. What combination(s) do you think is the minimum necessary for a basic belief to be reasonable? See, that's the crux of this whole debate: proof is demanded but atheists typically use the wrong combination of kind/threshold or move the goalpost just enough so they can claim--"see, no proof".

Okey dokey lets go through them one by one then, and lets satisfy ourselves that we have reached a point where any of your claims is true, in regards to it being accumulative evidence.

1. Person of Jesus is compelling.

Why do you find this evidence, or proof ?

---

I can show that anything on my list is "supported by demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument, and/[OR] valid/sound logic" -- according to an appropriate application of kind/threshold of proof mentioned in my post just above.

Sound logic to whom ?

I don't mind talking about high-level concepts on someone else's thread, but I'm not going to hijack this thread with a NT argument, sorry. Feel free to start a new thread.

---

Of course the main reason I consider you an idiot is because you profess to believe in such silly shit without any evidence at all.  I hope you are able to grasp that simple fact.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Steve would fail freshman philosophy.  And I'm not saying that to be snarky, or as a joke.  His entire framework of belief is simply a lattice of various fallacies.  And it's exasperating that he's unable or unwilling to see it.  I mean, from the above:

Jesus is compelling - that's a personal assessment and non sequitur.  Some people find the life of Kim Kardashian compelling.  So what?
The NT describes actual events - except, there's no proof of miracles or magic, and the claims of such things don't somehow make them true.
God works in people's lives today, changing people + miracles - again, no proof of miracles happening, and what does 'changing people' even mean?  And can it only happen through Christ? (hint: no, people can change - for good or bad - for a variety of reasons)

The rest of it is simply begging the question nonsense.  There's no reason to believe that morality is objective, or that the universe is fine tuned.  There's no way to claim that the Christian god is the best answer for any of it.

It's amateurish at best.  A lot of fluff and jazz hands to distract from the fact that none of what he writes is even remotely intellectually sound.  It's not a series of reinforcing arguments, but rather a scattershot collection of post hoc justifications to justify already existing belief.

Where did you get that any of this are my arguments? I said nothing of the kind. When I posted the list, I even said "These are NOT the arguments..." {emphasis in the original}. 

I have defended every one of these at various times here and am willing to do it again. I'm not hijacking this thread. Start a new one.

[KevinM1]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Steve would fail freshman philosophy.  And I'm not saying that to be snarky, or as a joke.  His entire framework of belief is simply a lattice of various fallacies.  And it's exasperating that he's unable or unwilling to see it.  I mean, from the above:

Jesus is compelling - that's a personal assessment and non sequitur.  Some people find the life of Kim Kardashian compelling.  So what?
The NT describes actual events - except, there's no proof of miracles or magic, and the claims of such things don't somehow make them true.
God works in people's lives today, changing people + miracles - again, no proof of miracles happening, and what does 'changing people' even mean?  And can it only happen through Christ? (hint: no, people can change - for good or bad - for a variety of reasons)

The rest of it is simply begging the question nonsense.  There's no reason to believe that morality is objective, or that the universe is fine tuned.  There's no way to claim that the Christian god is the best answer for any of it.

It's amateurish at best.  A lot of fluff and jazz hands to distract from the fact that none of what he writes is even remotely intellectually sound.  It's not a series of reinforcing arguments, but rather a scattershot collection of post hoc justifications to justify already existing belief.

Where did you get that any of this are my arguments? I said nothing of the kind. When I posted the list, I even said "These are NOT the arguments..." {emphasis in the original}. 

I have defended every one of these at various times here and am willing to do it again. I'm not hijacking this thread. Start a new one.

Steve, you said:

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

And then went down the line, which I rebutted above.  You then said:

Well, it is your (possibletarian's) 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).

Which is ridiculous.  Cumulative fallacies - which are the end points of bad arguments - and non sequiturs do not add up to rationality.

I am wholly unimpressed. And I certainly don't need you to go back down the "popularity = veracity" rabbit hole yet again.

[John V]

Okay, so now I'd distanced myself from the church for a few months now.

Three months ago, my partner asked me if I had faith in the air we breath.

Of course my answer was no, because it is obviously and irrefutably there.

You could guess what that person asked next! 

Next question was: "So why do you have faith in God?"

Thinking about that question for several weeks now, and I'm having a strange feeling. 

Am I overthinking because I can't think of a strong answer? What am I missing?

Yes, you're overthinking. You don't have faith in air because you can feel the wind in your face. You don't apprehend God directly through any of the senses.

As Hebrews puts it:

Hebrews 11
1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.