Do Christians have faith in oxygen/air?

[SteveII]

You are confusing my reasons with formal arguments. Don't.

Thinking I am making formal arguments every time I talk about why I believe something is nonsense. You can't have a conversation about anything if everything has to be a formal argument. You should know by now I am more than happy to talk philosophy if asked.

Precisely.  Because "belief" is not rational.  It is deliberate irrationality.  Belief is anti-proof.  "I believe the Great Pumpkin exists and there is no way you can prove he doesn't!!!"

You have a definition problem. 

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. [The first line in the Wiki article on "Belief" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief]

[JackRussell]

Fuck mate, you are obsessed.

Your God doesn't talk to most of us and tortuous evidence that wouldn't convince my Gran is boring.

I know you really believe and that you think our disbelief is unreasonable.

If it was so reasonable everybody would believe.

Your god would know and why should it be so difficult.

[Brian37]

Fuck mate, you are obsessed.

Your God doesn't talk to most of us and tortuous evidence that wouldn't convince my Gran is boring.

I know you really believe and that you think our disbelief is unreasonable.

If it was so reasonable everybody would believe.

Your god would know and why should it be so difficult.

NO shit.

Poofs the entire universe into existence in a blink of an eye, BUT waits most of the 13.8 billion years to even create humans, then out of the 2 to 300 thousand years of our species existence waits until only 10k years ago to decide to have mortals write something for him. BUT even then, even in that 10,000 year existence of God talking to humans pits religion against religion, and even interpretation against interpretation while allowing for all the fighting and murder over the competing tribes.

I would not hire such a selective deadbeat to run a bicycle factory. The bicycles would end up with squids for spokes and the competing unions would murder each other over the competing assembly manuals.

If I had kids there is no way I would hire this deadbeat to baby sit my kids.

[SteveII]

...

I know you really believe and that you think our disbelief is unreasonable.

If it was so reasonable everybody would believe.

...

First, I never ever said/implied/thought that an atheist's disbelief is unreasonable. It is not. Stop making things up.

Second, if I used your same reasoning in the other direction: "it's reasonable because 2.3 billion people believe", what would you say?

[Silver]

Second, if I used your same reasoning in the other direction: "it's reasonable because 2.3 billion people believe", what would you say?

Argumentum Ad Populum, of course.

[possibletarian]

Define your threshold for likely to be false.

There exists a competing naturalistic theory that makes sense of the facts that indicates my belief could easily be wrong. 

That was not the point, you can make up numerous scenarios for culminate evidence pointing to a completely incorrect result, especially given the person has collected the data themselves to only point in one direction.

You don't have a cumulative case of anything if there are reasons and evidence not to think the belief is true--but you are simply ignoring them. Most arguments against Christianity are not rebuttal arguments--they are more along the lines of "well...you haven't proved it".  

Just because you have come to that conclusion, and because you believe that your particular god has properties (like most gods) that cannot be 'unproven' then it must be true.

I am very interested in your definition of 'likely to be false' what on earth does that even mean ?

Further to what I was just saying, my cumulative case would break down if evidence was presented that made it clear that any grouping of my beliefs are likely to be false--which is a lower threshold than simply false. 

A good example: I don't think the earth was created in a literal 6 days. Why? Because I think that the evidence (scientific, exegetical, historical, etc.) shows that that belief is likely to be false. I don't think that my list contains beliefs that can be undercut like this.

---

There exists a competing naturalistic theory that makes sense of the facts that indicates my belief could easily be wrong. 


You don't have a cumulative case of anything if there are reasons and evidence not to think the belief is true--but you are simply ignoring them. Most arguments against Christianity are not rebuttal arguments--they are more along the lines of "well...you haven't proved it".  


Further to what I was just saying, my cumulative case would break down if evidence was presented that made it clear that any grouping of my beliefs are likely to be false--which is a lower threshold than simply false. 

A good example: I don't think the earth was created in a literal 6 days. Why? Because I think that the evidence (scientific, exegetical, historical, etc.) shows that that belief is likely to be false. I don't think that my list contains beliefs that can be undercut like this.

What you seem to be saying Steve is that unless I can demonstrate what i don't believe you have provided evidence for to be false, then your default position wins. This is not how evidence usually works. Normally you make a claim, then provide sufficient evidence for that claim, it really is simple. You seem to be making a long winded god of the gaps argument with a bit of sparkle and noise to distract.

The difference here and the example above is that you have defined a god who cannot be evidenced in any empirical way,  in other words unfalsifiable (and therefore a faith statement) and then comparing it with falsifiable empirical evidence and presenting the two as comparable.

Effectively you are asking me to provide an empirical disclaimer to a non empirical unfalsifiable claim, then saying because I can't provide a naturalistic explanation that trumps your faith position, then faith wins.  I don't think I've ever seen such a confused presentation before.

As for the 'likely to be false' explanation, why not simply adopt a 'has met the burden of proof' it's much more positive, to adopt a 'not likely to be false' stance seems to open the doors to an extremely subjective low burden of proof.  Yes atheists do require proof, who wouldn't as with any claim if you can't provide any evidence or proof then expect people to be sceptical.

It's not as though we are trying to discover some nebulous strange scientific theory here, i did a quick search on majestic and descriptive names of your god there were over 1200, here's a few.

Lord of Hosts/Powers (Jehovah Sabaoth)
Lord our Maker
faithful God who does no wrong
A forgiving God
A fortress of salvation
A glorious crown
A jealous and avenging God
A Master in heaven A refuge for his people
A refuge for the needy in his distress
A refuge for the oppressed
A refuge for the poor
A sanctuary
A shade from the heat
A shelter from the storm
A source of strength
A stronghold in times of trouble
An ever present help in trouble
Architect and builder
Builder of everything
Commander of the Lord’s army
Creator of heaven and earth
Defender of widows
Eternal King
Father Father of compassion
Father of our spirits
Father of the heavenly lights
My helper
My hiding place
My hope
My light
My mighty rock
God who relents from sending calamity
God who sees (El-Roi)
Great and awesome God
Great and powerful God
Great, mighty, and awesome God
King of glory
King of heaven
Living and true God

And yet he seems to rely on shady sophistry from his followers in forums to prove his existence.. i mean really !!

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Fuck mate, you are obsessed.

Your God doesn't talk to most of us and tortuous evidence that wouldn't convince my Gran is boring.

I know you really believe and that you think our disbelief is unreasonable.

If it was so reasonable everybody would believe.

Your god would know and why should it be so difficult.

When will people get it through their thick skulls that the biblical God Yahweh is the God of the Hebrews?  He could give a shit about the Gentiles.  When he wasn't actively killing them he ignored them.

[SteveII]

Further to what I was just saying, my cumulative case would break down if evidence was presented that made it clear that any grouping of my beliefs are likely to be false--which is a lower threshold than simply false. 

A good example: I don't think the earth was created in a literal 6 days. Why? Because I think that the evidence (scientific, exegetical, historical, etc.) shows that that belief is likely to be false. I don't think that my list contains beliefs that can be undercut like this.

---

What you seem to be saying Steve is that unless I can demonstrate what i don't believe you have provided evidence for to be false, then your default position wins. This is not how evidence usually works. Normally you make a claim, then provide sufficient evidence for that claim, it really is simple. You seem to be making a long winded god of the gaps argument with a bit of sparkle and noise to distract.

Not at all. I will paste the original list since it has been several pages.

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.

I have evidence and argumentation to support all of these reasons I have for my belief in God. Because of this, I am saying my reason are, by definition, rational unless you can provide some evidence they are false. Not "God of the Gaps" in any way. 

The difference here and the example above is that you have defined a god who cannot be evidenced in any empirical way,  in other words unfalsifiable (and therefore a faith statement) and then comparing it with falsifiable empirical evidence and presenting the two as comparable.

First, there are many claims about God that can be falsified--for example, the whole Jesus/NT thing. Second, something that cannot be falsified is not necessarily "faith". There are many many things that are neither. Falsificationism just differentiates between a scientific/empirical statement and a non-scientific/empirical statement. Philosophy of Science itself is not falsifiable--but is absolutely required to do "science". So something like the statement that "God exists" itself might not be falsifiable, but the reasons that support that statement can be. And that would close the loop back to my list. 

Effectively you are asking me to provide an empirical disclaimer to a non empirical unfalsifiable claim, then saying because I can't provide a naturalistic explanation that trumps your faith position, then faith wins.  I don't think I've ever seen such a confused presentation before.

I think I already answered the falsificationism question, but regarding "then faith wins". I don't think so. The successful defense of my list would only get me to a rational belief --not a "win". I didn't conclusively prove anything. I don't think that atheism is irrational either--it's a reasonable position to hold.

As for the 'likely to be false' explanation, why not simply adopt a 'has met the burden of proof' it's much more positive, to adopt a 'not likely to be false' stance seems to open the doors to an extremely subjective low burden of proof.  Yes atheists do require proof, who wouldn't as with any claim if you can't provide any evidence or proof then expect people to be sceptical.

Not "likely to be false" is not the burden of proof standard for myself. I was merely pointing out that my reasons to believe don't have other explanations that I am ignoring to preserve a low-probability argument because it fits with the rest of the reasons. 
Christians do provide evidence and reasons. By definition, an atheist has not found any they have heard to be convincing. After you solve all the definition problems with 'evidence' and 'proof', all an atheist has the right to say is that there is no evidence or proof that is convincing to them. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest (or to struggle with definitions of words like 'evidence' and 'proof'. 
Good conversation, I'm enjoying it.

[drfuzzy]

Precisely.  Because "belief" is not rational.  It is deliberate irrationality.  Belief is anti-proof.  "I believe the Great Pumpkin exists and there is no way you can prove he doesn't!!!"

You have a definition problem. 

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. [The first line in the Wiki article on "Belief" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief]

"without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case"  
Thank you for the clarification.
And thank you for supporting my assertion.

Belief.  THINKS something to be the case without there being any empirical evidence.

[Edwardo Piet]

Am I mysterious, am I a cunt, or is that a false dichotomy?

Doesn't need eating but enjoys it.

If not I'll amuse myself and you'll think about it.

No? Try not thinking about it.