Do Christians have faith in oxygen/air?

[possibletarian]

[quote='possibletarian' pid='1675815' dateline='1513896303']

---

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. 

No most of them are faith positions Steve, and I believe that you know that, you presume way too much with your statements. If they were provable the argument about the presence of a god would be long over, instead it seems to be going the other way in academic and scientific circles.

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.

Of course the claims of the NT are unfalsifiable, they are supernatural claims and by nature unfalsifiable, but Christianity is not alone here there are other religious characters like Mohamed, Joseph Smith who claim miracles and special revelation. Do you for instance believe that Mohamed went to heaven on a winged horse, or that he spilt the moon in two, or that Joseph Smith was given special revelation from an angel, of course not. They are outrageous claims that have no evidence and are not possible in the universe as we understand it, just like the NT.

But just like you many Muslims and Mormons believe these things happened and will put your refusal of them to a lack of belief on your part, or claim that you require too much evidence, or not listening to the evidence they present (which i suspect like me you will find oddly unconvincing) It's basically your claims about atheists, you do exactly the same.

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.

That's the problem, Christians claim to be sure of their faith but don't admit it's faith and often when cornered on a particular subject they go from rational argument to scripture and claim that 'it's not meant to be rational' or 'gods ways are not our ways' or perhaps 'foolishness to the Greek' and unless you can prove what I believe is false then i will carry on believing it. The problem with that is it could cover literally any supernatural belief.

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.

Reasons and evidence really are two different things, I for one don't doubt you believe your reasons any more than I doubt you are genuine in your faith.

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.

Firstly I'm glad you are enjoying it, that's what discussions are for.

To say that by definition atheists don't find the evidence convincing is right, but when you make an incredible claim about an incredibly powerful, loving and interactive god who wants all men to be saved and his name and grace to be spread to the world. and then your evidence for this mighty being is simply a few sentences of sophistry and a bold claim, you can perhaps see why people shake their heads.

Of course if the excuse is simply that you feel as if you have present enough evidence, and it's reasoned then I invite you to go test your claims at a university or scientific institution. But of course when your counter claim is that 'by definition you wont believe' then it matters not how little evidence , or even none, you can still walk away with your head held high.

But that clearly is faith.

And i will cut and paste my list:


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, seems oddly elusive incapable of being the god he's defined to be.

[SteveII]

You have a definition problem. 

"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.

Along with a definition problem, you have a reading comprehension problem. Sometimes all the words in a sentence are important. 

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. 

[Brian37]

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.

I think you meant "Argumentum Ad Barfum"

[Brian37]

...

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?

What a load of bullshit.

If I find someone's position reasonable, but MORE IMPORTANTLY factual, it would make sense to adapt that position.

You DO think we are not reasonable or using facts otherwise you would not hold the position that a God exists.

If I thought you were reasonable and factual I would hold your position.

You have a claim, and that is all you have. If you had more than mere arguments from tradition, and your own wishful thinking, you'd have something you could take to the patent office and win a Nobel prize in science.

WE do get the appeal as to why you like it. It sounds great on the surface that you have a cosmic super hero looking out for you. We also get the appeal to the idea that you will out survive your own death. WE DO, and that is because most of us used to buy that crap.

The problem you have, that Muslims and Jews and Hindus and even Buddhists have is the age of the universe and the fact most of the time we as a species have not been in it. Seems like a ton of waste to do all that if one species on one speck in all this was supposed to be the focus.

YOU DO find it reasonable to believe in your God, otherwise why argue it? You do find us unreasonable otherwise why argue against us?

[SteveII]

---

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. 

No most of them are faith positions Steve, and I believe that you know that, you presume way too much with your statements. If they were provable the argument about the presence of a god would be long over, instead it seems to be going the other way in academic and scientific circles.

No, none of these are "faith positions". They are reasons that I can defend with pages and pages of information and arguments. I never said this was a provable list (at least to the standard of proof where everyone who heard the whole argument behind the reason would have no choice but to believe). We have been going on of a couple of pages now discussing that my list is rational because I can defend it and there are no facts that contradict it. I have been very clear that I don't have proof. Please understand this point. 

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.

Of course the claims of the NT are unfalsifiable, they are supernatural claims and by nature unfalsifiable, but Christianity is not alone here there are other religious characters like Mohamed, Joseph Smith  who claim miracles and special revelation. Do you for instance believe that Mohamed went to heaven on a winged horse, or that he spilt the moon in two, or that Joseph Smith was given special revelation from an angel, of course not.  They are outrageous claims that have no evidence and are not possible in the universe as we understand it, just like the NT.

No again. The NT consists of a series of claims that happened in the physical world. Rebuttal witnesses would be the simplest way to prove the claims are false. Therefore the series of claims contained in the NT are very much falsifiable. What is not falsifiable is the existence of the supernatural--when it interacts with the natural world, those interaction are certainly falsifiable. 

The NT and the claims of Mohammed and Joe Smith have nearly no similarities. One catalogs public events and witnessed by thousands over decades while the other two are events that happened to one person with no physical evidence. 

But just like you many Muslims and Mormons believe these things happened and will put your refusal of them to a lack of belief on your part, or claim that you require too much evidence, or not listening to the evidence they present (which i suspect like me you will find oddly unconvincing) It's basically your claims about atheists, you do exactly the same.

Like I said, the body of evidence for the Jesus' claims is not even comparable to the evidence of what went on on one man's head. 

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.

That's the problem, Christians claim to be sure of their faith but don't admit it's faith and  often when cornered on a particular subject they go from rational argument to scripture and claim that 'it's not meant to be rational' or 'gods ways are not our ways' or perhaps 'foolishness to the Greek' and unless you can prove what I believe  is false then i will carry on believing it. The problem with that is it could cover literally any supernatural belief.

It could, but that is not what I have done at all. My faith is backed by evidence and reasoning. My list does not include any "just because" or "well, it's in the Bible" or even what keeps coming up: "I have no good reasons, but you can't prove otherwise". 

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.

Reasons and evidence really are two different things, I for one don't doubt you believe your reasons any more than I doubt you are genuine in your faith.
 

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.

Firstly I'm glad you are enjoying it, that's what discussions are for.

To say that by definition atheists don't find the evidence convincing is right, but when you make an incredible claim about an incredibly powerful, loving and interactive god who wants all men to be saved and his name and grace to be spread to the world.  and then your evidence for this mighty being is simply a few sentences of sophistry and a bold claim, you can perhaps see why people shake their heads. 

Well, that and the chronicled three years of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. 

Of course if the excuse is simply that you feel as if you have present enough evidence, and it's reasoned then I invite you to go test your claims at a university or scientific institution. But of course when your counter claim is that 'by definition you wont believe' then it matters not how little evidence , or even none, you can still walk away with your head held high.

But that clearly is faith.

I have heard every professional argument any atheist has ever made against Christianity and the rebuttal arguments.  You overestimate the atheist position and/or underestimate the Christian one. There are Christians in every field of study and in every endeavor of science--their beliefs are not a problem. You seem to want to make this a matter of "faith" without evidence/reasons. That is not what Christianity is. You may have encountered many that couldn't defend it and fell back on "faith", but that just means they were ill-equipped.

[possibletarian]

No again. The NT consists of a series of claims that happened in the physical world. Rebuttal witnesses would be the simplest way to prove the claims are false. Therefore the series of claims contained in the NT are very much falsifiable. What is not falsifiable is the existence of the supernatural--when it interacts with the natural world, those interaction are certainly falsifiable. 

The NT and the claims of Mohammed and Joe Smith have nearly no similarities. One catalogs public events and witnessed by thousands over decades while the other two are events that happened to one person with no physical evidence. 

Nonsense, Of course they are not similar they were different events, but just as unbelievable in the claims of supernatural intervention.  Without that supernatural intervention (which you admit is not falsifiable)  your stories really amount to nothing

Like I said, the body of evidence for the Jesus' claims is not even comparable to the evidence of what went on on one man's head.

 

That's just the point of the NT, we really don't know where the stories originated, we are even unclear as to who wrote the gospels for instance, and were written long after, they may very well have originally come from one persons head and spread from there.  Given the rather fickle unknown nature of these witnesses they can hardly be counted as evidence for supernatural claims at all.  And again without evidence of the supernatural claims that many religions make why should we believe them ?

There are eight witnesses to Joseph Smiths so called golden plates, and the three witnesses who claimed they had heard gods voice instructing Joseph Smith, what's more we know who these people are, even what they looked like.  They were of course frauds there is no reason to believe them any more than NT writers.

It could, but that is not what I have done at all. My faith is backed by evidence and reasoning. My list does not include any "just because" or "well, it's in the Bible" or even what keeps coming up: "I have no good reasons, but you can't prove otherwise". 

Well that's just the point, you have reasons but no evidence you have already stated that the supernatural cannot be falsified, so basically unless you can provide strong evidence for the supernatural elements of what you believe, then you reasons come to nothing.

Well, that and the chronicled three years of Jesus' life, death and resurrection.

Yes a fantastic claim, of a fantastic god, which seem to be lacking any evidence.
If there was indeed evidence then this debate between religions would long be over.

I have heard every professional argument any atheist has ever made against Christianity and the rebuttal arguments.  You overestimate the atheist position and/or underestimate the Christian one. There are Christians in every field of study and in every endeavour of science--their beliefs are not a problem.

I don't really estimate the value of either position, I simply ask you for evidence, you cannot overestimate a lack of belief, that's just silly

And? if they do good science, why would their faith be a problem.?

You seem to want to make this a matter of "faith" without evidence/reasons. That is not what Christianity is. You may have encountered many that couldn't defend it and fell back on "faith", but that just means they were ill-equipped.

The Muslim apologetic and The Jew, would say exactly the same as you.
You talk as though you present a good argument, all you have to do is convince someone who lacks belief you don't even have to unconvinced them of anything to start with.  The god describe below should have heaps of compelling evidence.. yet as always  the world carries on as if none of those attributes are true.

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

[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.

About the only people who really believe are a few deluded ones.  Everyone else goes along with the main fairy tale of the region in order to get along.  

Think about this:  In the Bible all of the local yokels supposedly saw Moses' miracles firsthand and the power of Yeshua.  But within five minutes they had tossed all of that into the garbage can and wanted to exercise freedom of religion.  So what did Moses do? He immediately killed thousands because they didn't believe in his fairy tale deity whose power they had just seen.  Doesn't that show that all deities are imaginary?  And how many people believed in Yeshua's miracles?  He condemned whole towns to hell fire because no one believed any of it.  So if the people who were there didn't buy it how deluded does a person have to be to believe it thousands of years after it supposedly happened?

[Nay_Sayer]

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?

You're missing the one true god, Obviously. Then you have a strong response.

[Brian37]

No, none of these are "faith positions". They are reasons that I can defend with pages and pages of information and arguments. I never said this was a provable list (at least to the standard of proof where everyone who heard the whole argument behind the reason would have no choice but to believe). We have been going on of a couple of pages now discussing that my list is rational because I can defend it and there are no facts that contradict it. I have been very clear that I don't have proof. Please understand this point. 

Of course the claims of the NT are unfalsifiable, they are supernatural claims and by nature unfalsifiable, but Christianity is not alone here there are other religious characters like Mohamed, Joseph Smith  who claim miracles and special revelation. Do you for instance believe that Mohamed went to heaven on a winged horse, or that he spilt the moon in two, or that Joseph Smith was given special revelation from an angel, of course not.  They are outrageous claims that have no evidence and are not possible in the universe as we understand it, just like the NT.

No again. The NT consists of a series of claims that happened in the physical world. Rebuttal witnesses would be the simplest way to prove the claims are false. Therefore the series of claims contained in the NT are very much falsifiable. What is not falsifiable is the existence of the supernatural--when it interacts with the natural world, those interaction are certainly falsifiable. 

The NT and the claims of Mohammed and Joe Smith have nearly no similarities. One catalogs public events and witnessed by thousands over decades while the other two are events that happened to one person with no physical evidence. 

But just like you many Muslims and Mormons believe these things happened and will put your refusal of them to a lack of belief on your part, or claim that you require too much evidence, or not listening to the evidence they present (which i suspect like me you will find oddly unconvincing) It's basically your claims about atheists, you do exactly the same.

Like I said, the body of evidence for the Jesus' claims is not even comparable to the evidence of what went on on one man's head. 

That's the problem, Christians claim to be sure of their faith but don't admit it's faith and  often when cornered on a particular subject they go from rational argument to scripture and claim that 'it's not meant to be rational' or 'gods ways are not our ways' or perhaps 'foolishness to the Greek' and unless you can prove what I believe  is false then i will carry on believing it. The problem with that is it could cover literally any supernatural belief.

It could, but that is not what I have done at all. My faith is backed by evidence and reasoning. My list does not include any "just because" or "well, it's in the Bible" or even what keeps coming up: "I have no good reasons, but you can't prove otherwise". 

Reasons and evidence really are two different things, I for one don't doubt you believe your reasons any more than I doubt you are genuine in your faith.
 

Firstly I'm glad you are enjoying it, that's what discussions are for.

To say that by definition atheists don't find the evidence convincing is right, but when you make an incredible claim about an incredibly powerful, loving and interactive god who wants all men to be saved and his name and grace to be spread to the world.  and then your evidence for this mighty being is simply a few sentences of sophistry and a bold claim, you can perhaps see why people shake their heads. 

Well, that and the chronicled three years of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. 

Of course if the excuse is simply that you feel as if you have present enough evidence, and it's reasoned then I invite you to go test your claims at a university or scientific institution. But of course when your counter claim is that 'by definition you wont believe' then it matters not how little evidence , or even none, you can still walk away with your head held high.

But that clearly is faith.

I have heard every professional argument any atheist has ever made against Christianity and the rebuttal arguments.  You overestimate the atheist position and/or underestimate the Christian one. There are Christians in every field of study and in every endeavor of science--their beliefs are not a problem. You seem to want to make this a matter of "faith" without evidence/reasons. That is not what Christianity is. You may have encountered many that couldn't defend it and fell back on "faith", but that just means they were ill-equipped.

Heard? Maybe. Ignore out of narcissism and wishful thinking and circular reasoning, absolutely certainly.

13.8 billion year old universe, 4 billion year old planet in a universe with almost 2 trillion galaxies with hundreds of billions of suns each, and "all this" was put here for humans. Yea, ok. 

Hindus and Jews and Muslims and Buddhists ALSO think they got the right clubs too.

[SteveII]

No again. The NT consists of a series of claims that happened in the physical world. Rebuttal witnesses would be the simplest way to prove the claims are false. Therefore the series of claims contained in the NT are very much falsifiable. What is not falsifiable is the existence of the supernatural--when it interacts with the natural world, those interaction are certainly falsifiable. 

The NT and the claims of Mohammed and Joe Smith have nearly no similarities. One catalogs public events and witnessed by thousands over decades while the other two are events that happened to one person with no physical evidence. 

Nonsense, Of course they are not similar they were different events, but just as unbelievable in the claims of supernatural intervention.  Without that supernatural intervention (which you admit is not falsifiable)  your stories really amount to nothing

Not at all. In fact, the only way to verify the supernatural is interaction with the natural. The more people that see it the more likely the interaction. The more interaction over a period (especially a period with some context--like the NT), the likelihood increases exponentially (probabilities and all). What is not falsifiable is an entirely personal experience (Mohammed/Joe Smith). 

Like I said, the body of evidence for the Jesus' claims is not even comparable to the evidence of what went on on one man's head.

 
That's just the point of the NT, we really don't know where the stories originated, we are even unclear as to who wrote the gospels for instance, and were written long after, they may very well have originally come from one persons head and spread from there.  Given the rather fickle unknown nature of these witnesses they can hardly be counted as evidence for supernatural claims at all.  And again without evidence of the supernatural claims that many religions make why should we believe them ?

Yes we do know. The NT is the most examined series of documents in all of history--by many orders of magnitude. You are latching on to fringe theories to support your point. 

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)

There are eight witnesses to Joseph Smiths so called golden plates, and the three witnesses who claimed they had heard gods voice instructing Joseph Smith, what's more we know who these people are, even what they looked like.  They were of course frauds there is no reason to believe them any more than NT writers.

My understanding was that Joe was forbidden to show anyone the plates--and never did. 

It could, but that is not what I have done at all. My faith is backed by evidence and reasoning. My list does not include any "just because" or "well, it's in the Bible" or even what keeps coming up: "I have no good reasons, but you can't prove otherwise". 

Well that's just the point, you have reasons but no evidence you have already stated that the supernatural cannot be falsified, so basically unless you can provide strong evidence for the supernatural elements of what you believe, then you reasons come to nothing.

See a through k above for my evidentiary framework of the NT. 

Well, that and the chronicled three years of Jesus' life, death and resurrection.

Yes a fantastic claim, of a fantastic god, which seem to be lacking any evidence.
If there was indeed evidence then this debate between religions would long be over.

Seems to be question begging: miracles don't happen, the NT can't be evidence of miracles, see...miracles don't happen. 

I have heard every professional argument any atheist has ever made against Christianity and the rebuttal arguments.  You overestimate the atheist position and/or underestimate the Christian one. There are Christians in every field of study and in every endeavour of science--their beliefs are not a problem.

I don't really estimate the value of either position, I simply ask you for evidence, you cannot overestimate a lack of belief, that's just silly

And? if they do good science, why would their faith be a problem.?

To deny that the NT is not evidence is just special pleading on a grand scale. The events of the NT are the most written about (from the actual period) and therefore the most evidenced ancient events in all of history. In addition, we have an unbroken series of writings from the first century all the way to present day to trace the beliefs and reinforce the original claims. 

You seem to want to make this a matter of "faith" without evidence/reasons. That is not what Christianity is. You may have encountered many that couldn't defend it and fell back on "faith", but that just means they were ill-equipped.

The Muslim apologetic and The Jew, would say exactly the same as you.
You talk as though you present a good argument, all you have to do is convince someone who lacks belief you don't even have to unconvinced them of anything to start with.  The god describe below should have heaps of compelling evidence.. yet as always  the world carries on as if none of those attributes are true.

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

Your point of showing this list over and over is very weak. If the evidence of the NT satisfies a person's personal threshold--then it follows logically that the God of the OT is real. In other words, the evidence for your list is the NT.