Why does science always upstage God?

[Soberman921]

Again, without something definitive showing me that the gospels cannot be true, I have no reason to doubt what they say is true.

So here is where I would take issue with your approach because that's not the way historians approach ancient literature generally and I doubt the way you approach the scripture of other religions such as Islam. Historians don't take ancient works at face value until shown incontrovertible proof of falsity or as an all or nothing proposition. They look at many indicia of reliability and approach each claim individually. Many accounts of Roman emperors include clearly fantastical elements. Historians can tentatively accept some of these claims but, applying the principle of analogy, reject others as likely fabricated. Fantastical claims in ancient works were common, and that is one reason they are so easily rejected. So I would say there are very good reasons to reject the miracle claims of the gospels, including the resurrection. That doesn't require us to deny a historical Jesus but rather to temper what we believe about his life and death through a principled set of criteria that we apply to other works of ancient literature.

[HappySkeptic]

Let's explore this statement. What about Jesus life, death, and resurrection?

Evidence for:
First, I know that definitively ascribing authorship of the Gospels to certain authors is difficult and not indisputable proof. I know there are two sides of this argument. I know they were written anonymously. I know Church tradition on authorship can't be proven as existing before in the second century, but, there is no external evidence either supporting or denying authorship. I know the gospels are the only source for information about Jesus aside from a few potential external sources that give almost no information.

That being said, we do know that church tradition for the NT authors named has always been the tradition of the church as far back as we can know. There is evidence that they were written prior to 70 AD, except John, which was probably before 100 AD, since none of them mention the destruction of Jerusalem and Luke ends with Paul on house arrest). We also have fragments dating to 130 AD and a potential fragment of Mark dating to prior to 68 AD.

Ultimately, the arguments against aren't more concrete or compelling than the arguments for the authenticity of the New Testament. Now, I know I'm predisposed to believe church tradition, but in light of the fact that there is no indisputable, external evidence for the NT writings to be anything other than what they claim to be, I choose to believe they are, in fact, authentic.

People love to point out that the Bible was written by multiple authors. Yes, it was. That , means we actually have 4 independent lines of testimony about Jesus life. To me, we have the testimony of 4 contemporaries of Jesus. Matthew, Mark, and John were eyewitnesses to at least parts of Jesus life. Luke admits to researching Jesus and writing his gospel 9no different than a biographical author today). The events they recount are very similar and very consistent. They are also different. But if 4 people recount the life of 1 man it only makes sense that they highlight what was important to them and their intended audience. These authors tell a consistent story that I can't prove happened like WWII footage, but there is evidence. Jesus is mentioned extra-biblically by Josephus (I know some of the Jesus writings attributed to him are potentially false, but not all of them). Obviously, someone existed and something happened. My goodness, He changed the world. The only real testimony we have are the Gospels and then tell an amazing story of God entering into His creation in order to save a particular people from destruction. Again, without something definitive showing me that the gospels cannot be true, I have no reason to doubt what they say is true.  

Now, is that irrefutable proof that God exists and has acted in this world? I would say no, I'll grant that. But, denial that is based on skepticism and internal critiques I don't find very compelling.

You said zero evidence. If the gospels are reliable and the author's telling the truth then Jesus did rise from the dead and ascend into heaven. That would be evidence. Not irrefutable proof, but evidence. Zero evidence is a hard claim to substantiate.

In light of what I said, I don't think belief in the NT is crazy. Is it?

I'm not saying you are crazy.  I once believed in it as well.  But, if you are a bible believer, you must believe in 100% of the bible, or else admit that some of it is just people's opinion and belief, rather than "Truth".

In my religious journey, I tried to believe the whole thing.  That lasted only a short time.  I read and studied the entire bible.  The god of the OT is not the same god as the NT - not even close.  I also realized that the story of Mankind's fall, and redemption made no sense, especially in light of archaeology, history, cosmology, and evolutionary theory.

I became a "mainstream" Christian, accepting that maybe Jesus provided some method by which we could connect better with God, but realizing the limitations of all biblical text.

Even that came crumbling down about 10 years ago, partly from debating with others in forums like this, and partly from realizing that no gods do anything, ever.  The claims of God answering prayer is a testable scientific claim.  It has never been shown to be true, despite an absolute promise that from the bible that it would occur.

The universe doesn't need a god to operate -- in fact one would simply mess things up.  Morality doesn't need to god in order to exist (in fact, god-imposed morality makes actual moral choice impossible). I don't need to pretend to talk to a god to get through my day (though if I did, I'd choose a far nicer one that in the bible).

[vulcanlogician]

As far as the revolving door, I have no doubt that's true. This is a tough crowd in here. No one here has even asked me a question, except one disguised as a challenge. No one has been the least bit curious. It's challenges and insults. I'm sure people throw their hands up in frustration.

Maybe you think I'm condescending, I promise I'm not, but I'm certainly not insulting you or your worldview.

It is a tough crowd in here. I'll grant you that. But I (personally) do not perceive you as condescending.

I grew up in your religion, and was educated plenty on it. Many of us have. Why do you think we would need to be educated further? I'm not saying you don't have something to teach. I'm saying many of us are already profoundly interested in religion. We've educated ourselves. I went out of my way to take courses on it in college. Plus I paid attention in Sunday school. We want to hear your claims. But whatever claims you make will be scrutinized. That door swings both ways. Feel free to scrutinize the claims of others all you want.

Poca and I both asked you questions. I try not to disguise my questions as challenges. And I don't think that was Poca's intention either. Expect hardball questions. People here are going to subject your answers to criticism... not just gobble them up. We're skeptics, afterall.

Is your answer to my question the eyewitness testimony thing? We've heard that before. It isn't quite satisfying for numerous reasons. Don't take any of this personally. I respect your beliefs. But I also like to debate, and ask hard questions... see if your claims can survive the kitchen sink test. But, as I said before, the door swings both ways. I can defend my worldview against kitchen sinks (for the most part). I like kitchen sinks. Shows me my beliefs are at least somewhat justified. And if the kitchen sink topples one of my beliefs over, well... I learned something today (we have a special thread for that).

[brewer]

---

Let's explore this statement. What about Jesus life, death, and resurrection?

Evidence for:
First, I know that definitively ascribing authorship of the Gospels to certain authors is difficult and not indisputable proof. I know there are two sides of this argument. I know they were written anonymously. I know Church tradition on authorship can't be proven as existing before in the second century, but, there is no external evidence either supporting or denying authorship. I know the gospels are the only source for information about Jesus aside from a few potential external sources that give almost no information.

That being said, we do know that church tradition for the NT authors named has always been the tradition of the church as far back as we can know. There is evidence that they were written prior to 70 AD, except John, which was probably before 100 AD, since none of them mention the destruction of Jerusalem and Luke ends with Paul on house arrest). We also have fragments dating to 130 AD and a potential fragment of Mark dating to prior to 68 AD.

Ultimately, the arguments against aren't more concrete or compelling than the arguments for the authenticity of the New Testament. Now, I know I'm predisposed to believe church tradition, but in light of the fact that there is no indisputable, external evidence for the NT writings to be anything other than what they claim to be, I choose to believe they are, in fact, authentic.

People love to point out that the Bible was written by multiple authors. Yes, it was. That , means we actually have 4 independent lines of testimony about Jesus life. To me, we have the testimony of 4 contemporaries of Jesus. Matthew, Mark, and John were eyewitnesses to at least parts of Jesus life. Luke admits to researching Jesus and writing his gospel 9no different than a biographical author today). The events they recount are very similar and very consistent. They are also different. But if 4 people recount the life of 1 man it only makes sense that they highlight what was important to them and their intended audience. These authors tell a consistent story that I can't prove happened like WWII footage, but there is evidence. Jesus is mentioned extra-biblically by Josephus (I know some of the Jesus writings attributed to him are potentially false, but not all of them). Obviously, someone existed and something happened. My goodness, He changed the world. The only real testimony we have are the Gospels and then tell an amazing story of God entering into His creation in order to save a particular people from destruction. Again, without something definitive showing me that the gospels cannot be true, I have no reason to doubt what they say is true.  

Now, is that irrefutable proof that God exists and has acted in this world? I would say no, I'll grant that. But, denial that is based on skepticism and internal critiques I don't find very compelling.

You said zero evidence. If the gospels are reliable and the author's telling the truth then Jesus did rise from the dead and ascend into heaven. That would be evidence. Not irrefutable proof, but evidence. Zero evidence is a hard claim to substantiate.

In light of what I said, I don't think belief in the NT is crazy. Is it?

---

That's an argument for authorship and not the issue I have with not believing. It's an issue with magical content, issue with attributes assigned to a god with no evidence other than story, the weird message of love and hate, reward and punish. And you haven't addressed Revelations. That's just a small taste of why I don't believe.

And no offense but I find it curious that you came to an atheist forum for validation of your beliefs.

[Soberman921]

The Gospel of Peter is a very short gospel, probably from 150 AD, although we don't have anything prior to the 8th/9th century. The Gospel of Peter tells a very, very different story that the other gospels. So yes, it didn't make the cut because it isn't consistent with the story told by the other gospel writers. Is that that crazy? Does that make it a clergy conspiracy? I think that's a pretty far leap. In court, don't they frequently hear multiple versions of the same story and when one witness is totally different that the other witnesses we say that probably isn't a reliable witness? I would say that's reasonable and not necessarily a conspiracy.

True, but don't you see how this could just as easily apply to the gospel of John? John's gospel presents Jesus very differently than the synoptic gospels. Where in Mark Jesus never speaks of his divinity, in John that is all he wants to talk about. In the synoptic gospels Jesus goes out of his way to hide his messiahship. In John, he performs great miracles as signs of his messiahship and divinity. John changes the length of Jesus' ministry and the order of events. His account of the passion is inconsistent with that of the synoptics from beginning to end. And as you acknowledge, John was written much later than the other gospels, like the gospel of Peter. So why did John make the cut but not Peter? A skeptic would say because, in the views of those ultimately deciding New Testament canon, his gospel was close enough to the others to merit inclusion. But that is an entirely arbitrary standard and a difficult one to justify. In trials, judges don't exclude witnesses whose testimony is different from that of other witnesses. A witness whose testimony contradicts those of several others will be called by the party who contests the testimony of those others to demonstrate it is their testimony that is unreliable. A jury could reasonably choose to discount all of them, because as a whole the testimony is too unclear to justify believing any particular account of events. What would be unreasonable would be to hear four accounts, make up one's mind, and then reject on principle any account that doesn't accord.

[HappySkeptic]

Again, without something definitive showing me that the gospels cannot be true, I have no reason to doubt what they say is true.  

When I was first a believer, I asked myself "why would the gospel writers write this if it wasn't true?". For a while, I used the argument that someone writing about God wouldn't actually be lying, or they would invalidate everything they were writing.

Later, I realized that I was incorrect as to the nature of religious writing and myth. The purpose of the writers has never been to be historians, nor scientists. They are story makers! They have a purpose for their story -- to make the story good so that people will read it, and to espouse their religious views.

The gospels are written as stories. They used an omniscient narrator. They may be based off of earlier texts, but they came after Paul, and Paul seems to have known nothing about what the gospels write about. The writers are not "eye witnesses". The authors likely weren't even alive at the time.

There were many gospels written -- it was an archetype. The gospels disagree about many things, including the nature of Jesus, and what he commands. Why would all these writers do this - they can't all be right! Didn't the "other" writers know they were lying? Well, that is misinterpreting the nature of religious writing. It was never meant to be accurate -- it was meant to evangelize. Writers take existing stories and mold them into the form that best promotes their views.

This is the way of religious stories the world over, in every religion. The stories are legends and myths, intended to entertain and promote a particular set of religious views, or as a societal control.

I highly doubt the gospels were written by eye-witnesses, but even if they were, the idea that "eye witnesses never lie" would mean that Mormonism is absolutely true.

[Soberman921]

There is one more point I want to make about gospel authorship.

Papias, who, according to Eusebius, wrote in the early second century (maybe around 130 CE), was the earliest to name Mark and Matthew as the authors of the gospels that bear their names. Papias allegedly said Mark was Peter’s scribe/interpreter, which he learned from an associate of John the apostle. But we don’t actually have any writings from Papias – only Eusebius who wrote in 320 CE. Eusebius said that Papias’ writings were “fantastical” and “of a rather mythical character,” including “strange parables of the savior,” and described Papias as being of “very small intelligence.” Most of what Papias said is universally rejected by Biblical scholars. Also, church fathers continued to reference Mark’s Gospel for decades after Papias wrote without attributing it to Mark. So 300 years after Jesus died, we have an author quoting another author he disparages as unreliable from 200 years before that who describes a book written by a friend of a friend in a manner that doesn’t match the book we’re talking about. It is interesting that, according to Eusebius (also considered unreliable by most biblical scholars), Papias said that Mark’s sole purpose was “to leave out nothing that he heard.” If Papias is to be believed, the fact that his is the shortest gospel undermines those of Matthew, Luke and John which added many additional details.

[ayost]

You make a number of statements here as fact with which few if any critical New Testament scholars would agree. For example, the claim that the gospels tell "the same story form different points of view." The vast inconsistencies between the gospel accounts have been documented for centuries, and many of them are quite significant. For example, on what day was Jesus crucified and what were his last words? While some might not be complete inconsistencies, attempts to harmonize them into a single account require tortuous contrivances that defy the principle of analogy and insult reason. Even more important that where the gospels differ is where they are identical, word for word. This is clear evidence they were not independent accounts but were copied from one another. These are works of plagiarism in which the authors of later gospels reworked earlier ones to make them better align with their own theologies.

We have to be honest and create two categories: Believing Scholarship and Unbelieving Scholarship. I know I'm risking an ad hominem argument here, but I'm granting it to both sides so I think its a fair critique. Worldview matters. No one is a neutral truth seeking force. Unbelief has the same blinding qualities that Belief does. I think that's demonstrably true. I want to say that, not as a critique to your argument, but just as a fact to consider when you decide who to listen to.

I think your claim of "vast inconsistencies" is, in my opinion, completely overblown. It's just not a scandal that's plaguing the church. And I have yet to see an inconsistency that I can't easily harmonize. Look, I'm big on consistency. I believe inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument. I try as hard as I can to be consistent. I hate tortuous contrivances. Actually, the reason I settled on Reformed theology is because of tortuous contrivances from other theologies. For example, I listened to people try to Biblically demonstrate man's free will and it became such a twisted mess of tortuous contrivances that I couldn't take it. Reformed theologians would just read through a text and let the text say what it says. I'll be the first to take my foot off the gas when I reach a tortuous contrivance. And then Catholicism, SMH.

Gospels quoting each other just doesn't bother me. As far as "plagiarism in which the authors of later gospels reworked earlier ones to make them better align with their own theologies", when you say, to me, this it sounds like the most extreme way to state the fact that the authors probably referenced each others works. Like there are so many assumed arguments in that statement. I spend a lot of time on this subject. Mostly to defend the faith, but also because I find it fascinating.

And this is why I say worldview matters. I don't think one of us is smarter than the other. I think we see the exact same evidence and come to different conclusions for very good reasons. But I also believe worldview is at the heart of the matter.

New Testament Chrisitan scholar Richard Bauckham holds to traditional authorship of the gospels but has admitted, “That the texts of our Gospels are close to the eyewitness reports of the words and deeds of Jesus — runs counter to almost all recent New Testament scholarship. . . . [T]he prevalent view is that a long period of oral transmission in the churches intervened between whatever the eyewitnesses said and the Jesus traditions as they reached the Evangelists. No doubt the eyewitnesses started the process of oral tradition, but it passed through many retellings, reformulations, and expansions before the Evangelists themselves did their own editorial work on it.”

Here's the thing about this statement: it absolutely cannot be proven. You can't trace oral traditions from 2000 years ago. They were oral, they no longer exist. Show me the evidence of editorial work on an oral tradition. This is pure speculation.

Also, what is your basis for claiming the gospel writers "were all violently killed instead of recanting because the were so sold out to what they believed?" I'm not aware of a single record of any gospel writer being violently killed because of his Christian faith after refusing to recant. This Christian persecution claim is a myth.

Ok, I will grant you that it's Christian tradition. It's not completely without foundation but also not historical fact. There are early church writings that reference Paul's beheading and Peter's crucifixion. But it's not definitive. Fair enough. But how do you emphatically state it's a myth? That's no more provable than its the truth. I'll grant there is scant evidence and you have to decide what you believe. Can you say "It is probably a myth"? but again, worldview matters.

But really the thing that struck me is how do you quote a scholar about the history of a 2000 oral tradition that absolutely, with out a doubt cannot be verified (or falsified) and then in the next breath challenge my assertion that the apostles were martyred? I'm not aware of a single record of any oral gospel tradition being edited by an Evangelical. I feel like that knife cuts two ways.

---

Again, without something definitive showing me that the gospels cannot be true, I have no reason to doubt what they say is true.  

When I was first a believer, I asked myself "why would the gospel writers write this if it wasn't true?".  For a while, I used the argument that someone writing about God wouldn't actually be lying, or they would invalidate everything they were writing.

Later, I realized that I was incorrect as to the nature of religious writing and myth.  The purpose of the writers has never been to be historians, nor scientists.  They are story makers!  They have a purpose for their story -- to make the story good so that people will read it, and to espouse their religious views.

The gospels are written as stories.  They used an omniscient narrator.  They may be based off of earlier texts, but they came after Paul, and Paul seems to have known nothing about what the gospels write about.  The writers are not "eye witnesses".  The authors likely weren't even alive at the time.

There were many gospels written -- it was an archetype.  The gospels disagree about many things, including the nature of Jesus, and what he commands.  Why would all these writers do this - they can't all be right!  Didn't the "other" writers know they were lying?  Well, that is misinterpreting the nature of religious writing.  It was never meant to be accurate -- it was meant to evangelize.  Writers take existing stories and mold them into the form that best promotes their views.

This is the way of religious stories the world over, in every religion.  The stories are legends and myths, intended to entertain and promote a particular set of religious views, or as a societal control.

I highly doubt the gospels were written by eye-witnesses, but even if they were, the idea that "eye witnesses never lie" would mean that Mormonism is absolutely true.

This is pure speculation. I'm not even going to respond to this.

---

There is one more point I want to make about gospel authorship.

Papias, who, according to Eusebius, wrote in the early second century (maybe around 130 CE), was the earliest to name Mark and Matthew as the authors of the gospels that bear their names. Papias allegedly said Mark was Peter’s scribe/interpreter, which he learned from an associate of John the apostle. But we don’t actually have any writings from Papias – only Eusebius who wrote in 320 CE. Eusebius said that Papias’ writings were “fantastical” and “of a rather mythical character,” including “strange parables of the savior,” and described Papias as being of “very small intelligence.” Most of what Papias said is universally rejected by Biblical scholars. Also, church fathers continued to reference Mark’s Gospel for decades after Papias wrote without attributing it to Mark. So 300 years after Jesus died, we have an author quoting another author he disparages as unreliable from 200 years before that who describes a book written by a friend of a friend in a manner that doesn’t match the book we’re talking about. It is interesting that, according to Eusebius (also considered unreliable by most biblical scholars), Papias said that Mark’s sole purpose was “to leave out nothing that he heard.” If Papias is to be believed, the fact that his is the shortest gospel undermines those of Matthew, Luke and John which added many additional details.

I'm not basing my belief of Papias or Esuabius which is why I didn't copy paste this from the internet. I have no issue with you not believing Papias.

---

Again, without something definitive showing me that the gospels cannot be true, I have no reason to doubt what they say is true.  

So here is where I would take issue with your approach because that's not the way historians approach ancient literature generally and I doubt the way you approach the scripture of other religions such as Islam. Historians don't take ancient works at face value until shown incontrovertible proof of falsity or as an all or nothing proposition. They look at many indicia of reliability and approach each claim individually. Many accounts of Roman emperors include clearly fantastical elements. Historians can tentatively accept some of these claims but, applying the principle of analogy, reject others as likely fabricated. Fantastical claims in ancient works were common, and that is one reason they are so easily rejected. So I would say there are very good reasons to reject the miracle claims of the gospels, including the resurrection. That doesn't require us to deny a historical Jesus but rather to temper what we believe about his life and death through a principled set of criteria that we apply to other works of ancient literature.

My original statement still stands. I don't live in a world where all fantastical things are dismissed. Worldview matters.
I actually have no doubt that Muhammad saw what he said he saw.
I already stated my many indicia of NT reliability in another post. Not sure who it was to, but it's out there.
I stated why I believe the reliability of the NT. if you want to change my mind I need something other than skepticism.
Skepticism just isn't compelling.

[vulcanlogician]

When I was first a believer, I asked myself "why would the gospel writers write this if it wasn't true?".  For a while, I used the argument that someone writing about God wouldn't actually be lying, or they would invalidate everything they were writing.

Later, I realized that I was incorrect as to the nature of religious writing and myth.  The purpose of the writers has never been to be historians, nor scientists.  They are story makers!  They have a purpose for their story -- to make the story good so that people will read it, and to espouse their religious views.

The gospels are written as stories.  They used an omniscient narrator.  They may be based off of earlier texts, but they came after Paul, and Paul seems to have known nothing about what the gospels write about.  The writers are not "eye witnesses".  The authors likely weren't even alive at the time.

There were many gospels written -- it was an archetype.  The gospels disagree about many things, including the nature of Jesus, and what he commands.  Why would all these writers do this - they can't all be right!  Didn't the "other" writers know they were lying?  Well, that is misinterpreting the nature of religious writing.  It was never meant to be accurate -- it was meant to evangelize.  Writers take existing stories and mold them into the form that best promotes their views.

This is the way of religious stories the world over, in every religion.  The stories are legends and myths, intended to entertain and promote a particular set of religious views, or as a societal control.

I highly doubt the gospels were written by eye-witnesses, but even if they were, the idea that "eye witnesses never lie" would mean that Mormonism is absolutely true.

This is pure speculation. I'm not even going to respond to this.

You have to take the storyteller claim on faith. From there you build upon that with the rest of Skeptic's arguments

[pocaracas]

You still have some way to go on that quote thing. Maybe you have some hanging "+quote" in your cache? I avoid that button "like the plague"!!

The Gospel of Peter is a very short gospel, probably from 150 AD, although we don't have anything prior to the 8th/9th century. The Gospel of Peter tells a very, very different story that the other gospels. So yes, it didn't make the cut because it isn't consistent with the story told by the other gospel writers. Is that that crazy? Does that make it a clergy conspiracy? I think that's a pretty far leap. In court, don't they frequently hear multiple versions of the same story and when one witness is totally different that the other witnesses we say that probably isn't a reliable witness? I would say that's reasonable and not necessarily a conspiracy.

From the wiki article on the Gospel of Peter:
"A major focus of the surviving fragment of the Gospel of Peter is the passion narrative, which ascribes responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus to Herod Antipas rather than to Pontius Pilate. "

Not a major difference, but a difference. I wouldn't say it "tells a very, very different story". It may have a different political charge to it, though.

In court, witness reports are often trumped by any hard evidence. It is well known that witnesses are not very reliable, even if they are convinced that they are actually reporting their unbiased perspective over some event that they did witness.


I never said it was a clerical conspiracy, did I? I said that one version of events became dominant. Why, how and where it became dominant are very important questions for which we may never have decent answers.
One can offer some educated guesses, though. Here's mine:
Paul of Tarsus, present day Turkey, returns from his travels in Israel and starts preaching his version of Christianity. That version appeals to the poor and downtrodden and so it grows in popularity among the lower classes - in the region that would become called Eastern Roman Empire, mostly present-day Turkey and Greece. With all the commerce going on around the Mediterranean, these popular ideas were passed to other shores, such as Corinth (Greece), Thessalonica (Greece), Colossae (Turkey), Ephesus (Greece), Galatia (Turkey), and Rome... See the pattern? ... I see the absence of the place of origin of the story.
With the region of Rome, Greece and Turkey littered with Paul's version of Christianity, the clergy that follow Christianity in this region will obviously follow Paul's version. They became numerous and influential up to the point when even the emperor, Constantine, is himself Christian a mere 200-ish years later.
"Oh, but there were eye-witnesses from Jerusalem at the same time", you may say, "those could disprove Paul's version easily, but didn't, proving that this was an accurate account". But those people would have been in the wrong place, so they would have had little to no say in it. And before you say it, they'd also be too old to be travelling and disputing anything.

The gospels and others texts that were in line with Paul's already dominant version would then be incorporated into canon. The texts that weren't in line with it, were discarded as apocryphal. And the rest, is history.

So you now believe something that may or may very well not be an accurate account of events.
That the collection in the bible gives you texts that agree with each other is merely by construct, not because those were the only stories circulating, nor that they were the more accurate portrayals of what really happened.

I wish we could move past statements like blind faith and indoctrination. I think at a minimum I have established that I've thought these things out as an adult. I don't consider myself to have blind faith. I am someone who researches and reads and learns. I'm frequently challenged and then go away and learn. I think I can make a reasonable, not airtight, but reasonable case for everything I believe.

And, yet, you're a creationist.
Can you understand that, from my point of view, your indoctrination must have heavily informed all these challenges that you went through?
With the extra benefit of your belief coming out even stronger.

I'm not asserting that my faith means something is true in the way you want it to be certainly true. Faith means I'm trusting God to do what he said based on evidence x, y, and z while acknowledging that x, y, and z aren't indisputable proof.

I would also argue that science eventually leads to the same place of faith. That statement could send us on a rabbit trail. I won't pursue it unless you do, haha.

I'm cool with this. I think, if there is a god, science will find it at some point. No faith required. Just empirical evidence that an entity such as a god exists in some state.
I doubt that will ever happen, but it is a possibility.

Well, this is where faith comes in, but also it's also thought out faith:

I am convinced that the NT is authentic, reliable, and true.
I am convinced that what the NT says about Jesus and who He is is true (the God/man).
Jesus believed the OT writers and that God created the universe.
Therefore, I believe what Jesus believed: the OT.

You see how it's not blind? How one thing builds on another?

I see how it comes about. It makes total sense.
As with all logical arguments that result in the wrong conclusion, it fails at the start. But you do you.

Now, when it comes to creation, I can level critiques at science and challenge how they know what they know. No one escapes the skeptic buzzsaw. haha

Let's not go there. I've spent way too much time with Statler Waldorf debating stupid tiny details.