…Continued

No matter which way you frame it, ‘faith’ is a term used when we can’t know something, have a reason to doubt it, or the trust we are placing in something is excessive. And once again, most Christians seem to understand this. The best you could argue would be to say that it is merely an unfortunate co-incidence that a word used to describe religious belief also means ‘belief without evidence’. But that would really be pushing it.

<<Since God claims to be a personal being and not merely a proposition, then if God did exist we would expect evidence to be personal and subjective to some degree or another.>>

To some degree, yes, but only to the individual. More important is the degree to which the evidence is objective, because without any objective evidence, the subjective may be dismissed by both the individual and an outsider, and may even render the believer ‘delusional’ in the persistent absence of objective evidence; leaving them to rely on - funnily enough - faith.

I'm not sure I understand why you would need to ask the question, Trav.

>>A question for you: Do you believe that all religions rely on blind faith to the same extent in terms of supporting their key propositions? (That is, entirely blind faith in total absence of any evidence or support whatsoever)<<

As may have become apparent, I am an atheist.

Because of this, I am certain that there is no such thing as "God". It therefore follows that my position must be, that anyone who does believe in such a being (or non-being, I'm not being prescriptive here), necessarily relies on "blind faith".

For example, as I view Christianity, I see that in order to accept the Bible as evidence of the existence of God, Christians have to believe that there is a God to begin with. If you do not, then none of its stories makes a skerrick of sense, except as an interesting historical document that sheds some light upon the thought processes of an ancient civilization.

So, to me, the justification for rejecting the concept of "blind faith" in favour of "evidence-supported faith" disappears. The evidence of a God-of-Christianity is actually based on a conclusion that is itself based on the evidence.

Which is nothing more than a version of the "I am not a liar" problem.

Pericles,

>> a version of the "I am not a liar" problem.<<

I am sure you are not a liar, and I do not see any problem there :-)). You probably meant one of self-referential statements like “I am a liar” or more precisely - to make sure it is clearly self-referential - “Everything I say is a lie” or “All Cretans are liars, says the Cretan” or Russel’s paradox, or the almighty God creating a rock He cannot lift, etc.

>>So, to me, the justification for rejecting the concept of "blind faith" in favour of "evidence-supported faith" disappears.<<

Maybe so, but those are actually just two sides of the same coin: my “faith” - actually a whole system of beliefs forming my Christianity-informed worldview - is based on a lot of “evidence” convincing to me, and most other Chrtistians (for reasons only marginally related to what science can tackle) but not to others, including atheists, while at the same time the same “faith” most look “blind” to an outsider.

>>The evidence of a God-of-Christianity is actually based on a conclusion that is itself based on the evidence.<<

This sounds very much like meaningless as “the existence of XYZ is simply evidence that XYZ exists”, discussed above, which I suppose you wanted to point out comparing it a aself-referential statement.

comparing it to a self-referential statement.

Well, yes, George. Sort of.

>>You probably meant one of self-referential statements like “I am a liar” etc...<<

But I used "I am not a liar" quite deliberately because it cannot be refuted, whether the speaker is telling the truth, or not.

Try it and see. If I am a liar, the words are a lie; if I am telling the truth, the words are the truth. In your version, the liar would be telling the truth, and the truth-teller would be lying. Such a paradox does not enter into my version.

So if someone says "God is real", based upon their belief in the Bible, there is simply no basis for invalidation. And this is in fact exactly the Christian position: there is a God, because the Bible says so.

Put another way, Every Christian I have met uses the Bible as evidence of the existence of God. And I don't believe this is a coincidence.

And I fear you may have the wrong end of the stick on this, too:

>>>>The evidence of a God-of-Christianity is actually based on a conclusion that is itself based on the evidence.<< This sounds very much like meaningless as “the existence of XYZ is simply evidence that XYZ exists”<<

Well it isn't, actually. It is much more along the lines of "the existence of God can only be argued if you first believe that God exists", which is not the same thing at all.

Which is why I cannot make any logical headway with a Christian, when the question is "does God exist", since the answer is already part of the question.

It's the same with UFOs. It is pointless discussing their existence or non-existence with someone who already believes that they do. Whereas any discussion on the same topic with a non-believer in UFOs (all-same Christianity) will have the exact same outcome: there is no evidence.

>>...my Christianity-informed worldview - is based on a lot of “evidence” convincing to me...<<

Precisely. For the reason stated above. You believe in the Christian God, therefore the Christian God exists.

pericules/quote..<<..It is much more..along the lines of
"the existence of God..can only be argued..if you first believe..that God exists",..which is not the same thing at all...>>..

IF YOU BELIEVE..'THAT GOD EXISTS'
THE EGZISTANCE..OF GOD..CAn*t..be argued.WONT BE IN DISPUTE

JUST LIKE YOUR insistance..he dont egsist....makes any debate mute..[to your ears]..[if your not hungry..your not looking for*..Food.]..so why debate and con volute?

[OUR FAiTHS ARE BEYOND DISPUTE]....but not whos
trust/faith....is OF REALITY/true..but by opinion..as sepperate frOM FACT,,NAR THE TWAIN..SHALL MEET.

<<..Which is why I cannot make any logical headway with a Christian, when the question is "does God exist", since the answer is already part of the question.>>

so what..i know you exist..in word's
BUT I cant prove your not a perfect computer..YOUR JUST TOO PERFECT..[YOU ANSWER YOUR OWN QUESTIONS..CAUSE YOU CANT FRAME REAL ZINGERS?]

OK..I BELIEVE..IN GOD..but not ufo's
i will refute your first quote/see top]

<<..It's the same with UFOs. It is pointless discussing their existence or non-existence with someone who already believes that they do.>>

so you like me..dont believe..in ufo's?
do you believe..in other dimentions?
TIme travel?..spirit?..ALTERNATE REALITIES..[like if someone..is tripping on lsd?

see how yet again..you reply thyne owN THESUS?
[its because your too clever..to say something..we could refute]

DO I LOOK FAT IN THIS?

<<..Whereas any discussion..on the same topic with a non-believer in UFOs..(all-same Christianity)..will have the exact same outcome: there is no evidence.>>

THAT COULD Convince you?
of either..Common bro..your clever..ask the right questions
then refute our answerS..not ya own*?