Pericles,

I stand corrected, you were not after paradoxes (statements which can be neither true nor false) but after sentences that cannot be refuted, of which there are a legion. Whatever factual statement you make I cannot refute it if I do not know the context - e.g. whether you have ever lied.

On the other hand, the sentence

“the existence of XYZ is simply evidence that XYZ exists”

represents a circular reasoning or even tautology which can not be falsified. The same for your sentence

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

This is more explicit if one reformulates it as “the existence of God-of-Christianity (guaranteed by the Bible) is evidence that the God-of-Christianity exists.”

A third example of this kind would be the claim “since all that there is can be investigated by (natural) science, and science cannot find God (does not need that concept), it follows that the existence of God (who by contemporary understanding is beyond the reach of science) is most unlikely.”

To summarize, all these statements are meaningless as arguments for anything.

As I keep on saying, Occam’s razor is an valid argument - convincing to some, unconvincing to others - against the existence of a divine realm beyond the physical (hence also against the existence of God), but not these tautologies.

>>Every Christian I have met uses the Bible as evidence of the existence of God. <<

Well, you obviously did not meet philosophically sophisticated Christians. Even the medieval Aquinas ARGUED (in his Quinque viæ or Five Ways) from philosophical considerations, not from the Bible. Even more so, contemporary theologians - who speculate on HOW to represent/model God in our minds, and here the Bible is relevant - are not seeking scientific “evidence” for His existence.

george/qUOTE..,in reply to..['Bible as evidence of the existence of God.'].. <<,.<<..Well, you obviously did not meet philosophically sophisticated Christians.>>

NOR THE OTHER HOLY TEXTS..of the other abrahamic/buddist/you name..it other spiritual beliefs[even primitives pre writing had their fetishes..[ie beliefs in higher unSEEN..powers

<<>..Even the medieval Aquinas ARGUED (in his Quinque viæ or Five Ways) from philosophical considerations, not from the Bible.>>

how about swedenberg/marybaker eddie/lUther wesly bacon etc....who interpreted versions of it /IE the bible isnt the 'BE ALL..end all to..god..personal revelation/personal inspiration/experience..is

people wrote THE PERSONAL EXPERIENCES OF THE UNKNOWn
the bible didnt write itself[only by experience/the lot of it

personally/specifically/individual[not by group/book as ,mych as ,y witness/in writing.....[testimony*]....first person testi-meant.

LIFE FIRST PERSON REVALUATION/
PERSONAL-WITNESS*..ala mosus on the ,mount

<<..Even more so, contemporary theologians - who speculate on HOW to represent/model God in our minds, and here the Bible is relevant - are not seeking scientific “evidence” for His existence.>>

but till you ask god..personally..
NO BOOK CAN DO 'IT'..for you..if you deaf dumb and blind..he yet is there in thyne mind/just waiting for that live living moment..we ask him..for anything.

yet we recognise him not

ahhhh....men
mene mene mene./so MANY MESS-ANGERS HE has replied
NONE OF THEM LIED..TO DENY GOD IS TO CALL..THE BEST OF MANKIND..LIARS*

YEP ITS THINKING LIKE THAT
THAT LETS YOU INTO WHERE They..are*

WMTrevor, My comment wasn’t intended to prove that there was such thing as “reliable” personal evidence (that’s something I’ll make a suggestion about below), rather I was saying that if there were a God, he would expect belief not purely on the basis of objective reasons.

Perhaps experiences provide “evidence” for what the different experiences have in common. Virtually all religious experiences create a conviction that there is something out there, something beyond the bare, natural material world. Personal experiences may provide evidence of this general truth. Interestingly, this idea lies somewhere within the core of virtually all religious faith.

Whilst the propositions of individual belief systems are mutually exclusive, it's nonetheless true that we can find this common thread at the Centre of many different religious traditions. The idea that there is something transcending the material world is a core idea that contrasts religious faiths with the philosophy of naturalism.

I would argue that virtually all religious faiths are relatively similar at the core, if you are comparing them in the context of other philosophies eg: naturalism, materialism. This is not to deny their differences, it's merely pointing out the context.

AJ, Can you take it that I don’t attribute this behaviour above merely to some fundamentalists? Yes. But it is my personal belief, based on my knowledge of the views with people from whom I have interacted, that people I would categorise as probably being “fundamentalist” are guilty of this moreso than others.

But I actually have minimal interest in determining whether my definition lines up with the dictionary one (further, that’s not even possible in this context since I’m merely noting a general personal impression based on many years of life and various interactions, so how would I find out if their beliefs line up?) or in testing my view on this in any more detail. It’s an extremely minor point in the context of the big issues of science, faith and worldviews, so I’m not sure why you continue to press it when there’s far more important and interesting things to consider. Such as…..

(TBC)

Faith. You say it’s used when “We can’t know something” or when we “have a reason to doubt it”…. In my way of thinking, there’s very little that we can know for sure without having some reason to doubt it. The fact that something can’t be known with certainty is far from a good argument against it, whatever that view or issue may be.

Evidence. What is “objective” evidence anyway? Does the fact that plenty of atheists claim there is no evidence for Christianity mean that there is no “objective” evidence? It does if you define objective evidence as evidence that anyone recognises as evidence. To me, the fact that plenty of atheists claim there’s no evidence just shows that there’s plenty of irrational atheists. George might take a more charitable approach and interpret this as meaning that we simply can’t agree on what evidence actually is.

Pericles, the key to my question was “to the same extent”. I was interested in your comparison of religions. Many atheists seem to think all religions are similarly unintelligent or that all religions have the same level of evidence (none).

My interpretation of your comments is that you believe religious faith necessarily relies on circular reasoning. That might be true once you really drill down, I’m not sure, but virtually all beliefs ultimately rest somewhere which can’t be proven. We all rely on philosophical considerations to support our beliefs, but philosophical considerations are not usually certain.

(Continued)

Pericles, You claim that all Christians rely on the Bible as evidence. I’d like to flesh this out.

In my experience, Christians primarily rely on personal experience or their interpretation that there’s design in the Universe to support their belief in God or the supernatural. An empirical fact is that the majority of people around the world accept the existence of a God or something supernatural. I agree with you that once this is accepted, the jump to believing the Bible isn’t nearly as big as it otherwise would be. So by “relying on the Bible as evidence”, they’re seeing their basic beliefs come to light and get made sense of in the form of Biblical stories. The Bible provides a framework to make sense of these existing beliefs.

PLUS+..EDIT..THIS..

SERIOUSLY..every written word..was inspired..to the writer
[each..OF US..by..inner..personal revelation]..

with-in our minds..we were moved
to write/THAT..wrote/..BY/rote.

[little known..is
WE EACH..ARE EXTRA DIMENSION'S..OF..alternATE/realities..of THE EVER Inmate..[inate]INFINITE..[within]..that..WE ATTEMPT..TO MAKE/real..ie..REALIZE/RELEASE..[capture]..AS a DEFINED/ set/fixed/material validated..FINITE...[proof]

UET..just..by asking..for..personal-proOF..we recieve
SEE that..ALL HOLY TEXTS WERE INSPIRED..by gods personal*..PROOF..personal/s[ecigicly/indoviualy..

SOME/EVEN..WITH..[THEIR NAMES/UPON
*THEIR WITNESSED TEXTS../TRUELY/HOLY...[SIGNED SEALED]

george/qUOTE..,in reply to..pericules..WITNESS<<..['Bible as evidence of..the existence of God.']....<<,.george..<<..Well,..you obviously did not meet..philosophically/sophisticated..Christians.>>

me../NOR/NET/READ..THE OTHER HOLY-TEXTS..WITNESS..of the other abrahamic/buddist[you name..it.]..in...ALL..other spiritual beliefs..[even the most/primitives..[pre writing]..EVEN children..had/have their fetishes..[ie beliefs..in higher unSEEN..[PARENTAL/CARING]..UNSEEN/HIGHER..powers

<<>..Even the medieval Aquinas ARGUED (in his Quinque viæ or Five Ways) from philosophical considerations, not from the Bible.>>

how about swedenberg/marybaker eddie/lUther wesly bacon etc....who interpreted versions of it../IE..the bible[2TRIBLE]..isnt the 'BE ALL..end all to..god..[personal revelation/personal inspiration/experience..is]

people/wrote/PROMOTE..of our/ow PERSONAL EXPERIENCES OF THE Unknown/unrecognized..one[sustaining life..in everyone]

the bible ..didnt..write itself..IE*.*[only by PERSONAL/SPECIFIC/INDIVIDUAL..[ONE*2*ONE]..in person..experience..

IE/the lot of it*

was..personally/specifically/individual..revealed..[in its day
[not..writ..by..group/../but..YET..BOUND..into..sacred-book/

write..RIGHT..NOt MIGHT..writ..it right
as..,mUch as..,By..SPECIFIC/..OFTEN..NAmed..PERSONAL/living..witness/

then installed..in writing.....[books..leaves..stone..leaf/yrees beast/you/me..them/us..just look..ITS ALL..[testimony*]....first person LIVING-live..testi-meant.

LIFE-experience..of the higher powers..by FIRST PERSON*/doing. Re-EVALUATION/experience..that/the textS..WITNESS*..[THE PERSONAL-WITNESS*'..ala mosus..on the ,mount

<<..Even more so,..contemporary theologians .who speculate on HOW to represent/model God in our minds,..and here the Bible is relevant - are not seeking scientific “evidence”..for His existence.>>

but im-till..you ask god..personally..
NO BOOK..CAN DO 'IT'..for you..

THINK..if youR deaf dumb and blind..he
yet is there..in thyne mind/..just waiting for..
that..GLORIOUS/live living moment..we ask him..for anything.

yet..we recognize him/within..all..*not

ahhhh....men
mene mene mene./..*y*

so MANY MESS-ANGERS..HE has replied..supplied/PROOFS
see..NONE..OF THEM LIED..MOST..R..FORGOTTEN

THINK..OH S0NS..OF MEN..TO DENY GOD
IS..TO CALL..THE BEST*..OF MANKIND..LIARS*

YEP..ITS THINKING..LIKE THAT
THAT LETS YOU..INTO WHERE They..are*..AT...[NOT*]

BUT TO READ..THEIR WORDS..
LINKS..YOU/ME..WITH/THEIR ETERNAL BEING/..
from WITHIN..OUR,own..,OWNED-life..to our..present being..
realize..to recall their word forms..is..TO LIVE..on..IN OUR living MINDS..they come..thus..to inform/..[receptive minds]