…Continued

The lines may be blurry sometimes, but they’re not arbitrary.

Now let’s apply this to your example…

<<Do supernatural events happen? Are they likely? Even possible?>>

Given that no-one has been able to demonstrate or reliably document a supernatural event, the only reasonable position to take here is ‘negative’ to the first two and maybe a ‘probably not’ with the third, on a good day. Assuming nothing is the only default position. We don’t get to assume the supernatural or God and then claim that that is an equally valid starting point to a non-believer’s disbelief. An assumption has been made; an additional layer added; and it’s made to seem valid because, hey, it’s just a presupposition. Well, such a presupposition is an assumption, and an assumption that has not yet been justified. The way theists try to get away with doing this is by creating a false dichotomy in assuming that the non-believer necessarily assumes that the cosmos is all that there is.

<<Different answers to this question could be influenced by philosophical considerations and personal experiences, and yet the answers given will profoundly impact on how one assesses the historical claims of Jesus Christ>>

Going by your methodology and philosophy, one can assume anything as a presupposition and the claims they later accept because of it are equally justifiable, or at the very least, indistinguishable in their level of reasonableness from a sceptic’s scepticism simply because it was one of their philosophical considerations.

I’m sorry, but the world doesn’t work that way. It would be a very confusing place if it did and I see no reason to be giving religion special consideration in this regard when you would not apply this methodology and philosophy to any other area of life.

aj/quote..<<..So how do we determine..what it reasonable?>>

IS ret*oricle..but..if it hurt's..[deceives..no other..[AND ISNt hurting them..[who's business..is it?

<<..We have methods..and..we have consensus in some ways.>>

very few..it seems that we have groups..where consensus..could be imp-lied..but full consensus gets delusional..[recall the atheist party?..there was a guy who jumped to claim so much consensus..he presumed to speak..for all..[and was quickly reigned IN/BY 'HIS'-OWN.

YET..THEY WERE ALL WRONG..[IN..denying the existence..of gOd]
EVEN THE MESSENGERS HOUSES ARE DIVIDED..[LOOK AT JUST THE Thousands of christ sects/alone]..

consensus..implied is consensus lied.

[YES ITS A METHODOLOGY..BY THAT WORD
IS CLOSE TO MYTHOLOGY..even..ideology...[IDOL-I-TRY]..[a fetish]

<<..Is there an absolute and discrete point by which we can determine whether or not it is reasonable to accept a claim? No...

not SO..IT IS JUSTIFIABLE..TO PRESUME.that WRITING/ATTRIBUTED TO ONE..[IS IN FACT WHAT..they wrote]..IF Wrapped in their covers..it necessitates the onus of proof..upon then saying they lied..to prove it.

GENERALIZATIONS WONT DENY..THE AUTHOR..his script
and even if wrote by deciple..or rote by agent..it still holds a firm claim..to represent..that persons experiences/witness..or..testimony]

<<..And each claim will be different because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, while trivial claims don’t.>.

IF YOUR TALKING ABOUT SANTA CLAUSE
CANNOT BE EQUAL..TO TALKING OF OUR..[REASON DE'TRA..]..
reason/for being..or by what hand/.the MEANS WE ARE BEING..

or why we collectively..are here now..feigning his ongoing being..by continuing..his ways..[sure this may apply to christ/satan/santa]..

but not god...*
not to the..*very reason.CAUSE..of life..itself*

the holy of holy..inFINITE..cant be compared
TO..ANY FINITE..LIKE SANTOS...[satan/nor christ]..CREED seed OR WEED

CTD

<<..It’s a constant process of comparing and contrasting various claims:>>

AT LEAST COMPARE APPLES
WITH APPLES..NOT WIKIPEDIA..[SAME WITH SAME]

AJ/MATE..SEE THAT DEBATING WHO WINS OLYMPICS
is as nothing to the epic..OF WHY WE ARE HERE*..THIS IS THE BASIS OF LIVING/BEINg itself

we need SURE PROOF..HE DONT EXIST
AND MAN CANT EVEN MAKE A SIMPle cell membrane..[or a hand]
or life..or even heal..broken bones..[science sets bones/then god heals

prove how a doctor TELLS THE BONE TO HEAL
SANS DOCTER..*THE BONE HEALS 'itself'..TOO?
OF COURSEBONES CANT 'HEAL/THEMSELVES..GOD Does that automaticly[see the miracle..right there]..how does 'automatic/response'..explain healing/natural selection..means it wasnt science/surviVAL OF THE FITTEST ISNT AS IMPORTANT AS BREED-ABILITY

[LIFE COMES ONLY FROM LIFE]
this science must witness too
life from non life is insane..till science does it

BUT IT HASNT*
till it doES..ITS THEORY*
GOD IS FACT...ONCE YOU SEE ALL HE DOES..for every living thing
you will be astounded you missed the bleeding obvious..just to APPEAR 'CLEVER'..ever..eve*[ever clever eve]..THE ONE ADAM THOUGHT TO DECIEVE.,..[STOP EDITING]

<<..Will accepting a claim..be worldview altering?>>

some claims are spurious..others vital..to be correct
i say..if you say..ITS NOT GOD..YOU NEED PROVE THEN WHO?

<<..Will accepting a claim change everything else that you had accepted before?>>

DEPENDS IF ITS A FRINGE ISSUE[OR THE CORE ISSUE]

<<..How big of an impact will it have on you if you’re wrong?>.

if i die..and nuthin..I WILL NEVER KNOW

IF YOU DIE..and your not dead..how long will you[and your fellow deceived feign death]..before saying sorry lord..i didst..not believe..YOUR CHOICE OF MESSENGER.

you shall forever[eternally]..unless you reincarnate].recall you denied..honorable/indeed venerable- MEM/..[*BY SIDING WITH IGNORANT GODLESS..AT-HEIST..SHEISTER HISTERS/MISTERS PROFESSORS/MANIPULATORS
who need the gulible to share their godless hells]

Pericles,

>> Which is … exactly the point I was making.<<

I was not saying anything else. This is how I understand “reformulate”.

>>I am guessing this to be the thought process that you attribute to atheists. <<

I agree this was a clumsy formulation. I was referring to the reasoning starting with the claim that all that exists can be investigated by science followed by Dawkins’ claim that the existence of God (who - unlike a teapot or Boeing 747 - is understood as not being accessible by science) is most unlikely. This is an obvious implication (tautology) even if “existence is most unlikely” is replaced by “does not exist”.

>>Science does not search for God. <<

If by "science" you mean scientists (atheists or not), doing scientific research then, of course, I agree.

>>Only those who believe in God do that. In these investigations they often do find God, usually in some "holy" text or other.<<

You cannot "investigate" God, He is not the solution to scientific problems. It is a different matter if you mean "search" in the sense of Augustine's advice to open-minded people (believers or not) "seek within thyself, truth resides inside of man". A "holy" text that is part of the culture you were bought up in, or are familiar with, can serve as a background for this "search within thyself".

>>Yeah, our churches are packed with Christian philosophers who argue their faith from first cause, are they not? <<

I never claimed that. I only assumed that when you offer an opinion or argument of a philosophical nature you should expect it to be taken on that level and not that of an average church-goer.

>> it stands at the same intellectual level as "Cats have four legs. My dog has four legs. So my dog is a cat".<<

I don't think Bertrand Russell would agree with your understanding of Aquinas, although I agree with the other things you wrote about the Five Ways.

>>Only one who already believes in a deity would countenance Aquinas' conclusion.<<

Again, I never claimed otherwise.

AJ Philips,

I reacted to three of your statements hoping that some of those who read this will understand what I meant. I am sorry you were not one of them. On the other hand, I did not understand the relevance to my post of most of what you wrote.

>>You can’t get around this<<

I was not getting around anything by pointing out that belief in the existence of something beyond both the physical and the mental does not necessarily lead to the Christian concept of God (model of the divine).

The rest is actually only a sort of confirmation that here we landed on the grounds of psychology which is very much outside my competence. I appreciate your offering an insight into your thinkings and feelings. You are not the only one who lost his faith and you would not be the only one to find it again, although not as a consequence of not being able to "defend a position that doesn’t actually require defending at all".

You apparently have a troubled "heart" concerning matters of belief and unbelief. That - if I may say so - somehow reminds me of Augustine's entry phrase in his Confessions: "For Thou hast made us for Thyself and our hearts are restless till they rest in Thee."

Oddly, if I understand your last post correctly, I think we may actually be in agreement, George.

>>>> Which is … exactly the point I was making.<< I was not saying anything else. This is how I understand “reformulate”.<<

For the avoidance of doubt, as the lawyers say, my "point" was:

"An argument... that only a Christian would even consider vaguely relevant to the point I was making. Which is, strangely, exactly the point I was making."

Our new-found level of understanding would appear to be in the area of "arguments for or against the existence of God are only relevant to people who already believe that there is a God". And its corollary, "arguments for or against the existence of God are by definition meaningless to those who don't already believe that there is a God".

If so, I shall happily leave the field for you to split a few more hairs...

>>You cannot "investigate" God, He is not the solution to scientific problems.<<

But... I believe you offered this:

>>...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.”<<

That's what I mean about splitting hairs. You proposed the concept "investigated by (natural) science, and science cannot find...", then deny that God can be investigated anyway. Colour me bemused by your logic.

>>I only assumed that when you offer an opinion or argument of a philosophical nature you should expect it to be taken on that level and not that of an average church-goer.<<

And the opinion in question?

"Every Christian I have met uses the Bible as evidence of the existence of God"

It may be a sad omission on my part, but my social circles do not include the kind of Christian who questions their faith on a philosophical level. My view extends to the "average church-goer" only.

But hey, it's good that we agree on the main issue.