Pericles, if we’re isolating Plantinga’s comments on “teapotism” then the relevant question is whether the proponent of “anti teapotism” has any obligation to provide support or evidence for their view, or whether that is simply the default view.

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)

AJ, interesting thoughts but you focused almost exclusively on evolution and origins. That is a very small part of science, and in fact has little bearing on how we interpret the world and how we talk about our everyday lives. Furthermore, how we talk about our everyday lives may or may not have a close connection with how we interpret the Bible. That is, fundamentalists may or may not be consistent.

Re: Faith, I’m fairly confident that some equivocation is impossible to avoid when talking about concepts like this. So in that respect, to some degree your criticisms may have validity. But it goes both ways. Ie: You can easily define faith as you wish and then disparage it as you wish, but I don’t expect many religious believers would be perturbed by your attempt at setting the discussion on your terms. And nor should they be.

Re: Evidence, 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. If you aren’t willing to accept this much then it’s best to agree to disagree and bring this part of the conversation to a close.

Finally, please don’t expect me to “demonstrate” why your “arguments” are wrong. We’d be here forever. Holding these discussions is stimulating, interesting and fun but please don’t take the fun out of it by complaining that I’m not answering every single point you make. I never intended to. And nor do I expect you to answer every comment I make either.

AJ, just re read your comment and realised by statement that you focused on evolution and origins was not correct- you were more broad than that.

However the substance of my comment is still true- I was referring to our everyday lives, and the way in which some Christians force God into a box by limiting him to the unknowns. Yet when we talk about normal everyday things (that are perfectly "explainable" by everyday science and knowledge from our senses) we don't always remember that God is ultimately behind those too. Consistency is important.

George- your comments are definitely stimulating!

I agree with your main idea: "Concepts like evidence, proof, truth, existence, reality, faith etc are ambiguous when used in an abstract (philosophical) context - hence in discussions one should be careful using them until all sides can agree on their meaning, if that is possible at all"

I often attempt this but it's difficult. Perhaps, some fruitful discussion can still be had despite this limitation.

I WAS GOING TO POST THIS..AS A CONTINUED From another topic
BUT AS IT BESt..relATES TO THIS..topic..I POST IT HERE

ITS DESCRIPTIVE..OF how..i have applied my different way of 'knowing'

I Figured to ask..SPIRITS..for help..and..MY POSTS..simply pass..MY MINDS EYE/ENVISIOning on..[LIKE ANY POSTAL Worker..i TRY NOT TO JUDGE THE MESSAGE]..OR CLARIFY..WHAT IM OFTEN required to post..NOT..by editing nor censure..[IT IS AS IT IS..the best i can do]

just as the messengers..in the book passed their messages on
[we have a book..test is on our books/not your disbelief]

i..JUST PASS IT/al..ON..as i know you must
I WILL BE..NEXT MEETING WITH YOUR MATES..ON 6 MAY
IT SEEMS SPIRIT.HAS MUCH IT WISHES ME..TO ASK..by what authority..[que warrento]..

[I WOULD LOVE IT IF YOU WERE THERE..AS I WOULD ALLOW..you standing to 'be there'..TO HEAR..WHAT I HAVE TO SAY TO THE summery-MAGGI Straight..[not judge]..because the first thing..i wiLL BE ASKING your peer..is to affirm his standing...to even be there.

either as..a royalist/or loyalist..OR otherwise..a fellow swearer..of oath-to her royal highness..[just wont do[SEE HRH HAS BEEN BETRAYED..BYSECULAR-HIGH treason..RULED BY DEMONS UNAWARE.

AND THE MAGGI..HAS THE DUTY..TO AFFIRM..AND CONVEY To hrh..[her hairs and suckceazers]..the WRIT..OF QUE WARRENTO..by what right..?..[THIS WAR ON A SEEDY PLANT..GOD GAVE TO EVERY/ANYONE..[GEN1;29]..

and BY WHAT RIGHT..GOVT pervert..the laWS OF POSSESSION..
[WHEN THE personhood..of STATE/CANNOT HAVE POSSESSION../NO INFORMED transmittance of right..BESIDES YOUR MATES TAKING IT..PROVE I NEVER HAD POSSESION

aNYHOW..MY 3 RD EDIT..IT JUST GETS MESSY
AND THE OTHER stuff,,that shows they dont want me talking..say cut the post in half..and stop posting..so this i do

by what right?..they use the conditions of war..to criminalize INTO Possession..being the crime..its demonic/..BUT GOD GAVE FREEWILL..THE WAY/MEANS..BUT ENOUGH..[GOD BLESS..THE MAGNA CARTA CHARTA]

or as an injured party..but i guess..we all can wait[but the innocent cry out..from the grave..that those criminalized..by govt DECLARATIONS OF REAL WARS..ON LIVING KIDS FOR RELEASING A lowly PLANT SPIRIT..BACK TO OUR FATHER

[GIVEN..it sounds nuts..i deliverd it regardless
cause thats how it was given..of spirit..unto me]

thaTS..HOW GOD..*WITHIN/US..*ALL WORKS...
THAT..YE DID...TO/FOr..THE LEAST..YE Did..*to..him*

SEE CURRENTLY..IM WAITING TO POST ON 3..THREADS
little known/let ALONE.. thought of..by 'science'..is just how mucH WE TRUST..other[thus take itt on faith]

soME OF US..TRUST..externals..others trust internals
like..'science..has its theoies..[like they say THAT 'PRESURE'..BUILT UP IN A CONTAINMENT VESSEL..CREATES PRESURE...by banging ..of non named particles..on the sides of the vessel[or some other such delusion]
none of you geniuos types care to post[BUT WHAT really is happening..is at the lower than micro-scopic levels..the molicules are at tHE ATOMIc/levels..being forced ..TOGETHER..[lets upscale..it to big bang scale.

see our earth..as if/IT..HAS..8 or 9 orbiting electrONS[PROTRONS NEUTRONS ETC=VENUS MARSE URANUS..etc]

solets pump the solar sySTEM..[like it was an airmolicule]..INTO A CONTAINER/LETS call that 'containER'..BLACK-HOLE..ANYHOW WE PUMP IN 50 or so earTH LIKE SOLAR SYSTEMS..AND JUst like air..in a container..it liqufies..[ie changes state..from air..into water]

now iT HASNT..properly changed state..BUT ONLY CHANGED STATE..BY VIRTUE/means..of the presSure container restraining THEIR 'SPACE'

WHERE AS BEFORE WE HAD THE SOLAR SUNS BODY OF AFFECT[a solar system..=one air molicule]..PUT ENOUGH INTO A BOTTLE..THE ORBIT OF the 50 plutos[outer RING ELECTRONS]..BEGIN BUMPing into each other

they are forced into a lower orbit..ever lower orbits..till in time
all outer orbits are forced onto say..the earth level of orbit

now if we opened the bottle..all them suns and planet suystems[read air MOLECULES]..RUSH OUT AND BECOME AIR AGAIN..[OR SOLAR SYSTEMS /AGAIN]..

but before this..compression..[SPIRITS SAY PEARL BEFORE SWINE]
THEY DONT ASK..MEANS THEY ARNT MEANT TO KNOW

you say what science *says happens
i will show you..science has feet of clay.

NAME NAMES/SCIENCE-process..?..reveal it
in plauin speak/RECALL SYNTAX IS IMPORTANT FOR SOME
AND MATH JUST CONFOUNDS THOSE NOT KNOWING THE FORMULATED CHANGER'S OF STATE..

our holy texts are written..so the reader can replicate their exact meaning/

meaning..if you cant teach..it..you been lied to.
YOU WERE TAUGHT LIES.

I suspect, Trav, others will explain some of the problems with...

"Evidence, 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."

But setting those aside (eg. the 'claims' bit) doesn't the sentence allow that every iteration of God - by every faith and religion and by every believing individual - is evidenced?

Are they then, all true? Even though most are mutually contradictory or exclusive?

Sometimes I wish that the conversations were more along the lines, not of why my belief in my God is right, but why your belief in your God is not.

Having then dealt with all the false Gods, theists would be able to really confront athiests with 'what' was left standing.

Trav,

Thanks for your correction at the end there. However, we are now back to where we started. I understood that this is what you were saying:

<<I was referring to our everyday lives, and the way in which some Christians force God into a box by limiting him to the unknowns.>>

The only reason I brought up evolution and the geographically, geologically and archaeologically debunked stories in the Bible was to show you the contrast between a fundamentalist and a sophisticated Christian, and demonstrate the inconsistency in your claims regarding the type of thinking we generally see in these two types of Christian. I am still waiting for you to explain to me how you single-out fundamentalists when making the following claim:

<<Yet when we talk about normal everyday things (that are perfectly "explainable" by everyday science and knowledge from our senses) we don't always remember that God is ultimately behind those too. Consistency is important.>>

Though the softening and generality of your chosen wording here seems to indicate that my points have had some impact: “…when we talk about…”, “…we don't always remember…”.

Can I take it that you no longer attribute the above merely to some fundamentalists?

<<That is, fundamentalists may or may not be consistent.>>

In light of everything I have pointed out, how do fundamentalists deserve singling out here?

Re: Faith. ‘Faith’, in general - whether it be about trust or a belief in something - is a word we use when we don’t have a good reason for that trust or belief. Colloquially, we say we “have faith” in someone or something when the trust we are placing in them/it hasn’t yet been earned, or may have even been abused at some point in the past yet we want to ease our concerns. We would also tend to say that we “have faith” that something will happen, when in reality, we couldn’t know either way.

Continued…