I wouldn't knowing hold to a position that I knew was false. That's just idiocy. We all come to a place in our search for truth where we consider that we subscribe to something both logical and tenable, and then we find a place of equilibrium and hold to that position until further information (or dire threat) forces us to desert that position, or at least question it. So of course I'm no different than anyone else, you included.

> Strange how no theist has ever presented a convincing argument for a god on reddit, but you’re just absolutely positive that good arguments exist. Well, please link some threads from that subreddit or start your own.

I've actually had DOZENS of conversations on reddit discussing and debating the arguments for the existence of God. They show up every couple of weeks, sometimes multiple ones in a single week, and I've had this conversation literally dozens of time. I just had one two days ago.

> I still consider all religions are superstitious including Christianity and the fact that you have a mindset that ignores how common false beliefs are in the human race

And what makes you think I ignore that? Just prejudice on your part. I happen to agree with you that false beliefs are very common among humans, but that doesn't mean every belief is false.

It’s not extraordinary that you’re confident a religion is true. Most people are confident and most people don’t believe in the same religious concept so most people are confident in a wrong concept. Why would you be any different?

Strange how no theist has ever presented a convincing argument for a god on reddit, but you’re just absolutely positive that good arguments exist. Well, please link some threads from that subreddit or start your own.

I still consider all religions are superstitious including Christianity and the fact that you have a mindset that ignores how common false beliefs are in the human race makes me curious how much you’ve thought about this because it feels like it’s the first time.

> But we also can't run experiments on any supernatural claim.

Correct. There are many things we can't run science experiments on. Science has its arena: the natural world. You can't run science experiments to determine guilt or innocence in a courtroom, to decipher the economic picture, the describe the power of Picasso's Guernica, the beauty of Beethoven's 9th Symphony, or to predict the winner of the Super Bowl. Science does science things; it's a terrible mistake to think everything is under the jurisdiction of science.

> So do you think it's rational to reject supernatural claims?

It may seem rational to the rejecter, but if the supernatural claims are true, it turns out to be irrational. Let me try to explain.

I am not sure I would grant that there are valid intellectual reasons to reject supernatural claims any more than there are valid intellectual reasons to deny the reality of the Holocaust. I am so thoroughly convinced that Christianity is true, just as I am convinced that the Holocaust really happened, that in the end of things it will be shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is true and has been true all along.

Now, let's take the Holocaust as an example. Arguments are put forth to show how it's all a hoax. Are they intellectually valid? Their perpetrators would say "Definitely so." Some of those who believe the Holocaust is real may even say, "Hmm, I see your point. You're making sense." Those who know the truth (the Jews who are still alive who were in those camps) would say none of the evidence presented in the form of logically valid reasons turns out to be legitimate, because the Holocaust really happened. In the end, if a rational pursuit doesn't lead us to the truth, was it a rational pursuit after all?

> Like hey, if Jesus existed or did magic in the past, that's cool, but what does it have to do with living in physical reality today where the supernatural abilities that Jesus claimed to possess just don't exist anywhere?

Jesus was God, so of course none of us possess His abilities. He was a unique individual. What it has to do with us is that each us must wrestle with His claims to deity. If there really is a God, then it really matters in our physical reality and in each one of our lives. If there really is no God, then that really matters, too. It's one of the most important questions of humanity.

> If there aren't any experiments to do around Christianity, what is the point of belief?

Not everything is subject to the science lab. What's the point of your education, or your job, or a family? Those aren't "science" things. What does it matter whether you're a Democrat or Republican (but, oh, it DOES really matter about that; but those aren't "science" things either). Maybe you believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and maybe you don't. But if there aren't any experiments to do around freedom of speech, what is the point of belief? There's plenty. Science has nothing to do with ANY of this stuff, but it's all important, critical even. Why are we here? What is our purpose in life? What gives humans value? These are some of the most important questions of life, but they have nothing to do with science.

> What do you think Hebrews 11 calls for?

Hebrews 11 calls for evidence, clear and simple. "Faith is being sure of what we hope for." "Being sure of" is the term ὑπόστασις. It means "certainty about the reality of, the substantial nature of something, the reality (in contrast to what merely seems to be; knowing confidence." The term was common in business documents as to the basis or guarantee of transactions. This "assurance" was the real substance undergirding present and future action.

So what the author is saying is that our faith is a kind of knowledge grounded in the reality of something, based on what is actually there in contrast to what merely seems to be.

He says we can know ("be sure of") what we hope for. "Hope" in the Bible is our confidence and certainty about things we know to be real, even though we haven't experienced them yet (much like sitting in a chair or opening a door). Our "hope" is what we know: things that happened in the past (Jesus's death and resurrection), things happening in the present (our experiences of spiritual reality), and things in the future (what we can't possibly have seen yet). "Hope" is what we know to be true; it is knowledge, pure and simple. Because we have evidence (like sitting in a chair), we know about the future (the chair will hold us).

The second half of the verse: "the evidence of things not seen." What is it about the word "evidence" that your eyes completely missed? The Greek word is ἔλεγχος, and means "proof; conviction about what there is evidence for; certainty." We can have certainty about what can't be seen at the present because of the evidence at hand.

That's what Hebrews 11.1 is saying. There's nothing blind about biblical faith. It's based in knowledge and evidence.

> God isn't even well defined enough to have a conversation about - it's entirely guesswork.

This is completely untrue. There's quite a solid case for theism, and it's based in logic, science, and experience. There's nothing "guesswork" about it.

> I refuse to consider that there are only two religions in the world. There are several thousand at least.

Of course there are. There are plenty of animistic religions, but I would lump them all under animism, not as a separate religion for each individual culture. They are small and fading from history because of their inadequacy and superstitionism. Of the major religions encompassing the vast majority of people on Earth, they are as I mentioned, and really fundamentally only two: Christianity and Hinduism.

> I really don’t see how there is any evidence for theism.

Have you done ANY reading on the subject? There is vast evidence for theism. The arguments are usually lined up as cosmological, ontological, teleological, analogical, axiological, scientific, linguistic, and the evidence of other minds. I would hope you've done some research before you came to the conclusion that there is no evidence for theism.

> Intelligence is only found in living life forms.

Correct, and this is one of the arguments for theism. Science tells us that informational data can only derive from previous informational data, so are we wiser to assume our intelligence came from an intelligent source or an unintelligent one? Are we wiser to assume our personality came from a personal source than an impersonal one? If our intelligence came from "random" processes (natural selection and genetic mutation), can we really trust that our intelligence leads us to mostly true thoughts? Many would conclude "no." But if our intelligence came from an intelligent source (God), then it makes perfect sense that it leads us to mostly true thoughts. If we are inferring the most reasonable conclusion, theism is stronger than naturalism.

> You can’t just assign it to immaterial beings and say it’s rational.

Of course not, but that's not how it works. Did the universe cause itself to come into being when it didn't previously exist? Both science and reason would tell us that's not possible or reasonable. Since the laws of nature and the physical forces didn't exist before the Big Bang, nor did nature itself, then something outside of nature must have been the causal mechanism. And since we know the non-material things truly exist (like time, memories, intuitions, meanings, etc.), it's not a stretch that there are non-material entities. So if some non-natural, non-material entity was the causal mechanism for the Big Bang, we can rationally perceive that causal mechanism to be powerful, timeless, intelligent, personal, and non-material. In other words, God is a rational conclusion. Considering Occam's Razor, since only in God is there sufficiency of explanation, then God is also the simplest explanation.

> We can run experiments on anything to do with Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar.

But we also can't run experiments on any supernatural claim. So do you think it's rational to reject supernatural claims? Like hey, if Jesus existed or did magic in the past, that's cool, but what does it have to do with living in physical reality today where the supernatural abilities that Jesus claimed to possess just don't exist anywhere? If there aren't any experiments to do around Christianity, what is the point of belief?

> The Bible is evidentiary, and doesn't call for blind faith.

What do you think Hebrews 11 calls for? If God was able to be seen, I'd agree that blind faith wasn't required. But in this case, God isn't even well defined enough to have a conversation about - it's entirely guesswork.

I refuse to consider that there are only two religions in the world. There are several thousand at least.

I really don’t see how there is any evidence for theism. Intelligence is only found in living life forms. You can’t just assign it to immaterial beings and say it’s rational.

> Do normal Christians not have an agenda?

Not normal Christians, no. Just truth-seekers like many other people. But once you have found the information that fits the criteria of truth, you settle into an equilibrium of confidence.

> Are they incapable of lying?

Christians are capable of lying, just like anyone else. We're taught that it is wrong, but some Christians do it anyway.

> Are they incapable of making mistakes about the text?

Christians are capable of making mistakes about the text. That's why we work so hard to study it well and correctly, as objectively as possible, using all the information at our disposal. It's a scholarly discipline, but it's also common sense, and we have to be careful not to look at or interpret the text with colored lenses of bias or distortion.

> Is there a way to verify interpretations like running experiments to refine a hypothesis?

History and literature are not like a science lab. We can run experiments on anything to do with Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. These events are forever gone; they cannot be viewed directly or reconstructed precisely or exhaustively. They cannot be subjected to scientific observation and experimentation. Our knowledge of the past, as in history, comes to us exclusively through incomplete, selective, and even biased sources (like the inscriptions on the tombs of Egyptian kings). It's not possible to "run experiments." Science does science, and not every field is subject to "science."

There are ways to verify interpretations, though the discipline of literary biblical interpretation is complex. It involves paleo-linguistics, study of ancient culture, anthropology, sociology, archaeology, historical studies of artifacts and documents, theology, and literature. By assessing all the data in the templates of the varied disciplines, there are ways to arrive at bona fide interpretations about which we can be confident to a high degree.

> Do you think faith is a valid method to claim that other religions are true? Your examples all deal with physical evidence- grocery stores exist and so do cars.

Christianity also deals with physical evidence. The existence of David, Hezekiah, Isaiah, Jesus, and Paul. The truth of the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, the Israelite return from the exile, and the physical and cultural evidences of Jesus's resurrection. The Bible is evidentiary, and doesn't call for blind faith.

Science itself uses not just empirical evidence, but also theoretical or conceptual reasoning (formulating and articulating questions, developing and clarifying hypotheses, models, and theories) and also analysis (data processing, weighing data, calculating parameters for error, data reduction, data analysis, and data interpretation). It's not all about the physical evidence, ever. Everything needs to be interpreted.

> So are unfalsifiable religious supernatural ideas true by default through faith?

Nothing is true by default. Everything has to go through a grid of criteria for truth.

I read an interesting article a few month ago that had been published just a few years back (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/falsifiability/) about how nonfalsifiability enters even the scientific realm. Falsifiability, it turns out, is not a perfect criterion. But we certainly respect science nonetheless.

> So my question is how would you apply Occam’s Razor to the claims made by Christians when we take into account the fact that we think all other religions are invented by man?

Christianity has a sufficiency of explanation that other religions don't have. There are really only two religions in the world: Judeo-Christianity and Hinduism. Islam is at root a cult (distortion) of Christianity, as are Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism. Buddhism is a subset of Hinduism, having taken god(s) out of the picture. Confucianism is a philosophy, not a religion. We're left with Christianity and Hinduism.

Yet there are many aspects of Hinduism that don't square with reality: Life is an illusion, suffering is an illusion, truth is relative (and not necessarily true), nature (and therefore humanity) is impersonal, etc. We can all see the inconsistencies putting Hinduism against reality. Hinduism is also a philosophical religion, not a historical one. Not an ounce of it is provable.

Christianity, however, fulfills the criterion of truth and has sufficiency of explanation (where even science lacks it). There is a natural connection between theism and causality: intelligence, personality, intent, freedom, power, and laws. Theism has sufficient prior probability (simplicity of explanation) and complete explanatory power. The intrinsic probability of theism is, relative to other hypotheses about what there is, very high. Therefore, theism fulfills the obligations of Occam's Razor as being the simplest and most straight-forward explanation.

Do normal Christians not have an agenda? Are they incapable of lying? Are they incapable of making mistakes about the text? Is there a way to verify interpretations like running experiments to refine a hypothesis? If no, how can you be confident to any degree?

Do you think faith is a valid method to claim that other religions are true? Your examples all deal with physical evidence- grocery stores exist and so do cars. So are unfalsifiable religious supernatural ideas true by default through faith?

> It seems that Jim Jones wanted status and power. I consider Charles Manson to have been mentally ill. I think Marshall Applewhite (Heaven's Gate) was delusional. I think Joseph Smith, Ellen White, and Charles Taze Russell (Jehovah's Witnesses) were making things up. The ancients with their mythologies were using stories to explain the important things of life (wisdom, death, reproduction, and fertility became gods, for instance). It evolved into mythological religious systems with no historical or life connection. I think Hinduism is a collection of the teachings of Indian sages (the wisdom of their culture). Buddhism and Confucianism are not religions, per se, but worldviews based on the thoughts of Confucius and Siddartha Gautama.

I basically agree. So my question is how would you apply Occam’s Razor to the claims made by Christians when we take into account the fact that we think all other religions are invented by man?

I would. It seems that Jim Jones wanted status and power. I consider Charles Manson to have been mentally ill. I think Marshall Applewhite (Heaven's Gate) was delusional. I think Joseph Smith, Ellen White, and Charles Taze Russell (Jehovah's Witnesses) were making things up. The ancients with their mythologies were using stories to explain the important things of life (wisdom, death, reproduction, and fertility became gods, for instance). It evolved into mythological religious systems with no historical or life connection. I think Hinduism is a collection of the teachings of Indian sages (the wisdom of their culture). Buddhism and Confucianism are not religions, per se, but worldviews based on the thoughts of Confucius and Siddartha Gautama.

Great so would you say that all other religions exist because people make stuff up?

I think Christianity is distinctively different because Christianity is a historical religion grounded in evidences and corroboration. It's different from Mormonism in that there isn't a single shred of historical evidence for anything the Mormons claim. The difference between Christianity and Jehovah's Witnesses is theological, so that's based on the proper theological interpretation of Scripture, not on historical evidences. In that case, we have to pursue the truth by using valid instruments of textual analysis, linguistics, interpretation, and internal consistency. Jehovah's Witness is just a false interpretation of the biblical corpus. They've distorted the text to suit their agenda.

> If people had good reasons, why wouldn’t they talk about them instead of faith?

We do talk about evidences. "Faith" is a term for the future. It's making an assumption of truth where there is enough evidence to make it reasonable to make that assumption. I have faith the car is going to start, my key is going to open the door, that the grocery store is still on the corner when I'm headed there. I don't know for sure since it's in the future. And occasionally cars don't start or my key doesn't open the door. But I have enough evidence to make a reasonable assumption, and so I believe when I go outside to start my car to go to the grocery store, I believe (have faith) the car will start and I believe (have faith) the store is there and is open. We treat most of life this way. It's knowledge in one sense, but it's faith in another. Christianity is no different. I have enough evidences from a variety of sources that I can make a reasonable inference of truth based on those evidences.

Right so can you prove that Christians aren’t the same way? Mormons? Jevovah’s Witnesses? If people had good reasons, why wouldn’t they talk about them instead of faith?