Again, you seem to be saying only empirical methodology suffices to give a verifiable result when investigating the existence of God..... ....if God exists in the natural world. If God exists in the supernatural world, as most tend to believe, then anybody who believes in God believes in a supernatural entity and is therefore superstitious.
Which funnily enough was my original point before you tried to warp what I meant.
Instead of me saying this over and over and over again and then you taking my position out of context and I post again trying to clarify my position so that you can again take it out of context, why don't you point out where this argument might be wrong? Otherwise we're going in circles, you're just not going to 'get it' and this line of discussion is pointless.
This would seem to contradict everything you just said, but maybe I'm still misunderstanding you. Perhaps you could give me an example of "true" or "real" or "verifiable" (all terms you have used) knowledge which is not of an empirical nature, and explain why exactly this non-empirical epistemology cannot be applied to questions pertaining to God.
I've never used the word "verifiable" in relation to any other method besides that of an empirical nature. That was my point.
I'll give you an example of what can only be "true", and therfore cannot be false, using only logic if you like: "God cannot be omnipotent". Logically that statement is true and I've used no empirical methodology at all.
The problem with using logic when applied to questions of God is that logic is limited, (as evidenced above), and that any logical arguments for God fall into an infinite regress which can never be answered and always end up as a paradox. In the end we don't get an answer and if you don't get an answer it can hardly be verifiable.
Since you've asked me the question I'll ask you the same one (sort of): Can you give me an example using philosophy, logic, reason, etc. that gets us to the "truth" as to whether or not God exists that I can not refute using the same method?
I can't speak for Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus, so how about when we talk about Christian faith we just use the term pistis to avoid confusion?
I've no problem with that. In fact after thinking about it I kind of wish everyone did use it in that sense. Trying to discuss something with someone who believes it despite/without the evidence is frustrating and ultimately pointless. Contrary to what you think, I'd say using the commonly used "faith" definiton in a discussion with a believer is harder.
Irrelevant to the discussion. Pistis has a specific meaning, and it doesn't change just because many people don't use it correctly.
Your original claim that "New Atheists" always get the definiton wrong when arguing with believers is hardly surprising as they are arguing the same definiton. It's hardly irrelevant. You brought it up.
Would you mind giving us this specific definition? "Loyalty", "faithfulness" and "trust" are a pretty vague to be called a "specific" definition.
I certainly don't expect non-Christians to know this. But I do expect them to accept being corrected.
I'm sure they would. Seeing as the majority of them would probably be scientists they'd be used to people bringing new evidence to the table to challenge their ideas and preconceptions. The problem lies with those they are arguing with. They can only argue the definition that's put in front of them.
Well I suppose they can define it anyway they want. But that's not what Jesus and Paul meant when they spoke of pistis. I too would leave any religion which preached "belief in spite of evidence."
Wise man. And yet....
The Resurrection, to be concise.
You have a "trust" in God because somebody is claimed
to have risen from the dead after 3 days? But you don't require any evidence of this claim?
Good, because it's a crackpot theory.
It depends which Jesus you mean.
Actually, the historical evidence is overwhelming that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate around 30 AD. Unlike the Resurrection, this isn't really up for debate, except amongst the kookiest of New Atheist neanderthals.
I'd debate you on it, particularly the "...of Nazareth" claim, but that would only prove my New Atheist neanderthal credentials. You being an Old Age bible humper probably wouldn't judge my arguments valid because...well, because you don't want to.
But let me make myself clearer. I'm not suggesting that a man named Jesus wasn't walking around Judea 2,000 years ago and that this man wasn't one of hundreds of other self-proclaimed messiahs doing likewise. What I am saying is that just because there are a couple of references, some vague, made about this man by a few historians at the time, (Tacitus, Pliny, etc.), does not mean he is the son of God as he is depicted in the Bible.
The historical evidence will show that George Washington existed, it does not mean he chopped down a fucking cherry tree.
I suppose, but the Nicene Creed is probably a better summation of what constitutes Christian faith.
We believe in one God, who sent his son, who died, who rose and sits on his right hand and also in the holy spirit? [parapharsed]
That's kind of it, no? That let's me skip a step if true.
By that do you mean "in order for one to be a Christian, one must believe that God exists in the first place? So what exactly is the basis for trusting that God exists?"
If so, again I would say the Resurrection is the concise answer.
I find that answer to be intellectually unsatisfying. That's akin to me saying I believe in magic because it says it in Harry Potter.
Btw, the whole "Jesus died for our sins" thing...isn't that a little tarnished because he came back again?
If you're not interested in Resurrection mumbo-jumbo, then you can try your hand at the various cosmological arguments (see Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz) or Anselm's ontological argument (I still can't wrap my head around that one to be honest!)
Both are crap.
Cosmological: An uncaused cause (lol) does not = God as defined by religion. It merely states that there must logically be one. It does not mean there was one.
You can't wrap your head around the ontological argument because it's bollocks.