well I won't reply to all of your posts since I can tell you are already closing off to this conversation.
No I’m not closing off to this conversation; I’m just getting started!
I can tell I am losing you already. You started out open minded, but seem to be fading into skepticism.
Fading into skepticism? I’ve always considered myself a skeptic! Are you projecting your feelings onto me? Are you starting to close off to this conversation? Am I actually losing you? I hope not; I am enjoying our conversation. It isn’t often I get to converse with an actual Christian without them becoming hostile and belligerent; thus far you’ve been kind and respectful and I welcome the opportunity to discuss views with such a person.
But basically what I meant about the rain, that is the important thing. So lets talk about that.
Sure! Lets.
Again if a skeptic believes that we are in a drought for ten years, and someone comes in with drops on a coat, from rain outside. They will not use the circumstantial evidence. They will go out themselves to either see it for themselves or something else. Perhaps they will question the validity of the evidence, maybe the guy sprayed himself with a garden hose. That is certainly possible. But not probable. What is the motive of spraying one's self with a garden hose then lying about it? Again we can ask for labratory tests on the water to see if it's from rain or city water, but what is the point. The circumstantial evidence should normally be enough. But for some reason it's not good enough for a skeptic.
I don’t believe there is such a homogeneous group, that people who call themselves skeptics are a part of. I don't believe such a group even exist. As I said before, when people call themselves “skeptic” they are subjectively describing themselves as one who looks for evidence to support a claim; to what degree they do this will vary from person to person. So to claim a skeptic will say this or say that, to claim a skeptic will believe this or believe that; is a fallacy because there is no consensus on what skeptics will believe or do. So your claim of whether a skeptic will believe circumstantial evidence or not is unfounded; some may, others may not.
So in general they are what I call world denying. They deny the existence of truth because they invalidate circumstantial evidence of truth and only believe in objective empirical truth. But in the process they negate the world around us.
My previous response applies to this as well.
Much of not all of science is proven by circumstantial evidence. This is easily proven.
Not sure what science has to do with any of this, but I think it would be a mistake to assume my skepticism is limited to religion; that I put skepticism aside when it comes to scientific, or any other claims. Lots of theists I’ve discussed with in the past have done this; you should not.
But I can tell you are closed off to this discussion so I will end my comment short.
Are you sure it isn’t you who is closing off here? I’ve tried to respond to everything you’ve said in our conversations; I don’t think I’ve given you any reason to think I’m closing off here.
But just open your mind and think about it. When a christian says their is a God. Is your cup half empty, or half full?
When a Theist says there is a God (regardless of whether that Theist is Christian or not) I am open to the possibility that there is actually an entity out there that they call God, and I’m open to hear what this entity is all about. This doesn't mean I will believe everything they say concerning this entity, (hence my skepticism/atheism) but I am open to hearing what they believe about it.
Do you feel the universe started itself, in the infinite past?
Started in the infinite past? Not sure what you mean here, sounds like a contradiction to me.
Or do you think a maker of some kind made it? A skeptic will have faith, or trust that the universe in infinite,
Again; if you want to know what a skeptic believes, you need to ask a person who calls themselves skeptic. My brother is an evangelical Christian, and he is as skeptical as I am, the difference; his skepticism seems to end when it comes to his religion; mine does not. Obviously we have completely different views concerning the Universe, even though we are both skeptics.
and if you were to go to that first event (be it in a timeless vacuum, that first event for where the universe came from, would be spontaneous combustion from nothing). And that takes faith, not logic or science to validate that.
Spontaneous combustion from nothing? If you are referring to the Big Bang, it is not considered the first event, nor was it a combustion regardless of its name.
So again don't be so sure to toss faith out of your picture. You use it every day.
Faith means trust. We trust lots of things everyday, do we trust God?
I think to restrict the term “faith” to simply
believe cheapens the word. I don’t need to employ faith to believe the chair I’m sitting in will hold my weight, I don’t need to employ faith to believe my car will start when I attempt to drive it. Where there is proof or even circumstantial evidence there is no need for faith, where there is no proof or circumstantial evidence, faith is required to keep belief alive IMO
