| HN Mirror

I've found that you can reply directly by clicking the [link] link, which gives you a reply box.

"The evidence that explain the things that I believe in, like the existence of this computer in front of me, don't require any faith at all."

Not so. You have faith in what your parents told you about the circumstances of your birth. You have no memory of the first year of your life, so it could very well have been made up. But you believe it by faith mixed with reason.

In this case that's not me using faith, that's using a heuristic. A heuristic is a decent substitute for empirical research, but it is not foolproof. We use heuristics to save time. If we had to do empirical research for everything in our lives we would never have time to do anything.

A heuristic is a way to ascertain information quickly. In the case of my birth, there's all kind of evidence to back up my parent's stories including photos, the investment and time spent in raising me. None of this is foolproof evidence, but it's enough to pass my heuristic for this situation. And there are measures I can take to get physical empirical evidence, like a DNA test.

The question of who my parents have can be phrased in this way and have an answer "the people who claim to be my parents are not actually my parents if a DNA test disputes their claims."

Please I encourage you to phrase a question as I have for your belief in God. Something like "I would not believe in God if X were true." Fill in the X.

Following your formula and your DNA example, "I would not believe in God if the New Testament were not true."

That's not right.

Try to the phrase the X with very specific verifiable empirical evidence.

It's a bit ridiculous to make a claim of truth for an entire volume of information. Scientists, for example, don't do this. There are always going to be errors that creep into work. Einstein's has a paper called "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory." Scientists don't say "I would not believe in relativity if Einstein's paper were not true." They give specific evidence. For example, they would say they don't believe in relativity if light from stars didn't bend around the sun. Try something like that.

[1]: http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Christian-Apologetics-Peter-K...

> I'm guessing you're going to give me some unverifiable testimony from people who died long ago and expect that to have a person question heaps of contrary empirical evidence.

Read the related chapter in The Handbook of Christian Apologetics[1] for reasons why the Gospel stories are reliable eyewitness accounts.

When it comes to claims that attempt to discount an insurmountable mountain of physical evidence you yourself can verify, there is no such thing as reliable eyewitness accounts, especially not from people who died eons ago. It's obvious you are not applying sound reasoning. Would you say it's sound reasoning to convict a man cleared by DNA tests for murder when there are witness accounts from living people? Think about this maybe. You're applying a wholly uneven standard of importance to one kind of evidence because of faith. And you resort to faith because the evidence is not good enough. You resort to faith because you want to. Given all that we know about the universe, you are clearly making the wrong choice.

I may not convince you, but again, you are exactly what I thought you were, a person who relies on faith to believe in God. Faith is a bad way to come to believe in things. For example Muslims believe Muhammad was the last prophet, Mormons believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. Both rely on faith, but clearly both can not be right. You would not use faith to answer questions in everyday life, because you would not do well.

The book I mentioned refutes this argument you're making. Why don't you read it?

Why don't you provide a short summary. My opinion right now is that if the book claims that things we can physically verify ourselves about the world are wrong because of a handful of dead people it doesn't sound like a very good book.

I can only think of three reasons you're asking me why I believe in Christianity (or Catholicism).

1. You want to learn more about Christianity for yourself to see if its worth believing in.

2. You just want to have a conversation with me.

3. You want to find my reasoning so you can tear it down and show me how I'm wrong.

I don't believe #3 is true, as I believe you're a better person than that. And I don't see why you'd be particularly interested in doing #2. In which case, you probably just want to learn more about it.

Since you probably just want to learn more about it, I think you'll find that those books contain all the same answers I could give, and they do a much better job of it than I could.

But I just don't have the time to devote to rewriting them in the form of HN comments. I'd rather spend my Saturday reading the Julia documentation (so awesome) and playing with my kids and teaching my son programming.

I'm not trying to do anything malicious but intentions are irrelevant when it comes to truth. It's either right or wrong. If someone really had a good reason for believing in God I'd like to know about it. I am also interested in atheists who later turn to God because I don't comprehend how such a thing is possible unless they were never rigorous in their scepticism or had some kind of terrible psychological trauma. The latter is known to ruin minds. For example starvation makes people irrational about eating, war, giving birth, etc all have psychological effects that can't be reasoned away.

Anyway thanks for answering my questions. Enjoy your weekend.

Here's a good short article on the Resurrection of Jesus[1].

[1]: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm

These are all witness accounts from superstitious people who died long ago. Nothing listed is verifiable. This is not good evidence. Witness accounts from dead people should not be enough to discount the mountains of empirical evidence that imply that resurrection after having been dead for three days is not possible.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04503a.htm

I disagree. The following document explains my reasoning:

The explanation given there is sound when it is applied the veracity of historical written records that don't attempt to support the supernatural. It's just about measuring what the more reliable evidence is. Did so and so say such and such to this person and so 500 years ago? Best written records say so, and there are different pieces of records from different people who say so and so we deem it good enough to say it's accurate. That's a totally different ball game than trying to discredit contemporary physical evidence.

You'll find my rebuttal in the books I've mentioned in other comments.