Is Scott Barger's faith changeable?

[Azor]

I have a question about the new host, Scott Barger.
First, I would like to say that I really enjoy listening to Scott. He's clear, thoughtful, and calm in his responses and discussion. Bravo!

The question:
What would constitute as evidence for you that your current beliefs about God are mistaken? (i.e., what would get you to fundamentally doubt the validity of faith in general and of Christianity in particular?)

I'm hoping the answer will say a lot about why you believe what you believe.
Cheers

[Emery]

Hey Azor, don't encourage him. We have enough trouble as it is, pinning him down to traditional Christian positions

[ScottBarger]

Thanks for the question Azor.

First, I am primarily a follower of Jesus...and almost out of necessity I also believe in the truthfulness of the Bible (I say "out of necessity" because it is from the New Testament that I learn about this Jesus I follow). I also think I am a theist based on general observations about the cosmos.

So to answer your question, for me to change my foundational beliefs about Jesus I would have to be shown that the early Christian witnesses (including the N.T.) are false or that the nature of the cosmos excludes the possibility of God.

I hope that answers your question.

[NH Baritone]

First, I am primarily a follower of Jesus...and almost out of necessity I also believe in the truthfulness of the Bible (I say "out of necessity" because it is from the New Testament that I learn about this Jesus I follow). I also think I am a theist based on general observations about the cosmos.

So to answer your question, for me to change my foundational beliefs about Jesus I would have to be shown that the early Christian witnesses (including the N.T.) are false or that the nature of the cosmos excludes the possibility of God.

Excludes the possibility of God? For you God has to be impossible? Not just that God's existence is exceedingly unlikely? After all, the things that are possible are beyond counting, but most of them we dismiss because the chances they exist are truly remote.

Why would you give God's existence a bigger evidentiary break than you would give the existence of Fairies, Mermaids, or Bertrand Russell's Teapot? If you are going to base your life on a proposition that something is true (and encourage others to do the same), wouldn't you need something to convince you that it is more than merely possible?

[Azor]

Thanks for the question Azor.

First, I am primarily a follower of Jesus...and almost out of necessity I also believe in the truthfulness of the Bible (I say "out of necessity" because it is from the New Testament that I learn about this Jesus I follow). I also think I am a theist based on general observations about the cosmos.

So to answer your question, for me to change my foundational beliefs about Jesus I would have to be shown that the early Christian witnesses (including the N.T.) are false or that the nature of the cosmos excludes the possibility of God.

I hope that answers your question.

Hi Scott, thanks for the reply - yes that was a very good short answer to my question.
So you believe in Christianity primarily because you believe:
1) The cosmos doesn't exclude the possibility of God.
2) Jesus is historical because of 'eyewitness' accounts by the disciples in the Bible are true.

When I get some more time I will try to post a follow-up - for your reading pleasure - that briefly explains for you why these reasons were not sufficient for me when I was a Christian. I think I'll post on one of the other forum sections to keep this section to the clearly of just the Q&A.
Again, thanks for being clear about the foundation of your beliefs.

Cheers

[ScottBarger]

Excludes the possibility of God? For you God has to be impossible? Not just that God's existence is exceedingly unlikely? After all, the things that are possible are beyond counting, but most of them we dismiss because the chances they exist are truly remote.

OK, I could be convinced by "exceedingly unlikely."

Why would you give God's existence a bigger evidentiary break than you would give the existence of Fairies, Mermaids, or Bertrand Russell's Teapot?

I don't feel that I am giving God an "evidentiary break" I simply do not require that something be 100% certain in order to believe it. For me it has to be reasonable and logical to believe it. A belief in God is both reasonable and logical, in my opinion. In fact I believe that a theistic world view is more reasonable and logical than an atheistic word view.

As far as fairies, mermaids, and Mr. Russle's teapot. I am somewhat skeptical because the evidence I have seen seems to make belief in these things unreasonable...or at least MORE unreasonable than the belief that these things do not exist.

If you are going to base your life on a proposition that something is true (and encourage others to do the same), wouldn't you need something to convince you that it is more than merely possible?

Yes.