What if these sort of methods of proving that it happened were not available? That is what you are up against when you try to use the bible (among other things) to prove God's existence.

If you told people that you went 200mph in a car, most people would not believe you. If I told people that, most people would believe me. The difference is is that I have proven that I have direct access to the the type of cars that are capable of doing 200mph. You would have to come up with extra proof that I would not.

The bottom line is that I don't think that the bible (really the documents describing events, I don't think that the bible is magic like some atheists like to project on Christians) is very strong evidence for the existence of God. I think that it is very strong evidence given God exists that the God of the bible is the most accurate portrayal of the God that exists.

So maybe you are right that for some who believe that the bible is sufficient to show God's existence can jump straight to that. But for me, my belief in God does not rest on the bible or the story of Jesus, but that only my belief that the God that does exist is most accurately portrayed in the bible.

So the progression would be

Does God exist? Yes, and here is why.

Ok, what God is the true God? (or any question along those lines) God X is the most accurate representation, and here is why.

Reconsidered what? Strong atheism is ridiculously simple. "There is a god" is seen as a false proposition, that's it.

Evidence is obviously moot, as it is not an empirical observation ala "There is God" falsified (or ignored as unfalsifiable).

It was mostly terminology and confusion on my part about belief. So yeah going from weak atheism to strong is pretty easy and I was dumb for not really getting it before. I am dumb is the answer.

TD also holds this view; I'm not sure if you gathered that from the thread I linked, or from other threads where he's mentioned it.

Yeah, it is definitely one of my pet peeves...not so much because there aren't dumber things in the world, but maybe more because people who claim to hold this belief also tend to indirectly claim to be rather smart for doing just that.

Maybe what annoys is that it seems somewhat tricky to convey why it is dumb. It is sort of like saying A is false for non-revealed values of A. Which is silly...because A isn't revealed, so you shouldn't believe it is neither true nor false.

I tend to believe that people think "strong" and "weak" refers to some sort of quantitive value to how atheistic you are...mistakenly believing strong atheism to be a more unforgiving stance...and that they mantain this mistake regardless of how often you point out this is not the case.

Which is ironic...because weak atheism or agnostic atheism is really the only proper stance for the irreligious. Once you claim to be a strong atheist, you have implicitly accepted religious revelation as valid.

Remember the context though - all I said was that it isn't necessary to prove the general case and then the specific. One can just demonstrate the specific and the general is taken care of.

However, if you think it isn't possible to provide good reasons for the specific god you believe in then I think you're right and will be forced to build up an argument from the general case. The first step then is going to be a clear definition (so that traits of the specific don't get inadvertently used in the proof of the general).

I think there is a step prior to this one, namely defining God. It's important to utilize clear definitions when making deductive arguments.

It is not that I do think a case cannot be made for a specific God, but that arguing for the specific God cannot show that a general God exists, given the current information.

The question around here is almost never "which God is the true God", but "does God exist".

Yeah I gathered that. Not sure why it matters though, I respect TD's opinions lots but I don't need his approval to shift back and forth between strong and weak atheism IMO. And it is at least worth considering the "what kind of evidence would actually sway you" question. I side with PZ Meyers and co. on this I guess. I hate to co-opt other people's thoughts and just provide links but there is nothing I could add to this topic that was not said (or asked) better by someone else already.

If you successfully argue that a specific God exists - you have shown without question that a general god exists.

As I understand you, you dont think one can argue successfully for a specific God - it's more that once we believe in a god (which you think is based on reason) then we need to take some view as to what sort of god it is. This makes sense to me (it was pretty much my theistic position) so I'd ask you to clarify what a god is and then provide the logical reason for thinking one exists.

I will do. I believe that your thread asked that question.

Now that we have official rules, can you do me a favor and repost your thread in a new thread. I don't think that I will get to it tonight, but probably tomorrow (or at least some of it tomorrow, those were big questions!). I would rather start with a fresh thread.