Whether you agree with the definition or not is irrelevant.
If you stubbornly insist on holding onto your opinion, what is the point in talking to you? A good debate practice is to agree on definitions of words, instead of forcing your definition on your opponent.
The dictionary definitions exist the way that they are because, as you said, faith outside the Christian practice is irrational and frequently leads to believing things in the absence of evidence. For example, there isn't any evidence that Mohammad was a prophet, and plenty that he was a madman, at least from my perspective. His behavior and actions outside of the book strike me as mad, and reading the Quran, it's all rambling poetry that didn't seem cogent. But people throw themselves into buildings, committing suicide over that.
First, if you accept that faith is the only proof you need that god exists
I didn't accept it. The existence of God needs more proof than blind faith. Otherwise, you're right. There's nothing to distinguish any religion from another.
Christianity is predicated on accepting the truth of several actual historical events based on the coherency of the Biblical text. The first notable historical event would be Christ's death and resurrection. The latter was attested to by 500 eyewitnesses, and the Bible offers 4 separate accounts of Christ's life from 4 different people from 4 different walks of life. Mark was a servant living with his mom, Matthew was a sellout to the Roman conquerors, Luke was a doctor and a member of the 1%, and John was a fisherman. You think the poor people and the rich agree on anything unless it actually happened?
The second notable events are the series of events that happened to the nation of ancient Israel. The Bible gets those events accurate. There's also the fact that Daniel predicted the rise of empires in the Book of Daniel, and those empires rose and fell exactly how Daniel said they would.
The second thing that distinguishes Christianity from other religions is the fact that God died for His people and rose again to pay for their sins. This is distinct from every other world religion, which is all about following rules to try to be good enough for God or gods or achieving nirvana or whatever.
Which leads to the third distinction - the clarity, consistency, and cogency of the Biblical text. Other religions and gods have very little surviving text, and those that do largely contain teachings in isolation without telling stories of actual historical events. The Bible clearly specifies how God intervened in history.
Since the Bible is a reliable historical document, it then stands to reckon that it is correct about another historical event, that would be the creation of the world. That certainly strikes me as more rational than trying to establish faith in the big bang. This universe burns energy through entropy and thus needs an infinite energy source to power it, and it's hard for me to believe that infinite energy doesn't have infinite intelligence. After all, if I have intelligence as a finite being, how much more does infinite energy have the potential for thought?
That also rules out the idea of multiple "gods" powering the universe. Multiple finite forms of energy aren't enough to power the cosmos, and they don't add up to infinite power. And if there is infinite power, there aren't multiple sources of it, otherwise it would no longer be infinite power. Thus, there is only one God.
As I have quoted previously, "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
I dismiss all other possible Gods based on: 1. lack of historical evidence of their existence, 2. lack of cogency in writings pointing to them, 3. inconsistency with the requirements of what this universe needs to operate, 4. a legalist approach that is insufficient for man's needs for salvation.
You dismiss my God based on selfishness, irrationality, ignorance, and a trite statement that you dug up on the Internet that you use as a conversation stopper to whip debate opponents into submission.
1) Consider the omnipotence paradox. Can god create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? If he cannot then he is not omnipotent. If he can, guess what, he is not omnipotent. Since omnipotence is a major characteristic of your god, that omnipotence is disproved with a simple paradox your god cannot exist.
I will not, since that paradox is a thought trap that is based on a logical fallacy. You basically are giving the person a question as a trap question based a false premise, and when the person buys into answering the question, they are playing into your trap because you have set your beliefs up as the authority behind the question.
Infinite power cannot overcome itself, otherwise it would no longer be infinite. This is a true statement, regardless of what you believe. Further, infinite power doesn't care about your rocks or lifting them and will instead blast you into oblivion for being disrespectful and asking questions that only benefit you.
2) The origin of the universe and diversity of life can be explained through direct empirical evidence. Conversely, there is no empirical evidence of god.
em·pir·i·cal
/imˈpirək(ə)l/
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
Uh huh. I'm sure that you've observed and experienced the moment when the universe came into existence.
That was sarcasm. None of us have, and none of us have direct empirical evidence of the universe's origin.
Conversely, I have direct empirical evidence of God changing my life and making me a better person every day.
3) Evil, pain and injustice exist. If an all-powerful, all-loving god existed these things would not.
*yawns* Really? Without evil, pain, and injustice, human beings wouldn't have freedom of choice. Love exists only when freedom of choice is allowed. I chose to love my boyfriend over all other candidates for the position. If I was forced to act in his better interest, that is not love and that is slavery.
Is it loving to keep people as slaves? Are you really going to justify the Southern slaveholders in the U.S. and say how they treat their slaves as "loving"? Yeah I didn't think so either. A loving God doesn't treat us that way because he wants us to be able to love Him back.
4) If god existed he would make his existence more obvious than it is. Ergo, he does not exist.
Forcibly intervening in history and writing an entire book about His existence isn't good enough for you? Dying for your sins by enduring an excruciating death isn't enough? Would you believe if God stepped down from heaven and whacked you upside the head? Nope, clearly you were hallucinating when that happened.
5) That there are multiple religions and multiple gods, either one of them is right or more likely - none (as an example, if the Christian god exists, 1.2 billion Hindu's are wrong).
That's what you believe. Interestingly enough, Christianity explains all other religions as lies of Satan, and it makes sense that human beings prone to sinning would be easily taken in by his deceptions. It's also pretty obvious that, if following the Old Testament laws didn't make humanity better, following the teachings of the Krishna ain't gonna cut it. We need a bigger intervention to deal with our moral depravity than that.
Anyway, I'm done "throwing pearls to swine" as the Bible says. Have fun being insane.
I understand the parties are great.
