Why do Christians feel they should be granted an unsubstantiated first premise?

Question

Arguments such as, we know there was a global flood becaues the bible tells us so rests logically on the unsubstantiated premise of the existence of God. Earlier today there was a question about why atheists provide answers such as "God isn't real" or "Heaven doesn't exist".

But why aren't those answers valid. If the underlying premise of a question is supported by zero empirical evidence, why should it simply be accpeted as true?

Answer 1

Because they don't have anywhere to go if you don't accept the initial premise, since most of their reasoning is circular.

Answer 2

How many of your beliefs rest on unsubstantiated premises? How many basic scientific assumptions are not themselves supported by empirical evidence?

To use an example, the assumption that the future will be like the past. This basic assumption is what makes experiments relevant. When a scientist conducts an experiment, one of the key requirements for the findings of that experiment to be given credibility is that they must be replicable. If the findings are unexpected, there is a greater chance that the study will be repeated, and if experiments which attempt to verify those findings do not actually replicate them, the initial findings are likely called in to doubt. All of this rests on the assumption that if the conditions of experiment A are copied perfectly in experiment B, the results will be the same.

But this assumption could not possibly have any empirical evidence behind it, and the theory that the future will be like the past is, by your criteria, not valid.

Now maybe you might say that there is empirical evidence that the future is like the past. And that evidence is that thus far in human history the future has been like the past. Physcial laws have not changed randomly.

But notice that this supposed empirical evidence is resting on the same basic assumption: "In the past, the future was like the past, therefore in the future, the future will be like the past." The unstated assumption is, of course, that what has been true in the past will remain true in the future. Without this assumption there is zero point in experimental science.

Requiring empirical grounds for every assumption will eliminate religion. It will also eliminate science and ethics. At the end of the day, if you use your criteria consistently, you will likely be a nihilist. There are enough other criticisms of religion that you do not need to go down this road.

Answer 3

You are correct.  They should not just be accepted.  Yet geological and archaeological research supports the flood in history.  Logically you can not prove the negatives of the atheist statements.  Empirical and other evidence should be sought out regardless of the position your are investigating.  

Christians unsubstantiated first premise:  God exists

Atheists unsubstantiated first premise: No god exists

Test the first hypothesis with real objective research and you will find the truth about both statements.

In public school classrooms today, the Christian world view of most things is assumed to be false and not given an equal hearing with other views.  The atheists are allowed unsubstantiated claims as fact in classrooms without debate.  This results in a distorted presentation of data and conclusions.  

Answer 4

I think I'm god.  My mother thinks I'm god.  My girlfriend thinks I'm god.  My dog thinks I'm god.  My socks say I'm god.  Therefore, I am god.  Do you all believe me now?  

Answer 5

Because their faith would stop working without it - quite simply.  

Answer 6

Actually, a big flood in the ancient near east is one historical event we can be fairly confident about, because it is one of the few things mentioned in the bible that has external support.  There's a text called the Epic of Gilgamesh which tells a very similar story.  It has been translated into English and can be bought at book stores and on Amazon, and is an interesting read.

But yeah, apart from the flood there's not much in the bible that can be confirmed from other evidence.

All that aside, Christianity isn't science and it isn't really philosophy.  It's largely myth, or at any rate mythological.  We might as well ask why Sophocles should be granted an unsubstantiated first premise.