Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 8:59 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
[ARCHIVED] - Evidence Vs Faith
#31
RE: Evidence Vs Faith
(September 8, 2009 at 4:55 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: A small request - would you mind putting a carriage return after quoting me/ before your line of text please.


Sure, if perhaps you could help explain what 'carriage return' means?

I googled it and went to wikipedia, as far as I can tell it just means to return key on the keyboard...so you mean you want me to leave a line gap after I quote? If so, okay I'll do that in this post. If not, then please do explain what you mean - I've never heard of the term before.

[quote='EvidenceVsFaith' pid='31361' dateline='1252406146']
Yeah sorry - I really meant you won't entertain the idea without being able to accept it ...seemingly.

I happily entertain the idea of believing in God, given that there is rational support for such a belief: I.e. Evidence. That's what evidence is. I just don't accept it, I don't believe it - because so far, I don't know of any such evidence.

I also happily conceive of the idea of believing in God without evidence, but as soon as I do I am just reminded by the fact that it's irrational by definition. Beliefs are rational when they are based on evidence, that's how you know when a belief is rational. This doesn't apply with "Faith".



Quote:It's perfectly explainable but every time I explain it you bounce back at me over the evidence issue, which has nothing to do with it. So you see you're asking me to describe what I don't ever address.

You say it's nothing to do with it. But it's enitirely to do with my question on why you believe a belief can be rational without it, without evidence. Why is God different? Why is the fact there's no evidence for him a good thing? If evidence isn't possible for him...how does that make a difference? If there's no evidence, then how is it rational, full stop?

Quote:Thankyou

I appreciate that.

Quote:By definition to me, faith is entirely the reason I believe.

By definition? How are you defining faith then? I define it as simply 'belief without evidence', if you do too, define it as exactly that, then I might ask how 'belief withotu evidence'=rationality? In my view that's irrationality.

Quote:To arrive at that point, reasoning on a wealth of ideas comes into play. Still the point of faith has to be a leap. Why the leap?

So here you are saying that it all relies on the 'leap of faith', and that there are reasons for making it, correct?

Quote:I believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man. How is this possible with reason? The reason lies on the other side of the belief. Believing as much gives you access to God (I'll assume you understand that and the benefits).

Here you are supposed to be answering your question of "Why the leap?" right? But it seems to me that you have answered it by saying that believing is what gives you access to God to know the true reasons for believing...or something like that?

In which case, you're saying that it's important to make the leap of faith, and that's important because of certain reasons, and those reasons come through making the leap of faith beforehand, believing in God and therefore having access to such reasons. So if this is what you are saying, it seems kind of circular to me.

But my point would be, if any of these reasons are valid to the matter of the reality of God, of him being real, of him existing, as opposed to not existing, as opposed to there being no God - then they would be evidence for his existence, by definition. So faith wouldn't come into it. And if the reasons are invalid to this matter....then there are no such reasons for believing God is real, that he exists, that there's a God at all in any real sense.

Quote:The sky

With "What's up there?" I was referring to the fact on the one hand you say there can be no evidence for God, but on the other hand you have said you will accept some definitions, such as non-empirical evidence, etc, but you will never explain or reveal them. You have switchined between these - and also you have said that Jon Paul and Arcanus, for instance, have given 'proof' of God's existence, logical proof - in which case there's a big contradiction there. Because proof is the strongest evidence you can get, so if you accept any real, valid 'proof' for God, then you are seriously contradicting your whole notion of 'there can be no evidence for God'.

EvF
#32
RE: Evidence Vs Faith
(September 8, 2009 at 8:37 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: [quote='fr0d0' pid='31374' dateline='1252443306']
A small request - would you mind putting a carriage return after quoting me/ before your line of text please.


Sure, if perhaps you could help explain what 'carriage return' means?
It's the same as the enter key. Used at the end of a paragraph.

(September 8, 2009 at 8:37 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I googled it and went to wikipedia, as far as I can tell it just means to return key on the keyboard...so you mean you want me to leave a line gap after I quote? If so, okay I'll do that in this post. If not, then please do explain what you mean - I've never heard of the term before.
That'll do thanx, tho' you can just do one carriage return and not leave the gap if you prefer. As you were doing, adding no line break, I had to find the start of your entry in the wall of text. Thanx anyway Smile

(September 8, 2009 at 8:37 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: So here you are saying that it all relies on the 'leap of faith', and that there are reasons for making it, correct?
Belief relies on a leap of faith, yes.

(September 8, 2009 at 8:37 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:
Quote:I believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man. How is this possible with reason? The reason lies on the other side of the belief. Believing as much gives you access to God (I'll assume you understand that and the benefits).

Here you are supposed to be answering your question of "Why the leap?" right? But it seems to me that you have answered it by saying that believing is what gives you access to God to know the true reasons for believing...or something like that?
Yes. The logic presented that Gods promises to you are fulfilled through believing in him.

(September 8, 2009 at 8:37 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: In which case, you're saying that it's important to make the leap of faith, and that's important because of certain reasons, and those reasons come through making the leap of faith beforehand, believing in God and therefore having access to such reasons. So if this is what you are saying, it seems kind of circular to me.

But my point would be, if any of these reasons are valid to the matter of the reality of God, of him being real, of him existing, as opposed to not existing, as opposed to there being no God - then they would be evidence for his existence, by definition. So faith wouldn't come into it. And if the reasons are invalid to this matter....then there are no such reasons for believing God is real, that he exists, that there's a God at all in any real sense.
No _that_ is circular.

Because of the very condition, that faith is a requirement, we cannot _know_. As Adam became convinced of his sin, he suddenly _knew_. It isn't a position of transition, it's a definite know or not know. The decision is a leap. This is logical because without it we wouldn't have a choice to be good/ moral. If God were provable then there would be no choice to believe, our existence would be completely different and couldn't be this nature. God's unprovable existence justifies this nature. Gods provable existence wouldn't work in this nature so we know he can't be provable.



(September 8, 2009 at 8:37 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: You have switchined between these
I have discussed both POV. I am now, and have been for some time, just talking provable evidence, and separating non provable as 'rational'.

(September 8, 2009 at 8:37 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: - and also you have said that Jon Paul and Arcanus, for instance, have given 'proof' of God's existence, logical proof - in which case there's a big contradiction there. Because proof is the strongest evidence you can get, so if you accept any real, valid 'proof' for God, then you are seriously contradicting your whole notion of 'there can be no evidence for God'.
There is (rational) 'proof' for God's existence in the Summa, which is what was explained and linked to you by them.
#33
RE: Evidence Vs Faith
(September 9, 2009 at 3:52 am)fr0d0 Wrote: No _that_ is circular.
What part of my post were you referring to here?

Quote:Because of the very condition, that faith is a requirement[...etc]

I am not talking about the reasoning in the sense of how you believe without evidence, but why. What I was saying was, if your reasoning for making the leap of faith and believing without evidence, comes from the fact you have already made the faith leap beforehand and so you get your reasoning from "God" (or reasons that are otherwise inspired by "Faith" in some way) then that reasoning is circular. Because you are telling me that your reasoning to make the 'leap of faith' is based on reasons that are given by you by the leap of faith itself, right? So however this is done, and whether this is true and this is how you 'do' it or not....why? - is my question. How is that rational?

How is that rational reasoning, if your reason for making the leap is based on reasoning that you get after you make it? Where am I going wrong here? Is this not what you mean? How is that rational?

So if the "reasoning" is with hindsight...how did you rationally believe in the first place beforehand?

Quote:I have discussed both POV. I am now, and have been for some time, just talking provable evidence, and separating non provable as 'rational'.

Well any reasons to believe, if valid, are evidence. Because evidence is a valid reason to believe. If a reason to believe is invalid, it's not evidence.

That is, so long as we are talking of valid in the sense of true, and not in the sense of a valid reason to believe purely for the placebo effect (and that's assuming that there may possibly be one).

Quote:There is (rational) 'proof' for God's existence in the Summa, which is what was explained and linked to you by them.

If it's "Proof" in any way for God whatsoever, then it's by definition very strong evidence for his existence.

And I have no idea what you mean by rational proof, if it's in any way proof for such a belief then of course it's rational, and its very strong evidence. If it's not proof in any way for such a belief, then it's not rational.

Evidence and proof are already rational. So I have no idea what you mean by rational proof/evidence.

If a belief has no evidence then it's irrational, if a belief has evidence then it's rational. Assuming that being more likely to be the truth when you believe it, is more rational! Assuming that being more likely to be part of reality, makes it more rational! (Excluding a possible rational reason to believe purely for the placebo effect I mean (perhaps if it was a life or death matter, etc, and believing falsely might aid you in some way - for example), how else would you say a belief could be rational other than it simply being more likely to be true than false? Because of the fact it has (some form of) evidence to support it?).

EvF
#34
RE: Evidence Vs Faith
So if I said to you Evie that you could have a new Ferrari if you believe in God. Your reasoning for believing in God would be a shiny new Ferrari. You knew you were going to get the Ferrari before you made the decision, so you had a rational reason to choose to believe.

Faith works the same way (except it's directly rather than indirectly linked). There are promises to believing which are fulfilled once you believe.

The proofs presented by Jon Paul and Arcanus are a posteriori ..ie they come after.

HTH
#35
RE: Evidence Vs Faith
(You double posted the same thing, So I removed the latter).

The example of the ferrari says nothing for belief. I could be offered everything I've always want, do currently want, and will forever want. I could be offered not just a ferarri, but all the money in the world and eternal bliss. Such promises do nothing for a change in belief, I need to actually be convinced, that's what beliefs are, And promises do nothing for convincing. This is some kind of Pascal's Wager at best, and that's nothing because Pascal's wager does nothing for changing actual belief. And I don't see how the wager would work, if beforehand you completely disbelief how it would or could?

If it was true, that someone would give me a billion pounds if I believed in God. This would be only an argument for dishonestly feigning belief to get the money, it can't actually have an effect on my belief no matter how much I'd want it to.

EvF
#36
RE: Evidence Vs Faith
(Thanks Evie - I couldn't see as I passed the lockout time @ work didn't notice, and had no idea what had happened when I clicked 'post'!)

Evie Wrote:Such promises do nothing for a change in belief, I need to actually be convinced

Which is why I said that the bribery idea was different in that it wasn't linked. I thought it'd help you to understand. This belief is like that tho'. Unlike a belief in something already known, this belief is in something entirely unknown. The reward: the Ferrari, is real, but the proof of God can never be known. But then... only through believing in God do you get the Ferrari.

Now this isn't, like is commonly attributed (but wrongly) to Pascal's wager, that the reward is unknown and irrelevant - like "believe and you go to heaven, disbelieve and you go to hell... so you may as well believe".. this is actual real world benefit. Believe and these promises will be fulfilled for you. People do it and can attest that it's true. As can I.

And more, the logic for God works provably as demonstrated in the Summa, for example.
#37
RE: Evidence Vs Faith
So it's a real world benefit equivalent to Pascal's wager?

Well, however practical it is, however it benefits you or others like yourself, that doesn't address the God question.

Evidence is credence for a belief. Why do you always shy away from this? Either you have evidence for God or you don't. You have (most consistently) accepted that you DON'T: But If you have no evidence for God, then you have no support for him and no reason to believe - because that is what evidence is for!

EvF
#38
RE: Evidence Vs Faith
It doesn't address your god question you mean. It answers my God question and isn't that all I can do?

Yes, evidence for God is not possible. I have no reason to believe(your definition) because there needs to be faith. I believe on faith in God. That is all belief in God requires.
#39
RE: Evidence Vs Faith
So you accept that you have no rational reason to believe in God? Because a rational reason to believe= evidence because that's what evidence is for?

So since faith lacks evidence, and evidence is rational, then faith lacks rationality?

It answers your God question. But I don't understand what convinces you that there is a God. Where is the reason to believe or IOW: The evidence?

EvF
#40
RE: Evidence Vs Faith
Oh FFS LOL Big Grin

There are so many loaded interpretations on all of the words this is becoming completely meaningless. I can see Jon Paul's point entirely - non theological language just can't cut it.

Faith lacks rationality - did you ever think it didn't??? Y'know - "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

You're talking about actual proof that God exists which is what I have to have to believe in him right? *stands back and looks at that with incredulity*

Can you not see how completely circular that question is?



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Debate: Is there sufficient evidence to believe in evolution? Esquilax 11 7348 November 15, 2014 at 12:19 am
Last Post: Esquilax
  [ARCHIVED] - The attributes of the Christian God exhibit logical contradictions. Tiberius 12 11345 October 16, 2009 at 1:48 am
Last Post: Ryft
  [ARCHIVED] - A Discussion of the "All-Powerful" Nature of Gods Tiberius 5 4337 October 11, 2009 at 12:21 am
Last Post: Secularone
  [ARCHIVED] - God(s), Science & Evidence leo-rcc 2 3878 May 11, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Last Post: fr0d0
  [ARCHIVED] - Creation vs. Evolution Ashlyn 70 29693 April 6, 2009 at 4:16 am
Last Post: Darwinian



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)