[ARCHIVED] - Evidence Vs Faith

[Edwardo Piet]

How many times have I said, that I am not questioning the possibility of evidence, but the necessity of it in order to be rational.

Obviously you can believe in God without evidence, on faith - as I believe you do - but my point is that by definition evidence is the only way to believe rationally, and without evidence it's an admittance to letting go of your brains on the matter.

You do not need evidence to believe God exists. But to rationally believe he does, I believe you necessarily do: Evidence is the way we judge whether a belief is true or not, if it has evidence - it has valid credence - and if it has valid credence, then that's valid support that the belief is true. That's what evidence is for. Faith is an admittance that you are believing anyway, despite irrationality, and that you believe that this is somehow justified - but how so, if by definition it rationally isn't? (Do you or don't you?) Evidence is on the side of rationality, because evidence is how we give credence to a belief, and the only we can ever know the converse, that a belief is false, is by lack of evidence (or evidence against) for a belief, that's the only way to know that a belief is delusional. So evidence is on the side of rationality, faith is nothing but belief lacking evidence - and merely a lack of evidence, is not something rational, since the converse - evidence - is the way to rationally back up a belief!

If evidence isn't a mark of a rationality for believing then what the fuck is? Evidence is by definition a reason to believe a belief is valid, it gives valid credence to a belief: So if a valid reason to believe isn't rational, then what is?

Evidence is a rational reason to believe. And how is absence of evidence, "Faith", rational, then?

Would you say evidence is rational or irrational? Considering it gives valid support to beliefs?

Would you say faith is rational or irrational? Considering that it does not give valid support to a belief, because if it did, by definition - it would be evidence, and hence, not faith.

Finally, you say that non-theological can't cut it - but how can theology cut it at all? Where's its evidence?

EvF

[fr0d0]

Haha! That's complete spam LOL

Faith is not rational.. we both just agreed it ...again. Now you repeat the question: "Evidence is a rational reason to believe. And how is absence of evidence, "Faith", rational, then?"

I'm convinced you aren't taking this in. How can we agree on stuff and then you ask me the exact same thing again? How is this possible?

You have to let go of your brains on the matter.. yes. I reasoned for this above with the Ferrari.

I answer your questions and you come back at me saying I haven't and asking again what is answered in the preceding post.

Tell me if this sounds right:

You believe that it is essential, almost to complete exclusion, unless proven otherwise evidentially, that belief in _anything_ has to be founded on absolute proof, whether that be rational or physical.

(this founded on some blindness to dictionary definitions obviously tampered with by theists)


I can't believe what I say I believe because this doesn't fall into place with what you understand. My belief in this relies on faith alone and cannot have anything to do with proof or rationality.

[Edwardo Piet]

If it's spam because I repeat myself because I'm trying hard to get you to understand my basic points, then it's spam. But I don't call that spam!! What do you expect me to do when I'm trying to get my point across but you don't get it the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th[...] or 100th time? I'm finding it hard to keep asking one at a time, so I rephrase in my posts - I'm really trying to get it across.

So you agree that faith is irrational and you have to let go of your brains for it?????

What need I say next??? Your belief is probably a delusion! How do you not come to that conclusion then? I mean, from mine it almost certainly is.

If the Ferrari example - while different to Pascals Wager when I questioned to understand what you were getting at - was your attempt to say that faith was irrational and that you were 'letting go of your brains' as I put it, why didn't you just say so before?

If it's irrational and you're letting go of your brains, how is it at all logical or reasonable to believe, unless you think it's a worthwhile placebo? But even if it's that...how does that convince you then, I wonder? (If that's the case).

You believe that it is essential, almost to complete exclusion, unless proven otherwise evidentially, that belief in _anything_ has to be founded on absolute proof, whether that be rational or physical.

I never mentioned absolute proof as requirement at all. Certainly not. I am talking about any valid support for a belief whatsoever - any evidence.

You can believe what you say you believe. I don't care what X is, what I care about is that, X having no evidence - why do you believe in it?

You have answered with your "reasons" and your "reasoning" despite the fact they can't be valid to the belief because then they'd be evidence, and you believe' on faith.' But now you have made clear that you believe irrationally and you let go of your brains for it, so there can be no valid reasoning indeed (as there's also no evidence).

So how do you justify that? Without rationality, without evidence?

EvF

[fr0d0]

Go and think about that post, and come back with one coherant point and I'll answer it. I'm not giving that absolute shite the dignity of a reply.

[Edwardo Piet]

Seen as you only want one point: You admit you believe 1. Without evidence, 2. Irrationally and 3. That you let go of your brains. This is faith right? How do you justify that?

EvF

[fr0d0]

With resultant promises evidenced.

[Edwardo Piet]

So, with hindsight?

EvF

[fr0d0]

As I've said before, yes.

[Edwardo Piet]

So how did you rationally make the leap in the first place, if it's only rational on hindsight?

EvF

[fr0d0]

Darn I can't get past you can I?

Yeah through rational consideration of the pro's and cons of the belief. I studied it loads and really wanted to know. I pestered lots of people for their take on it, and went to church with serious intent for the first time in my life.