[ARCHIVED] - Evidence Vs Faith

[Edwardo Piet]

fr0d0, as you know we are going to 'debate' here since we seem to be all over the forums lately....

I'll start with my 'fr0d0 Web'

MY FR0D0 WEB:

- 'You can't have rational reasons to believe and also have faith, because those reasons would equate to evidence, and if you have evidence you can't have faith.' - EvF

Because evidence is simply what gives support to a belief. And a belief without any support, still believed - is delusional.

Also I'll give you this to ponder:

'Faith is belief without evidence - and that's irrational [because of the above reasoning(s)] . So the term 'rational faith' is an oxymoron.' - EvF

EvF

[fr0d0]

Well this is funny. You chase me endlessly with the question of existence and now we're limited to discussing it here. So all I have to do is not answer and I get peace

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is nothing to discuss. I state my belief and the reasoning for that belief. The reasoning for that belief includes the condition that God is non temporal. ie he doesn't exist in a way that we could ever understand. By definition.

This entity you wish to discuss is therefore clearly not the God that I believe in. To discuss your conditions of existence would be to discuss something else entirely.

As I assume you wish to discuss the God I believe in and not any God, then the discussion you have framed isn't viable.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So then we go on to discuss why my POV is logical with this God being impossible to 'know'. Except we don't get as far as considering my belief because you will not consider it before fully accepting it. Which I find odd. I think I can understand almost every sane POV, I just don't accept all of them; ..unless it presents itself to me as more logical than my own POV. I don't have much choice in this, my brain seems to be hard wired to go with the most logical conclusion.

Which brings us around to what we were discussing yesterday, which is whether it is possible for a Christian to choose to believe in God.


I now get where you're coming from Evie. You're stone walling the very notion because as I've said above, you refuse to consider something you don't actually believe yourself. Which again, I must say I find very odd.

When people discuss anything there always has to be different points of view. If you refuse to discuss anything you don't believe in then you can't discuss anything!?


You have said that you're not refusing, but then you demand, by force of repetition, that I only talk about what you believe in. It has to be what you demand it is, and that is, contradictory to the logic that I believe in.


I ask myself "what are we talking about here?" Are we trying to evidence a god of Evie's creation or are we trying to understand the Christian God? If the subject, as it seems very clear to me, is to understand what the Christian God is, then surely you need to abandon the demand to evidence your god. (your god only in that it certainly isn't the God I believe in)


Tell me how you wish to proceed.

[Edwardo Piet]

I wish to proceed by trying to understand why on earth you believe, that it's rational to believe in this God of yours, without evidence or in other words on "Faith".

How is that rational?

Now, for your points:

There is nothing to discuss. I state my belief and the reasoning for that belief. The reasoning for that belief includes the condition that God is non temporal. ie he doesn't exist in a way that we could ever understand. By definition.

Why then, do you believe in something that does not exist in any way you could understand by definition? How can you rationally believe something that you do not understand in any way? If there was actually evidence for it on the other hand, you'd then be rational to believe in it, you'd understand why you believed in it; why? - because the belief would have support! That's why; there's actually a valid reason to believe; a rational one. I am yet to get an explanation from you, as to why believing without evidence - and therefore without support - why believing on "Faith", is in any way rational whatsoever.

This entity you wish to discuss is therefore clearly not the God that I believe in. To discuss your conditions of existence would be to discuss something else entirely.

I am not changing the definition of your God, you can define him any way you wish. What I'm questioning is why you believe in him without evidence. If there can be no evidence from him, that's fine, if that's the way he's defined, that's fine. But then, if there definitely is and can be no evidence in your view, then why do you believe? How do you justify it? How is that rational in any way?

Do you, or do you not agree with my premise that belief without evidence is belief without support, because by definition evidence is simply what gives credence to a belief?

So then we go on to discuss why my POV is logical with this God being impossible to 'know'.

I also agree it's impossible to know for sure either way.

Except we don't get as far as considering my belief because you will not consider it before fully accepting it.

I consider the possibility, I just don't accept it without evidence. I consider the possibility without evidence, but then I realize that that doesn't even make sense by definition. See above.

I think I can understand almost every sane POV, I just don't accept all of them; ..unless it presents itself to me as more logical than my own POV. I don't have much choice in this, my brain seems to be hard wired to go with the most logical conclusion.

It could be me speaking there. I'd just change 'don't have much choice', to 'don't have a choice'.

So on this matter of choice for belief in God, do you only consider it a slight choice then? Since you say it's not much of one.

When people discuss anything there always has to be different points of view. If you refuse to discuss anything you don't believe in then you can't discuss anything!?

I am ready and willing to discuss and am doing. I just so far completely fail to understand how belief in your God without evidence, can be rational in any way, that's all. I still wonder how you justify it. Because I find the admittance of belief without evidence to be an indication of believing irrationally, by definition! (Once again, see above) Which I consider to be preposterous.

You have said that you're not refusing, but then you demand, by force of repetition, that I only talk about what you believe in.

Actually I never said that of course. You are just making out that I'm implying that. But I'm not, you can define God any way you will. Evidence for God can be possible or impossible, that's fine too. I just want to understand how you can possibly rationally justify believing without evidence (see above).

It has to be what you demand it is, and that is, contradictory to the logic that I believe in.

It can be any way you want. This doesn't apply just to God for me, this applies to anything. It's just that God is a huge example of a rather big belief without evidence, that you hold. Any belief without evidence, I fail to understand how can be rational in any way. Please do explain.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Let me begin by defining evidence, as it's easy for misunderstanding to arise on our meaning. I read every instance of the use of the word 'evidence' here to mean 'provable evidence'.

I wish to proceed by trying to understand why on earth you believe, that it's rational to believe in this God of yours, without evidence or in other words on "Faith".

How is that rational?

Right - step one - evidence
The premise for belief in God is that his existence is non evidential. Examining the evidence trail is completely irrelevant and off topic. You frame the question in your own understanding, whilst declaring your non understanding. This is completely illogical.

Why then, do you believe in something that does not exist in any way you could understand by definition? How can you rationally believe something that you do not understand in any way?

It is not something I don't understand, but an entity who's existence cannot be understood.

I am yet to get an explanation from you, as to why believing without evidence - and therefore without support - why believing on "Faith", is in any way rational whatsoever.

That's because you frame the question in your own understanding. This is beyond you're understanding (not mine, I understand it). I don't have to explain how I can believe without evidence. It's a negative. I don't consider belief in God with evidence. It's nonsensical to my belief in God.


Repetition:

"What I'm questioning is why you believe in him without evidence. If there can be no evidence from him, that's fine, if that's the way he's defined, that's fine. But then, if there definitely is and can be no evidence in your view, then why do you believe? How do you justify it? How is that rational in any way?"

Repetition:

"Do you, or do you not agree with my premise that belief without evidence is belief without support, because by definition evidence is simply what gives credence to a belief?"

Of course not.


Repetition:

"I consider the possibility, I just don't accept it without evidence. I consider the possibility without evidence, but then I realize that that doesn't even make sense by definition. See above."

So on this matter of choice for belief in God, do you only consider it a slight choice then? Since you say it's not much of one.

No it's a full choice.

Repetition:

I am ready and willing to discuss and am doing. I just so far completely fail to understand how belief in your God without evidence, can be rational in any way, that's all. I still wonder how you justify it. Because I find the admittance of belief without evidence to be an indication of believing irrationally, by definition! (Once again, see above) Which I consider to be preposterous.

Repetition:

I just want to understand how you can possibly rationally justify believing without evidence (see above).

Repetition:

It can be any way you want. This doesn't apply just to God for me, this applies to anything. It's just that God is a huge example of a rather big belief without evidence, that you hold. Any belief without evidence, I fail to understand how can be rational in any way. Please do explain.

Do you see how much there you followed your own agenda and completely ignored my points? If you continue this brainless quest I'll stop responding here. I want a discussion not mindless repetition. You're stone walling me.

[Edwardo Piet]

The premise for belief in God is that his existence is non evidential. Examining the evidence trail is completely irrelevant and off topic. You frame the question in your own understanding, whilst declaring your non understanding. This is completely illogical.

This is irrelevant to my question. My question is :Why do you believe, that believing in God without evidence is rational?

It is not something I don't understand, but an entity who's existence cannot be understood.

So how can you rationally justify believing in his existence, without evidence? Once again, this is my question. I repeat it because it's another time you've missed my point.

I don't have to explain how I can believe without evidence.

Well all I'm asking is how you can rationally justify it without evidence. I want to understand why you believe without evidence. When evidence is the support.

It's a negative. I don't consider belief in God with evidence. It's nonsensical to my belief in God.

Irrelevant to my point once again, I know that you don't consider belief in God with evidence. I just wonder why you believe in him without evidence. I repeated myself again, because you missed my point again.

Repetition

[...], as I said, I am repeating my points because you are missing them. I only have one point and one interest here, and you just have to address it. Ok? And that is that: I wish to understand how you can rationally justify believing in God without evidence. Got that?

Do you see how much there you followed your own agenda and completely ignored my points?

No I don't, because I only had one point and you didn't address it. I repeat it again and again because you miss it again and again. See above for my point, unless you want me to rpeat it once more!

If you continue this brainless quest I'll stop responding here. I want a discussion not mindless repetition. You're stone walling me.

You've continued with me again and again on the rest of the forum, and here it's actually on-topic, so I don't understand why you'd leave here if you've continued there.

As for the 'mindless repetition' point on your part, see above. You missed my point.

EvF

[fr0d0]

I wish to understand how you can rationally justify believing in God without evidence

Because the rational understanding requires that there is no evidence (defined above).

How can you rationally justify evidence of something that requires there to be none?

[Edwardo Piet]

I am asking why you require there to be none in order to believe. I mean, why believe at all? Why believe without evidence? There's no evidence...but why believe without it?

You say rationally understanding it requires that there is no evidence. But I'm asking why you believe that. What makes you think it can be rationally understood at all? If it can't be understood with evidence, how can it be understood without it?

EvF

[fr0d0]

I don't require 'no existence' the logic does. I believe in God. Not knowing he exists necessitates faith.

Why I believe is due to the promises of believing.. the positive effect of that. We all struggle to work out a world view that aims at living life as perfectly as possible. To me Christianity is the manual to that. I'm the sort that reads the manual last usually. I work stuff out for myself. I guess it's pretty true for this as well, I worked it out and found this to be right.

I asked you what proof would make you accept that there was a God, and you could think of none. That is because there can be none. Nothing would satisfy us that God existed, because that would be an impossibility, given the criteria that being would have to fulfill.

So it's not only logical to not require evidence, it's naturally impossible. If it is impossible to formulate a requirement of proof for you, how can you say it's illogical to believe without proof?? Proof obviously has no place here.

[Edwardo Piet]

Why I believe is due to the promises of believing.. the positive effect of that.

How is that rational? If you thought in the past and it was rational and promised, what good does the promising do? If it turns out not to be rational, are you just going to believe anyway because you promised? And how are you even going to do that, if you genuinely don't think it's rational, wouldn't you then be not believing but feigning belief? And if you aren't going to believe if you later think that your belief is rational, why bother 'promising' in the first place?

I asked you what proof would make you accept that there was a God, and you could think of none. That is because there can be none. Nothing would satisfy us that God existed, because that would be an impossibility, given the criteria that being would have to fulfill.

And this is all irrelevant to my point of course. As I've said, I don't care whether there can be evidence or not, I just don't understand why you believe without any. I wish to understand this.

So it's not only logical to not require evidence, it's naturally impossible.

If it's impossible, still..why believe? I don't see why you should believe without evidence? To believe without evidence is to believe without support for that belief, that's irrational, right?

If it is impossible to formulate a requirement of proof for you, how can you say it's illogical to believe without proof?? Proof obviously has no place here.

I can say it because it's completely irrelevant whether it's possible or not for there to be proof. That doesn't make believing without it rational whatsoever. How is belief without evidence, ever rational? The fact there can't be evidence does not make it rational to believe! On the contrary. If anything it makes it more irrational, the fact God is unfalsifiable and can't be proven whatsoever, would mean it would be ludicrous to just go on and believe in him anyway.
EvF

[fr0d0]

Why I believe is due to the promises of believing.. the positive effect of that.

..are you just going to believe anyway because you promised?

The promises come to me, not from me.

I asked you what proof would make you accept that there was a God, and you could think of none. That is because there can be none. Nothing would satisfy us that God existed, because that would be an impossibility, given the criteria that being would have to fulfill.

As I've said, I don't care whether there can be evidence or not, I just don't understand why you believe without any.

If you agree evidence isn't necessary, then you don't insist on evidence to believe. You've just dismissed your own question.