OK, I'm hearing a lot of "burden of proof is on the person making the claim." So you're saying that in order for you to believe in God someone would have to be able to logically prove His existence to you, and you're not seeing that. A very Modernist approach to be sure, appeal to universal truth, very Descartes. I'm hoping you'll indulge me with one more question. It seems to me that this way of thinking assumes the Modernist meta-narrative of the the privileged status of science and the Modernist idea of a definite truth that everyone is working towards. How do you see Lyotard's work on suspicion towards meta-narratives, and Derrida's statement that there is nothing but the text? It's just something I've long wondered about the "burden of proof" stance, though I do agree with the basic premise that everyone will tend to believe what they believe until there is a significant reason to change their mind.

Also I believe someone asked me to define "God" as I see Him (I use the masculine solely because "it" sounds impersonal). Good move, always useful to define your terms. God is the almighty and all-knowing being who created the universe and created the people within it. Since He created everything He is superior to natural laws, but sustains them in His continued work in creation at the quantum level (see: Nancey Murphy, “Divine Action in the Natural Order: Buridan’s Ass and Schrodinger’s Cat”). God has chosen to reveal Himself to His creation through His words in the Bible, and through His personal contact with His people. God is completely good and Holy, and He has already carried out His plan to save His suffering creation. First by sending Jesus to save the world and the people in it, and next by His kingdom on earth. God's kingdom on earth consists of God Himself working to restore creation right now, and the those in His Church that believe in doing what He says (Disciples) are also working. Christ's disciples have a mission to save the world by following the teachings of Jesus, which show us how to make the world a better place and care for our fellow humans. At some point God will completely fix the world, and the Kingdom will be complete. This is very brief definition, and I didn't get to include all the theology I wanted to, but I think it will serve us.

Good input everyone! I didn't expect the answers to be so unanimous! This is definitely a Modernist forum.

(November 5, 2010 at 4:38 pm)coffeeveritas Wrote: So you're saying that in order for you to believe in God someone would have to be able to logically prove His existence to you, and you're not seeing that.

No...I'm not saying that. The burden of proof is only used on actual claims made by people. If a theist says to me "God exists", I would ask them for evidence, since they hold the burden of proof. I a theist says "I believe in God", I wouldn't need to ask them for evidence, since it is their belief that they are talking about, and doesn't matter in the big picture.

In answer to your question, no, I would not need someone to logically prove God's existence to me in order to believe that God exists. I don't think "proofs" of God's existence is even possible, for various reasons relating to agnosticism and the problem of knowledge. What would make me believe in God is a good reason for doing so, which demonstrates to me that God's existence is more probable than his non-existence. I have yet to see a reason which stands up to scrutiny.

(November 5, 2010 at 4:57 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(November 5, 2010 at 4:38 pm)coffeeveritas Wrote: So you're saying that in order for you to believe in God someone would have to be able to logically prove His existence to you, and you're not seeing that.

No...I'm not saying that. The burden of proof is only used on actual claims made by people. If a theist says to me "God exists", I would ask them for evidence, since they hold the burden of proof. I a theist says "I believe in God", I wouldn't need to ask them for evidence, since it is their belief that they are talking about, and doesn't matter in the big picture.

In answer to your question, no, I would not need someone to logically prove God's existence to me in order to believe that God exists.

My apologies for being unclear, but I was trying to get at the same thing you're saying here. Thank you for clarifying.

(November 5, 2010 at 4:38 pm)coffeeveritas Wrote: It's just something I've long wondered about the "burden of proof" stance, though I do agree with the basic premise that everyone will tend to believe what they believe until there is a significant reason to change their mind.

I also agree that everyone will believe what they believe until there is a reason to change, the problem today is people don't want to change their mind, and people do not strive to find the answers. Even if evidence is over-whelming, they refuse to be wrong, and it only enforces their beliefs more. I have had many conversations with people of faith, and the conversations usually end badly, after I refute their points, and leave them with nothing but "faith" thats all they have.

I try not to argue people out of faith. No one likes being forced into a belief, or being proved wrong so the best course of action is to ask them to do the research themselves.
I was never very religious but there was a point in my life I believed in God and Jesus. Everyone talked about it, friends prayed, prayed before dinner, went to church, I figured that was just life. I remember praying sometimes before bed.

I think the main turning point for me was taking an interest in science. The class I would say that effected me most would be physics. Once you understand physics the whole world starts to make a whole lot of sense. Reduce the world down to its smallest form and things become clear in all aspects of life!
Say you pray to yourself at night... how are your brain thoughts being expelled out of your body for a "super natural" being to hear. Thoughts can not travel through a medium like air, thoughts really have no physical way to be transferred at all. You could say it is supernatural so anything is possible, but then you are just kidding yourself. And it seems like once you understand the science of the world, religion seems so silly! Science makes sense and it proves its self everyday. I bet you that the sun will keep rising everyday for a long while to come, and we know this through testable science. Its facts.

So my advice to any religious people who are confused. Pick up a physics book, cellular biology book, or astronomy book, and read away. When did you get your first bible? When did you get your first science book? I think the world is backwards.

Quote:I was hoping that you could tell me why you don't personally believe in God.

Because there is no evidence that any of the gods invented by the fertile mind of men has any basis in reality....including yours.

Quote:Also I believe someone asked me to define "God" as I see Him (I use the masculine solely because "it" sounds impersonal). Good move, always useful to define your terms. God is the almighty and all-knowing being who created the universe and created the people within it. Since He created everything He is superior to natural laws, but sustains them in His continued work in creation at the quantum level (see: Nancey Murphy, “Divine Action in the Natural Order: Buridan’s Ass and Schrodinger’s Cat”). God has chosen to reveal Himself to His creation through His words in the Bible, and through His personal contact with His people. God is completely good and Holy, and He has already carried out His plan to save His suffering creation. First by sending Jesus to save the world and the people in it, and next by His kingdom on earth. God's kingdom on earth consists of God Himself working to restore creation right now, and the those in His Church that believe in doing what He says (Disciples) are also working. Christ's disciples have a mission to save the world by following the teachings of Jesus, which show us how to make the world a better place and care for our fellow humans. At some point God will completely fix the world, and the Kingdom will be complete. This is very brief definition, and I didn't get to include all the theology I wanted to, but I think it will serve us.

I beleive you personaly cannot be talked out of your faith.

(November 5, 2010 at 7:54 pm)paintpooper Wrote:

(November 5, 2010 at 4:38 pm)coffeeveritas Wrote: It's just something I've long wondered about the "burden of proof" stance, though I do agree with the basic premise that everyone will tend to believe what they believe until there is a significant reason to change their mind.

I also agree that everyone will believe what they believe until there is a reason to change, the problem today is people don't want to change their mind, and people do not strive to find the answers. Even if evidence is over-whelming, they refuse to be wrong, and it only enforces their beliefs more. I have had many conversations with people of faith, and the conversations usually end badly, after I refute their points, and leave them with nothing but "faith" thats all they have.

---

I try not to argue people out of faith. No one likes being forced into a belief, or being proved wrong so the best course of action is to ask them to do the research themselves.
I was never very religious but there was a point in my life I believed in God and Jesus. Everyone talked about it, friends prayed, prayed before dinner, went to church, I figured that was just life. I remember praying sometimes before bed.

I think the main turning point for me was taking an interest in science. The class I would say that effected me most would be physics. Once you understand physics the whole world starts to make a whole lot of sense. Reduce the world down to its smallest form and things become clear in all aspects of life!
Say you pray to yourself at night... how are your brain thoughts being expelled out of your body for a "super natural" being to hear. Thoughts can not travel through a medium like air, thoughts really have no physical way to be transferred at all. You could say it is supernatural so anything is possible, but then you are just kidding yourself. And it seems like once you understand the science of the world, religion seems so silly! Science makes sense and it proves its self everyday. I bet you that the sun will keep rising everyday for a long while to come, and we know this through testable science. Its facts.

So my advice to any religious people who are confused. Pick up a physics book, cellular biology book, or astronomy book, and read away. When did you get your first bible? When did you get your first science book? I think the world is backwards.

---

That's what I've been saying that christians only have faith and that is all that is required of us as long as that faith is about Christ. Christians see faith as proof as long as it is an honest faith.

@ Tiberius if the Jewish people and christians were making up their religions then why is it we would include satan, it would be much easier without him. Why after these thousands of years would we not have developed answers to questions like why does God allow bad things to happen to good people and ect. I know we have answers to a lot of questions like this but these answers basicly find no acceptance from nonbelivers and if we were just looking to control people as many of you have said, then don't you think we would have come up with more acceptable answers to draw nonbelievers in. As I said above faith is all we have and as long as we are honest in our faith we have something greater than proof. This is what Jesus told Thomas.

Welcome to the forum coffeeveritas glad to have your company!

(November 5, 2010 at 10:54 pm)Godschild Wrote: @ Tiberius if the Jewish people and christians were making up their religions then why is it we would include satan, it would be much easier without him. Why after these thousands of years would we not have developed answers to questions like why does God allow bad things to happen to good people and ect. I know we have answers to a lot of questions like this but these answers basicly find no acceptance from nonbelivers and if we were just looking to control people as many of you have said, then don't you think we would have come up with more acceptable answers to draw nonbelievers in. As I said above faith is all we have and as long as we are honest in our faith we have something greater than proof. This is what Jesus told Thomas.

The Satan question rather answers itself. Something has to be invented in Christianity to mask the problem of evil so you can attribute bad things to Satan and good things to God. As for the Jews they didn't care too much for the problem of evil, their god used the satan character as a pawn; asking satan to do his own evil for him apart from when he was feeling capricious that is eg Lot.

Faith is greater than proof is it? Do you apply this to medical science, civil engineering, pharmaceuticals, food industry, construction, national electricity grids, maybe your drive to work in the morning? Where exactly do you apply this maxim, apart from in your church or the privacy of your own home? My guess nowhere and that you take sick kids to hospitals not to faith healers, you take aspirins and don't use crystals, you switch lights on in your home you don't pray for the lights to come on, you trust to the qualities of suspension bridges and don't drive over cliffs hoping winged angels will hold up your car as you believe in the right god and the 1000s of others both dead and alive are wrong. Your faith argument belies the extreme weakness of your position and the intellectual price you have to pay to believe in something like a god, gods, man-gods or whatever.

"Faith is greater than proof is it?" I think it is, not blind faith though.

In what sense if faith greater than proof? Examples please?