fr0d0 do I have to put it any more bluntly than: There's no evidence to BELIEVE in "God" whether we CAN have evidence for him...or not.

EvF

(May 20, 2009 at 11:17 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: fr0d0 do I have to put it any more bluntly than: There's no evidence to BELIEVE in "God" whether we CAN have evidence for him...or not.

Exactly, because if there can't be evidence, then of course none exists to believe!

In this case (of evidence being impossible), no rational reason to believe can possibly exist, and so all that remains is irrational reaons.

Personally, I think the statement that there definitely can't be evidence for or against god(s) is baseless though...

frodo Wrote:You have to step outside your scientific straight jacket D and accept not everything is described by science. Then you'll see a whole world of reasoning you never knew existed before.

(May 20, 2009 at 12:00 pm)lilphil1989 Wrote: In this case (of evidence being impossible), no rational reason to believe can possibly exist, and so all that remains is irrational reasons.

What is beyond rational thought?

Fr0d0..

In my attempt to understand you let me ask you this..

Are you saying that there are simply some things in this reality that cannot and can never be explained by science because their very nature is somehow outside the normal and rational way that we view the world.

And to understand them you have to operate on a more intuitive and perhaps instinctive level and, as you say, have a leap of faith because there simply is no other way to approach the subject?

Am I getting close here?

Part of your word play is close. This part:

Dar Wrote:...simply some things in this reality that cannot and can never be explained by science because their very nature is somehow outside the normal and rational way that we view the world.

How would you explain the irrational parts of reality?

I don't know and I think to Fr0d0 that is the whole point..

You see. We have a problem. You say there is an irrational part to how we view the world, but you can't explain it.

There must be a truth to it. OK, it's not religions idea, but what is it?

(May 20, 2009 at 1:28 pm)g-mark Wrote: You see. We have a problem. You say there is an irrational part to how we view the world, but you can't explain it.

There must be a truth to it. OK, it's not religions idea, but what is it?

Again, to put words into Fr0d0's mouth, it cannot be explained. Just because we want to be able to explain everything doesn't mean that it can be.

As Carl Sagan said, "The Universe does not have to conform to our expectations of it."

"The Universe does not have to conform to our expextations of it."

I like this.

(May 19, 2009 at 6:16 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: 1. Why should science and evidence be dumped for either of those things when both are so rational? Why should anything be believed without evidence nevermind things such as God and the FSM?

This thing can't be seen any other way. If you don't want to ee it, fair enough. If you do, you know what to do.

(May 19, 2009 at 6:16 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: 2. Why make an irrational leap (dumping evidence) to GOD rather than the FSM?

Because there's rational support from the bible to make the leap.

(May 19, 2009 at 6:16 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: As I asked in my question above (and I don't see how you answered it??): Why give God special treatment over the FSM?

I've answered that question many many times here. You see no difference between what is empty & meaningless and what holds reason.

(May 19, 2009 at 4:48 pm)lilphil1989 Wrote:

(May 19, 2009 at 5:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Because I reasoned that the leap of faith would be worthwhile based on observations in the bible that applied to my own life.

Any chance you'll share these observations?

You want me to share the entire bible?!

(May 19, 2009 at 4:48 pm)lilphil1989 Wrote:

(May 19, 2009 at 5:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: For the bible to be true other faiths become illogical. It's a rational choice.

I agree with your first statement. If the bible were true, then any book, person etc, claiming something in contradiction to the bible must be wrong.
However, we know that bible isn't all true (the sun doesnt orbit the earth for example), so at best it's a combination of truth, metaphor and misunderstandings.
But, there's absolutley no way to discern between what's true and what isn't (apart from the things we know for fact aren't) without choosing arbitrarily. Which I'm sure you'll agree, isn't rational.
The final option is that it is all metaphor. But then, how can you ascribe any truth value to anything in it? That would be irrational.

So I fail to see how the conclusion that the bible is true could possibly be rational.

The bible is all true. The bible isn't all literal.

Show me where in the Bible it says that the Sun orbits the earth.

The Bible isn't like you say. Parts are literal, parts are allegorical. Parts are not definitely one or the other. So... most of it is clear; small parts are not. The nature of God is clear; his purpose for our lives is clear, plus there's loads more. There's no end to our current understanding but to state that it's 'all irrational' is somewhat simplistic and very inaccurate, unless you're looking through very tinted glasses.

(May 20, 2009 at 11:17 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: fr0d0 do I have to put it any more bluntly than: There's no evidence to BELIEVE in "God" whether we CAN have evidence for him...or not.

EvF

I beg to differ. How do you know?

(May 20, 2009 at 1:09 pm)Darwinian Wrote: Fr0d0..

In my attempt to understand you let me ask you this..

Are you saying that there are simply some things in this reality that cannot and can never be explained by science because their very nature is somehow outside the normal and rational way that we view the world.

They cannot be explained by science because science can only deal with the evidential, and the evidential isn't only what this reality consists of. Some things are normal and rational yet not evidential.

(May 20, 2009 at 1:09 pm)Darwinian Wrote: And to understand them you have to operate on a more intuitive and perhaps instinctive level and, as you say, have a leap of faith because there simply is no other way to approach the subject?

Am I getting close here?

Perhaps a more intellectual level. The leap of faith is necessary because of the absence of evidence. The act of faith is also beneficial in itself.