[ARCHIVED] - Evidence Vs Faith

[Edwardo Piet]

I am interested in knowing how you supposedly 'studied it', and if it's not too 'private' what sort of things went through your mind then (related to that matter! Lol).

EvF

[fr0d0]

Well 1st I'm talking 25 years ago so you'll appreciate I may not recall precisely!! I was just a magnet for information. I discussed it with some ppl I happened to fall in with who actually knew stuff, and followed my nose.
It was a bit of a shock as for years I'd known this stuff, but it had never made any sense at all before.
Sorry I gotta be genaral. I remember spending days and weeks with stuff racing through my mind. I'd build a store of questions for the professionals to answer. It was all those objections commonly seen here were answered logically. Then ideas I hadn't considered came into play. It was all good stuff.

[Edwardo Piet]

So it gave you a reason to believe in God, to have faith in him without actually showing that he exists in any way (evidencing him)?

How did these reasons and justifications give you reason to believe? Can't you clarify that a bit more?

EvF

[fr0d0]

I'll try.

The reasons that I previously held I found to be spurious. Gradually I was moving to reason for God. I passed the point of reasoning for belief and decided to leap into faith. As you would possibly say that was programmed.

[Edwardo Piet]

So why did you pass reasoning to make the faith leap? Why did you want to move away from reasoning and jump to believing without evidence?

EvF

[fr0d0]

That's ass about face! LOL

I reasoned that the seemingly illogical leap was indeed the most logical thing to do.

Given my knowledge of the whole thing, it was obvious (very obvious as I'd gone way past the point of neutrality).

[Edwardo Piet]

Could you perhaps elaborate on why it seemed logical to you? Considering you said that it mostly makes sense in hindsight rather than foresight?

EvF

[fr0d0]

Obviously there has to be reason for someone to make what seems to be a decision void of logic. In this case the subsequent effect is known, so justifying the decision.

[Edwardo Piet]

So considering the effects, you think it's rational...yet you can't remember much about why you believed in the first place?

Why does it differ in hindsight then? In both cases doesn't it still refer to the same question, of why you believe?

EvF

[fr0d0]

It's a long time ago is all. My faith position relies on my balance of rationalisation. If the balance were to tip into disbelief I would change my stance and take the leap there.

What differs in hindsight is your position. There you can know if your presumptions were correct. Why I believe what? ..because it's at this point you usually accuse me of going off topic.