[ARCHIVED] - Evidence Vs Faith

[Edwardo Piet]

I mean the hindsight and foresight both address the same question of why you believe God exists right? In which case...since you can't remember much about your what your reasons were, would you say they are the same as your reasons for believing now, in hindsight? Or different?

And if you can't go through your previous reasons, what about your reasons now, in hindsight? Could you elaborate on them please? Since they are available to you now presumably.

EvF

[fr0d0]

I believe in God. His existence is of no interest, like I keep saying. Yes I guess my beliefs are the same or evolved.

There are very many reasons. Lets keep it tight: Believing in God is the only way to have a fulfilled life. Christian moral guidelines are the most perfect possible. Without them people are blind.

[Edwardo Piet]

So you care more about the benefits than the truth of the matter?

You'd be more happy with a placebo if the alternative is a terrible truth?

You believe in him, but you don't actually care whether he exists or not?

EvF

[fr0d0]

So you care more about the benefits than the truth of the matter?

The benefits are the truth

You'd be more happy with a placebo if the alternative is a terrible truth?

No. The truth is what we reason it to be. A placebo might be shopping.

You believe in him, but you don't actually care whether he exists or not?

It is irrelevant.

[Edwardo Piet]

This seems like a contradiction to me. You say that the benefits are the truth, and that the truth matters...and yet then you say his existence is irrelevant. So you don't care if it is true that he actually exists, that God actually is or not?

Also, how can the truth be what you reason it to be? Something either is or isn't the case. Something is either true or false. If you reason something to be positive, and believe such a positive thing to be true when it isn't - that would be a placebo.

The truth is seperate to what we reason. We can be wrong about what we reason.

EvF

[fr0d0]

His actual existence isn't the question is all. If that's not caring then yes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the issue for you the actual understanding of God's existence?

Christians claim the bible to be revealed truth. That is, words so true they're considered to be inspired by God. From the reasoned stance only belief makes the whole thing truth. Again you're confusing knowledge we accept as a given with faith which is logically irrational. You've made a circle.

[Edwardo Piet]

A circle? I'm trying to deal with the fact that God's existence apparently doesn't matter to you, and yet you believe the Bible was inspired by him - if he doesn't exist, then he can't inspire it. So how is his existence not an issue?

EvF

[fr0d0]

What I'm saying is that his existence is not a focus. ie for you it may be the primary question when for Christians it isn't. We can't know the details of God's existence, and we don't. It isn't necessary to the rationalisation. There is no proof of his inspiration, just a recognisable signature that conclusively establishes that.

[Edwardo Piet]

And what I'm saying, is that if God doesn't exist then the bible can't be inspired through him. It would just be a placebo if there isn't a God. Would you be happy with that? You say the truth is what matters to you, but if there's no God there's no inspiration from God. Not actually.

I'm not asking about details of his existence, i'm asking about his existence full stop. Without a God there can be no Godly inspiration.

EvF

[fr0d0]

I never said he didn't exist. I just said it isn't important to belief.