A reason to believe?

[Paul the Human]

Why not foster free and rational thought, instead? Happiness is already there without the faith part.

[fr0d0]

It's not either or. You can haz both.

[Minimalist]

Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

Ambrose Bierce

[campenney]

I can't think of any.

ill try

-It gives you a reason for your existence: if you follow the teachings of Jesus the goal of your life is to be a good, kind, generous person.
-It gives you a set of permanent moral values that can guide you through your life.
-It can get you a social network on which you can always count on no matter what happens to you. Even if you sin they will help you repent.
-It is free.

Why NOT believe in God ?

I try to believe in things I can see, feel and touch. You know, scientific things. I believe in myself, my wife, and my son. By the way when we say evidence of God's existence, we mean SCIENTIFIC. Not tall tales.

[tavarish]

I try to believe in things I can see, feel and touch. You know, scientific things. I believe in myself, my wife, and my son. By the way when we say evidence of God's existence, we mean SCIENTIFIC. Not tall tales.

I specifically said evidence is not necessarily empirical.

[fr0d0]

I try to believe in things I can see, feel and touch. You know, scientific things. I believe in myself, my wife, and my son. By the way when we say evidence of God's existence, we mean SCIENTIFIC. Not tall tales.

Whoops! Wrong class

This is Religion 101. Science for dummies is down the hall

[Edwardo Piet]

Which is what I said. My words

No - you said "outside of theological consideration", but I didn't ask for your reasons he exists outside of theological consideration, I asked for your reasons that he exists at all. Inside or outside of it.

Please quote me. I said it isn't important. That God just is, rather than is existant per se.

And that doesn't make sense. If God doesn't exist then he can't be or do anything. If he doesn't exist then he isn't anything.

That I believe in God, not that I have to know his existence. ....Very different.

I didn't say you had to 'know' it. I didn't say that. I accept that God is unknowable. But whether it's rational to believe in him without evidence is another matter.

Only in your mind Evie. Like I've said : 1. you demand to know

No I don't. When did I demand that? I I accept God is unknowable as I said - I'm talking about whether it's rational or irrational to believe in him without any evidence whatsosever. And I'm saying it's a contradiction to say you have rational reasons for believing in him and yet don't have evidence - because they're the same thing. And I'm saying that if you don't care about his existence, and are only interested in the 'hope' and 'positivity' that comes from the belief even if it's not true - then that's a placebo at best.

2. you can't know = Evie is stuck.

No I'm not stuck at all - you keep misrepresenting my position. I don't 'demand to know'. See above.

I'm literal with my use of the term 'evidence' Evie... because if I'm not you know you'll jump down my throat and yell "told you so" like you usually do.

No, I'm the one using the literal exact definiton here - you're the one narrowing the definition down to specific forms of evidence that I never asked for. I'm just asking for any evidence at all. As for 'jumping down your throat' and yelling 'I told you so' I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm just waiting for you to actually make sense on this evidence matter for once...

The bible contains evidence of God, so does direct experience related in human communication. I chose to trust and accept that information which leads to me having faith.

And here it is! Finally! About time...

Woo hoo!!!

You actually admited/understood that your reasons for believing in God and your "evidence" mean the same thing. So when I ask you for evidence I'm not being unreasonable because you said you had reasons, and that's your evidence.

Now..... I have no idea why you consider that evidence but at least we understand each other now and hopefully the wild goose chase won't continue. Now I will ask you a question.....

Am I right in thinking - as I think I've heard you say at least similiar things before - that this evidence is only presented to you after you make the irrational leap of faith without evidence? And if so - why did you make the leap in the first place? Why did you decide to make an irrational leap? What convinced you/motivated you to do that if beforehand you didn't believe? Why did you consider it any more worthwhile than having a leap of faith in the FSM in other words?

And... also - why do you think that the evidence that is presented to you after your leap of faith is more reasonable than the lack of evidence before you made the leap of faith - because if the leap of faith is irrational as it is, then what makes you think you can trust in the evidence that comes to you after it, what makes you think that evidence is valid? Isn't it a bit suspicious to you that before your leap of faith none of it made sense to you? What's so special about a 'leap of faith' - I mean what is it, magic? I know you think it comes from God/the Holy Spirit and all that - but that only makes sense after you think the leap of faith makes sense in the first place... so to use it to back it up, wouldn't that be kind of circular?

Just some questions really.

If all it were a delusion, but it did actually increase measurably one's happiness quotient... this would be a valid reason to believe, no?

Oops, almost missed this.

Well for me personally no. That would just be a placebo and I want more than a placebo (I also just can't help not being convinced by them - I habitually seek the truth and so I have difficulty pretending that things are better than they are anyway. I don't want placebos).

EvF

[fr0d0]

Am I right in thinking - as I think I've heard you say at least similiar things before - that this evidence is only presented to you after you make the irrational leap of faith without evidence?

No. The rewards of believing are only presented afterwards. The bulk of the evidence, such as biblical text, is there for consideration before you believe. How could you trust information you don't yet have?

Faith = trust in information you accept to be true.

If all it were a delusion, but it did actually increase measurably one's happiness quotient... this would be a valid reason to believe, no?

Oops, almost missed this.

Well for me personally no. That would just be a placebo and I want more than a placebo (I also just can't help not being convinced by them - I habitually seek the truth and so I have difficulty pretending that things are better than they are anyway. I don't want placebos).

The point is, you would have no way of knowing if it was a placebo or not. Would you deliberately choose negativity over positivity ...or sadness over happiness?

[Edwardo Piet]

No... I'm just saying that without a valid reason to believe then the hope/positivity is a placebo at best.

And thank you for answering my question about the evidence that you do believe we have, I feel we may even understand each other a bit better finally (or at least me you).

I can't understand how you consider the Bible evidence. But at least you now say that its evidence to you. Because to say you have reasons to believe and it's more than just a placebo and yet you don't have any evidence is a contradiction and seems confusing to me. I'm glad you cleared that up for me. And for me to try and keep it clear: Remember, when I'm asking for evidence: I'm just asking for evidence. I didn't say empirical or whatever. I'm not going to ask you for forms of evidence that you don't believe to be possible in the matter of God anyway (for God is unfalsifiable and hence, unreachable by science, etc.,).

Thank you for your sensible post. We define faith differently, but other than that: Nice post - thanks for making things a bit less unclear lol.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Blimey