Evidence that God exists

[fr0d0]

Hey Fr0d0, you roamed over from ThinkingAloud I guess?

Hi Leo

My statement has nothing to do with the existence of God. It's about the illogicality of requiring evidence for faith. If it's drivel, give a good reason why it isn't so.

To me the illogicality is having faith without any valid basis for it. I base my faith in seeing the Sun tomorrow on past experience and evidence that the Earth will keep spinning for quite some yet. Where do you base your faith on the existence of a god on if not evidence?

Again OT. It's based on rationalisation.

---

The conflict is between the person who believes in a god because of faith(it has to be faith, as there is no evidence), and the person who does not believe in god because of the lack of evidence. The faithful believer is choosing faith over evidence as the determiner of what is real.

The believer who chooses faith over evidence is a tiny minority in my experience; and also a nut. I said above, you'd have conflict with that, yes.

I'd wan't to see the psychiatrist's report, as that'd be an impossible statement, which is my point.

Therefore, you have faith in a god, despite lack of evidence. There's the conflict between belief based on faith and disbelief based on evidence.

No there isn't! You can't have a faith in God with evidence. It defies logic.

---

..Because believing in a big man in the sky for no reason is lunacy. Faith is not only not a good reason - is it even a reason at all? Isn't it just bare asserion? "I have faith". Or in other words: "There's no evidence. So I have to have faith".

There is reason, there just can't be evidence, but again, we digress.

If there was actual evidence of God then it would be rational to believe in him (if the evidence was strong enough of course) - you wouldn't need to claim faith!

'Believe in one sense yes, but not in all senses, and it's the one you missed out that's important. Again OT

Then burden of proof is on those who make claims that have no evidence supporting them. When people claim that God exists then the burden of proof is on them therefore - because there is no evidence of God.

Burden of proof suggests to me that faith needs proof. The burden of proof is out of it's pond here because no one is talking evidence.

The conflict is with those who believe in the absurd with no evidence to support their belief (they "have faith") not those who have minds that are free from believing in the supernatural.

You are suggesting people with faith in the unprovable are in conflict with themselves? I don't see your logic.

If you are free from believing in the supernatural, do you have 1 more limit than someone who is free to do the same?