Biblical Morality

[Edwardo Piet]

Once again: HOW can faith have any bearing on the existence of God?

I don't understand your question. Let me say what I think you're asking:
Q. How can our unprovable idea that God exists have any bearing on God's actual existence or not.
A. It cannot. If God exists, it is outside of our sphere of proof.

You don't understand my question? I explained that mathematics doesn't need evidence because it is not something that exists in outside reality but a brilliant tool to help us understand reality. You said: "faith is exactly that". Now I am asking: How is faith a tool to help us understand reality, and: HOW does it help us understand reality according to you? What's difficult about that question?

You say God is outside our sphere of proof. Now you also said in the opening thread that it's ridiculous for God to require any evidence at all.

And what I'm wondering is how on earth God should be treated a special case? Why shouldn't he require evidence like any other claim of the existence of something?

He may be unprovable. But why shouldn't his existence need evidence before it should be believed?

So what's the point? The point is this enables a huge opportunity for any individual to experience life the best we possibly can. I think that's no small thing.

How does it? And if 'faith' does have a positive effect like this at all, through the placebo effect for instance; that doesn't have any bearing on existence of God does it?

If believing in God makes you happy. That in no way makes God more likely to exist. Just as if believing in Satan makes you UNhappy - that in no way makes Satan more likely to exist.

How you 'feel' because of your supernatural beliefs in no way has any bearing on the truth of them, or lack thereof. It's not evidence.

No one is tied to the idea. Everyone has complete liberty under this system to do whatever they like, without condemnation at all from those who do.

But belief in God doesn't give you any more freedom than not believing in God. However; some things in some religions may be considered unacceptable to those who are part of it; and this arguably limits to freedom I think.

If you do purely religious things simply because you think you should for religious reasons; when it's all in fact nonsense for instance - and you wouldn't do it if you didn't believe in God, if you were atheis - then I think that's an example where belief in God would limit your freedom.

E.G if you prayed everyday because you believed in God. If you were atheist you wouldn't spend your time praying to a non-existent supernatural being.

However how exactly do those who believe in God have any more freedom? They don't. We are all born atheists.

Don't just tell me that it does.

Have I EVER said "because it does"?

I don't do that. I require rational explanation for everything.

You said that faith has bearing on the existence of God, you said the following: "His existence in reality is beyond what is empirically provable to us. Only faith can have any bearing, since there's no other way to know. Everything is it's own case. This is how this works. You don't accept it or believe it, so what's the problem?"

You say that faith has bearing but you won't give any reasons. You just say that it does have bearing; what are you reasons exactly?

If you require 'a rational explanation for everything' then please give one on this.

So I repeat: HOW can faith have any bearing on the existence of God?

Because as I quoted above. You DID say that it does ( @ post #47 of this thread). But then when I asked HOW does it: You said you didn't understand the question and you rephrased it.

You say: faith has bearing on the existence of God.

I say: HOW does it have bearing?

What is it about that question that you do not understand?

Well it doesn't need to be proved that it isn't untill you've given any evidence that it IS internally consistent.

A through example of scholarly explanations of every chapter in the bible is on Bible Gateway. There lies proof of the complete internal consistancy. On the other hand, the evidence for the opposition is the ignorant (I choose the word carefully) skeptics bible.

The bible is not a 'magic book' that you can interpret how you want to make sense and this gives evidence towards the existence of God.

And you have said that yes indeed: Its ridiculous to require evidence of God.

So if there is no evidence of God. Then there's no reason to believe he exists now is there?

The bible is not evidence of God. E.G the bible is just a book that claims things and gives no evidence of God.

I could write right here: God exists.

That is not evidence for the existence of God of course.

Now if I said a bit more about how great he is and what he can do and more about how he exists. If there's no evidence why believe?

Personal feeling has no bearing on the existence of God. Only evidence has a bearing on the real existence of something in objective real reality.

If it's an existence claim, and existence idea, an hypothesis of the existence of something. You need evidence.

The existence of something needs evidence. It is totally irrational to cherry pick a certain thing or things that totally lack evidence that you want to believe in: over other things that totally lack evidence that you don't want to or feel the need to believe in so much.

If there's no evidence of God. What other rational reason IS there for believing?

If faith is a rational way of living and understanding the world in your eyes...this can have no bearing on God - although you say it can; - because if it does then you are saying that counts as evidence. And you say God doesn't require evidence and it's ridiculous to suggest that it does. So there's a contradiction there.

How can faith have a bearing when faith=LACK of evidence?

What other bearing other than evidence is there on the existence of something in objective reality?

You say that God is 'true for you'. But then you say that he is true but some just don't see it. So there aren't you suggesting that he isn't just 'true for you' but true in reality? It's just 'some don't see it'. In which case: Where is the evidence?

If you believe that God exists, then you can't believe he only exists for some people and not for others. That seems impossible to me. This was your idea that God can and can't exist at the same time. You explain it to me!

Explain it to you? You're just being silly now because surely you know I don't believe in God at all? Never mind about believing in a God that is true for others but not for some.

No; you said that God was true for you. So all I was saying that he can't be 'true for you' because he's either true for everyone or no one. He either exists or he doesn't. Either something is true or false when we're talking about objective reality. Either God exists or he doesn't.

You then said he is true for you but he is true for others too; they just don't see it.

So why say he is true for you? I thought you meant that he could be true for you but not for others! Why say "true for me" if you do indeed believe and just mean that he's true for you and everyone else! You might as well say he's just true. And that he exists.

If you are supposed to have some ability to see God that we can't. Then you can't merely assert to us that belief in God shouldn't require evidence like every other belief. You have to give evidence. If you can't and just say that we can't 'see it'. Then you can't expect us to accept the idea that the existence of God should be treated as a special case and not treated the same as the existence of anything else. Or that 'faith' somehow has any bearing without showing how on earth it possibily does.

I never said I can physically 'see' anything. That would be inconsistent, even ridiculous given my repeated assertions.

I never said that you claimed you could physically see something did I?

I just said 'see'. Because when I was perplexed about you saying that God was true for you. You said that God is true for everyone else also; some just don't 'see it'.

So how do you or others who believe in God 'see it'. Whatever this 'seeing' is?

I can assert to you that belief in God requires no evidence, because that is the definition of religious belief.

This is the whole point. Christianity isn't a science, it's a religion. The rules of science don't apply. The consistent message of the bible is of faith in what we cannot see.

If you can't see it how on earth do you know that the bible isn't just complete nonsense?

I mean if there's no evidence whatsoever and you can't detect it in any possible way. You might as well believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I mean if you are not after evidence for an existence claim are you merely believing in something because it emotionally 'feels right' or 'helps you in some way'. Despite the fact that has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the existence of God? Because if ANYTHING had any bearing whatsoever on the existence of God that would make it by definition evidence.

And if you say that God can't require evidence. Then nothing can have any bearing on the existence of God. So there's no reason to think he exists. The FSM is equally likely.

Is this about emotion or the existence of a supernatural being here? Because emotion has no bearing on the existence of God; nor does 'inspiration' or 'self-improvement'. If it did it would be considered evidence and afterall: you don't think evidence has any bearing. To require evidence for the existence of God would be 'ridiculous' you say.

Faith is to believe what we cannot see; and the reward of faith is to see what we believe.

Which is pretty damn circular actually I think:

Start believing blindly and then when you see things that you can interpret as backing up that blind belief; that's the reward! And that presumably strengthens your belief!

Faith is believing in what we cannot see it says. E.G: Blind belief. BLIND belief; ignorant belief. And the reward is 'seeing' things that backs up this blindness apparently.

But how can you trust the blindness in the first place? If you can find things to back it up; so what? Why would you want to back up ignorant, blind belief? Faith? Belief without evidence?

How exactly does 'belief without evidence' have bearing on the existence of God? If we can't 'see it' as you so claim; don't expect us to simply trust you on that and treat the existence of God as a special case. The existence of God should require evidence like any other existence claim.

You can't trust me on it, that's the whole point. You have to have faith yourself to get it. It's completely an individual choice.

No it's not individual choice. Belief is not a matter of policy. You can't 'choose belief'.

Faking belief on the other hand could easily be chosen.

I could easily pretend to believe in God. But if I tried to believe in God's existence - no matter how hard - I couldn't do it.

I could pray, got to churches etc etc. Read the bible over and over.

And if none of this convinces me (and it wouldn't) I couldn't simply 'choose' to believe.

If I think "God exists, god exists, god exists" over and over in my head. It doesn't remotely make me believe it!

Belief is not a matter of policy.

Personally; if I heard God's voice and/or felt really inspired and/or felt some /presence or 'saw God'. I would think I was hallucinating, hearing voices, etc.....

So would I

Oh good. So we have something in common there then?

My point was. What exactly do you 'see' that others 'don't'. When God is true for you but it is for others who don't believe too. They just don't 'see it' according to you.

OR merely misinterpretting the beauty of the natural world and reality as it really is; as something Godly - and for example: seeing a designer where there isn't one.

The pathetic 'argument from beauty' and the destroyed 'argument from design', etc.

The fashion is to rubbish reasonable wisdom and replace it with nothing, because it isn't described in a scientific way.

I at least, am not one of those atheists who is against any personal wisdom in the bible. What I am against is the idea of a supernatural being, a God, or indeed miracles or anything supernatural. I think that is all rubbish.

Also the fact that there is also a lot of horror in the bible. And it's pretty ridiculous when it is brushed aside and cherry-picked by some, particularly moderates.