[ARCHIVED] - Evidence Vs Faith

[fr0d0]

[quote='fr0d0' pid='31374' dateline='1252443306']
A small request - would you mind putting a carriage return after quoting me/ before your line of text please.


Sure, if perhaps you could help explain what 'carriage return' means?

It's the same as the enter key. Used at the end of a paragraph.

I googled it and went to wikipedia, as far as I can tell it just means to return key on the keyboard...so you mean you want me to leave a line gap after I quote? If so, okay I'll do that in this post. If not, then please do explain what you mean - I've never heard of the term before.

That'll do thanx, tho' you can just do one carriage return and not leave the gap if you prefer. As you were doing, adding no line break, I had to find the start of your entry in the wall of text. Thanx anyway

So here you are saying that it all relies on the 'leap of faith', and that there are reasons for making it, correct?

Belief relies on a leap of faith, yes.

I believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man. How is this possible with reason? The reason lies on the other side of the belief. Believing as much gives you access to God (I'll assume you understand that and the benefits).

Here you are supposed to be answering your question of "Why the leap?" right? But it seems to me that you have answered it by saying that believing is what gives you access to God to know the true reasons for believing...or something like that?

Yes. The logic presented that Gods promises to you are fulfilled through believing in him.

In which case, you're saying that it's important to make the leap of faith, and that's important because of certain reasons, and those reasons come through making the leap of faith beforehand, believing in God and therefore having access to such reasons. So if this is what you are saying, it seems kind of circular to me.

But my point would be, if any of these reasons are valid to the matter of the reality of God, of him being real, of him existing, as opposed to not existing, as opposed to there being no God - then they would be evidence for his existence, by definition. So faith wouldn't come into it. And if the reasons are invalid to this matter....then there are no such reasons for believing God is real, that he exists, that there's a God at all in any real sense.

No _that_ is circular.

Because of the very condition, that faith is a requirement, we cannot _know_. As Adam became convinced of his sin, he suddenly _knew_. It isn't a position of transition, it's a definite know or not know. The decision is a leap. This is logical because without it we wouldn't have a choice to be good/ moral. If God were provable then there would be no choice to believe, our existence would be completely different and couldn't be this nature. God's unprovable existence justifies this nature. Gods provable existence wouldn't work in this nature so we know he can't be provable.

You have switchined between these

I have discussed both POV. I am now, and have been for some time, just talking provable evidence, and separating non provable as 'rational'.

- and also you have said that Jon Paul and Arcanus, for instance, have given 'proof' of God's existence, logical proof - in which case there's a big contradiction there. Because proof is the strongest evidence you can get, so if you accept any real, valid 'proof' for God, then you are seriously contradicting your whole notion of 'there can be no evidence for God'.

There is (rational) 'proof' for God's existence in the Summa, which is what was explained and linked to you by them.