Resoning for belief in God

[lilphil1989]

Only provable evidence discounts faith. Reasoning for God's existence (for they are many ) prove nothing.

Surely by definition evidence must be provable.

Unless you're saying you have evidence, but you're not sure whether it actually is evidence?

[fr0d0]

Yes, good point lilphil. Non empirical evidence seems like an oxymoron. It's not my phrase, I prefer to say reasoned opinion.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well all I know is that there is no known evidence (or valid reasons therefore) to believe that God exists....

And if there were VALID REASONS to have FAITH in God then it wouldn't be faith because with the valid reasons already there would have to be evidence (because if the valid reasons WERE valid then that would count as evidence) - so you couldn't have faith because the valid reasons would count as evidence, and if there's evidnece, there's no faith (because faith is without evidence).

EvF

Haha! Good one

But... LOL

Only provable evidence discounts faith. Reasoning for God's existence (for they are many ) prove nothing.

I didn't speak of proof.

The evidence may not be proved...but you need valid reasons TO believe that it is indeed evidence.....if you don't have any then you have no evidence and have no valid reasons...if you DO have valid reasons then that's at least considered to probably count as evidence and count as something towards the likelihood of God's existence - but then it wouldn't be faith because you'd have valid reasons that would count as evidence.

If you have no reason to believe that you have evidence then you must have no valid reasons..because if you had valid reasons then they would count as evidence...

And if you have no valid reasons then that's just plain irrational.

EvF

[LukeMC]

1) Watched this when it got posted but forgot to comment. For a while I was thinking "this is an hour of my life I'll never get back". Lots of worn-out arguments and intellectual dishonesty (playing the Stalin card for example). Otherwise it was alright for the first 12 minutes and the guy seemed nice as a person.

2) It is hard to confirm that believes are entirely cultural when a large amount of people from fiercely religious households realise they are atheists (we even have some here). Vice versa also.

3) Upbringing and social surrounding will definitely have an effect on children, but whether or not they continue to believe without question is subject to debate. In EVF's case, his natural affinity towards evidence and empiricism would have led him to atheism had he been the son of a pope. There are so many factors involved in this.

[Edwardo Piet]

In EVF's case, his natural affinity towards evidence and empiricism would have led him to atheism had he been the son of a pope.

what a compliment!

I WOULD give you a +1 but I've already given you one ages ago...and only admins can give +2.

I woulda given you (along with some other people) a +2 before hand...but it's not for us mere mods to decide LOL j/k.

You're a nice guy...but ALSO the thing is that your arguments and very sound and I like the way you write.

Very clear and easy to read. You write very well.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Well I think it's not his absolute best, but perhaps most accessible, which is why I chose it. I honestly didn't notice how long it was! I like him for his rational approach, which seems widely (ie amongst secular academics) accepted.

The influences on individuals isn't necessarily your family. If your family comprises irrational nutjobs then I'd think it very unlikely that you'd follow suit. However the group or ideas you aspired to would be the deciding factor. To me the Catholic influence is disciplinarian rather than rational ever. Catholic grandchildren* I know all reject Catholicism.

A person with a scientific bent would associate and want to associate with people who's main influence on rationalising faith leaned towards evolution and atheism.

[Edwardo Piet]

A person with a scientific bent would associate and want to associate with people who's main influence on rationalising faith leaned towards evolution and atheism.

Hmmm. I don't get that statement.

How has 'rationalising faith' got anything to do with evolution and atheism if FAITH has got nothing to do with evolution and atheism? There is evidence for evolution hence you don't need/can't have faith to believe in it. There's already evidence so if you believe in it then your belief is EVIDENCE based rather than faith based (because faith is without evidence).

Atheism also has nothing to do with faith. You don't need faith to be an atheist because an atheist simply rejects belief in God because there is NO evidence. No faith is needed - and no evidence is needed either. There's just no evidence of God so no reason to believe. Atheism ISN'T believing in anything without evidence and it isn't believing in something WITH evidence. It's simply NOT believing because there is NO evidence and hence; NO reason to believe.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Maybe I should have said 'rationalising philosophy'. Atheism being a philosophical position. I have an instinctive aversion to philosophy so interchange the term faith to mean the same thing.

[Edwardo Piet]

Fair enough. I responded because you said 'rationalising FAITH' and NOT philosophy lol

I thought you meant faith. And that would be incorrect if that was the case. Evolution and atheism both aren't based on faith. The former is based on evidence. The latter is based on neither Faith NOR Evidence. It isn't really 'based on' anything...it's just what happens when people don't believe in God because they don't see any reasons to or don't know of any evidence to (or they think "God" is disproved perhaps if they're a gnostic atheist...but that's kind of another story. I myself am an Agnostic Atheist).

EvF

[fr0d0]

Yeah you go for the philosophy bullshit but rational faith.. no.