Question for the theist.

[Edwardo Piet]

Damn U Evie!!!

No need to thank me LOL

Ok so: 1. You and I both define faith as belief without evidence right? 2. If there is reasoning to believe God actually exists then this would IOW equate to evidence right? 3. If '2.' is true and there IS reasoning to believe God actually exists and therefore IOW there's evidence of some form, then you couldn't be believing with faith or 'have faith' in God because you believe with evidence (or IOW - with good reason!) and you can't believe 'on faith' or 'with faith' when there is evidence.

What don't you get there?

1. Yep

Ok.

2. No. Unless evidence can = don't know

Evidence=don't ABSOLUTELY know, yes. But evidence = a reason to believe. So if there is reason to believe God exists then that IOW=SOME form of evidence. But that would then mean there couldn't be faith. Because you can't have faith with evidence.

You get a glimpse on the other side and reason the leap may be worth it? IOW you have some reasoning to believe on faith?(i.e completely without evidence?)

Yes

No. You cannot be RATIONALLY reasoning to believe in God ON FAITH. Because whatever that rational reasoning IS if it IS at all valid with regards to belief in God actually existing then it WOULD count as SOME form of evidence so you CAN'T make the leap of faith because faith it WITHOUT evidence.

But if the reasons are at all valid for taking to leap on faith then they would somehow give reason to believe that God exists. They would be some form of evidence.

Evidence = non provable

But evidence is by definition a form of EVIDENCE it doesn't have to be PROOF.

All I'm saying is that IF this reasoning you speak of to believe in God IS at all valid reasoning to believe he actually exists THEN it WOULD count as SOME form of evidence and hence cancel out the faith.

If your reasoning ISN'T valid then you're just believing irrationally.

Is there any way you can work that out to make sense? I mean, make the faith essential and the evidence impossible? This is the equation you're dealing with here.

"Faith" cannot be essential because it's irrational by definition. Because if you DO have rational reasons to believe in the existence of something then it IOW counts as evidence. If you DON'T have rational reasons to believe then of course it DOESN'T count as evidence so it has to be "faith" - and NOT having rational

EvF

[fr0d0]

Since when was faith = irrational. Wrong!

And above... you're perverting the meaning of 'evidence' so that you can conveniently say "faith is belief without evidence". Well sorry, you can't do that.

[Giff]

You've not heard of the Bible then Giff?

ARe you kidding with me? Should the bible present any kind evidence? That's just plain stupid. It's a 2000 yaer old book full with myths and fairytales! How could it prove anything??? And don't say you take it seriously?

[Darwinian]

What do you mean by infintely defined?

Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent...

Somewhere in this forum I went to great pains to explain how a being cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent at the same time.

A simple example is that an omniscient being will know everything and therefore can never be surprised, change his/her mind or do anything unexpected.

If this is the case then they cannot be omnipotent as, of course, an omnipotent being can do anything.

On the other hand, if they are indeed omnipotent and can do anything then they do have the ability to be surprised etc. in which case they can't be omniscient.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

[Edwardo Piet]

Since when was faith = irrational. Wrong!

I've just explained it.

And if belief WITH evidence is of course RATIONAL then how on earth would faith merely being by definition being belief WITHOUT evidence be RATIONAL too? To believe in the existence of something WITHOUT evidence - that's fucking irrational! Lol.

And above... you're perverting the meaning of 'evidence' so that you can conveniently say "faith is belief without evidence". Well sorry, you can't do that.

When we have evidence to believe something exists then that's a correct reason to believe it exists. If you have rational reasons to believe something DOES actually exist therefore then that would IOW be evidence. Where's the perversion there??

If you have rational reasons to actually believe in the EXISTENCE of God that would IOW be evidence! If it actually gives you reasons to believe he DOES INDEED EXIST then that's what evidence IS right? If you have evidence that he exists then that would be reason to believe he exists. Evidence is the name of the game when it comes to rational reasons for believing in the EXISTENCE of something.

And if you have these rational reasoning that would IOW equate to evidence then you can't have faith because faith is without evidence. Faith IS fucking irrational!
Believing in the EXISTENCE of something WITHOUT evidence is NOT a good thing!

To rationally believe that something actually EXISTS you need rational reasons and IF you HAVE those rational reasons - then if they were, indeed, rational reasons - then they would of course have to indicate to SOME EXTENT at least that that thing actually EXISTS - and would IOW be evidence.

When it comes to believing in the existence of something evidence is the name of the game. To rationally believe in the existence of something you need evidence that it EXISTS.

You say I'm perverting the meaning. I do not see how. I will once again assume you just have no counter argument.

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

I don't care if your God is the biggest baddest motherfucker ever to grace this universe or any other, if something affects our universe then it must leave a trail of evidence ... to do otherwise is something extraordinary and therefore you must provide extraordinary evidence to support your claim.

The claim is that evidence is impossible to determine without the knowledge of a god.

Yes, I know what the claim is and I dispute it as would any reasoning, objective scientist.

To insist, as you are doing, that the evidence for your God is beyond science, reason and the accepted rules of verifiable evidence acquisition (that your god is above and beyond the accepted rules of science & evidence) is nothing but special pleading.

Science doesn't cover it. You either accept that or continue with a very limited veiw of the world. A simplistic - touch it we can know it world, without the capacity of thought.

Yes so you claim yet the fact remains that in order to affect this universe, this world, a trail of evidence must (at least potentially) be left ... it is a logical impossibility for it to be otherwise. Let me frame it in a question ... do you know of ANY other thing besides your god that can affect this universe (this world), is accepted as real by the majority of academics and not leave some kind of evidence?

Kyu