[ARCHIVED] - Evidence Vs Faith

[Edwardo Piet]

The promises come to me, not from me.

They come to you from who? God? Yourself? And if God then we're simply back to this issue on why you believe in him...without evidence again. So what if there can be no evidence? Why believe without it?

If you agree evidence isn't necessary, then you don't insist on evidence to believe. You've just dismissed your own question.

No, because whether there can be evidence or not. The question is still why you would ever believe in anything without evidence. So why you would make an exception and believe in God, even though you haven't got any evidence. Whether there can be evidence or not, no evidence is no evidence. How can that ever be a good thing?

EvF

[fr0d0]

The promises come to me, not from me.

They come to you from who? God? Yourself? And if God then we're simply back to this issue on why you believe in him...without evidence again. So what if there can be no evidence? Why believe without it?

I believe in him without evidence because evidence is not anything to do with believing in him.

Only for you is evidence important... but then we're not talking about you... or are we???

If you agree evidence isn't necessary, then you don't insist on evidence to believe. You've just dismissed your own question.

No, because whether there can be evidence or not. The question is still why you would ever believe in anything without evidence. So why you would make an exception and believe in God, even though you haven't got any evidence. Whether there can be evidence or not, no evidence is no evidence. How can that ever be a good thing?

You didn't answer that then.

[Edwardo Piet]

I believe in him without evidence because evidence is not anything to do with believing in him.

What do you mean 'not anything to do with'? Whether there can be evidence for him or not, whether it's 'to do with him' in that sense or not....why believe in anything without evidence? If you don't believe in other things without evidence....why are you believing in God without evidence? If you cannot rationally justify the former then how can you rationally justify the latter? Why not cut out the middle man?

Only for you is evidence important...

It's important for all of us in practically everything. People just make exceptions for some special things, like God, or the afterlife, or something else that they 'have faith' in. And I wonder...why? The reasons vary, and I want to understand your case.

You didn't answer that then.

I don't believe I ever said evidence was not necessary. I didn't speak of necessity. I was speaking of possibility for evidence, and why that's irrelevant to whether you should believe without it or not. So what didn't I answer?

EvF

[fr0d0]

I believe in him without evidence because evidence is not anything to do with believing in him.

What do you mean 'not anything to do with'? Whether there can be evidence for him or not, whether it's 'to do with him' in that sense or not....why believe in anything without evidence? If you don't believe in other things without evidence....why are you believing in God without evidence? If you cannot rationally justify the former then how can you rationally justify the latter? Why not cut out the middle man?

How does my belief in what I know need to be the same as my belief in what I can't know? The conjunction is fallacious.

Only for you is evidence important...

It's important for all of us in practically everything. People just make exceptions for some special things, like God, or the afterlife, or something else that they 'have faith' in. And I wonder...why? The reasons vary, and I want to understand your case.

You're changing the subject. Evidence is important for belief in things we know. As we aren't talking about things we can know, then we cannot apply the same condition to something dissimilar.

I don't believe I ever said evidence was not necessary.

From post 9 in this thread:

As I've said, I don't care whether there can be evidence or not

[Edwardo Piet]

How does my belief in what I know need to be the same as my belief in what I can't know? The conjunction is fallacious.

Why is it any more rational to believe in something without evidence when there can't be evidence, than to believe in something without evidence when there can be evidence? The fact that you can't know it, how does that make it any different in terms of rationality? Knowable or unknowable - why believe...without evidence? How can you ever do that rationally?

You're changing the subject. Evidence is important for belief in things we know. As we aren't talking about things we can know, then we cannot apply the same condition to something dissimilar.

See above.

From post 9 in this thread:

As I've said, I don't care whether there can be evidence or not

I indeed don't care whether there can be evidence or not, because whether evidence is possible or not is irrelevant to the fact that it's irrational to believe without in either case. I am speaking of possibility in that quote, not necessity. I'm saying that I don't care whether evidence is possible or not, because that's irrelevant to the fact that it's irrational to believe without it.

I am not saying that evidence isn't necessary to be rational.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Why is it any more rational to believe in something without evidence when there can't be evidence, than to believe in something without evidence when there can be evidence?

As the two are unrelated, how is the question valid??

Sure you can compare.. believing in something you know is a no brainer. Believing in something you have scant evidence of involves some cognitive ability. Believing in something there is no evidence of becomes entirely cerebral. So it looks like belief in the non evidential is the most rational you can be.

[Edwardo Piet]

You say they're unrelated. But I fail to see how they're not related.

In both cases you are believing with something despite the fact there's no evidence, and to believe without evidence is irrational. Why make the exception just because evidence isn't even possible in this case?

Belief in the non-evidential, I would argue to be the least rational you can be when it comes to beliefs. To believe in something that it's not even possible for there to be evidence for, ever - is about as irrational as it gets in my view.

How does evidence being impossible increase the rationality? Never mind evidence being possible but there just at least currently being none. It's evidence that makes beliefs rational, that's how we know they have support and are worth believing in.

Note: I will next post here tomorrow, since It's my birthday today - I won't be foruming much, or at all again until the very early morning tomorrow.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Well to 'believe' in something you 'know' requires no thought does it? I don't have to think about my fingers existing. It's plainly obvious to see.

I 'believe' computer networks work but understanding exactly how is difficult (anyone: feel free to change this! ). Still, as I 'know' it works because I see evidence of it working. This limits my cognition to the understanding of the technology.

If I believe in something with no evidence, all I have is cognition to understand.

Please demonstrate how this is wrong.

[Edwardo Piet]

I accept that when there is plainly obvious evidence, evidence that is basically self-evident...then it is 'easier' to believe, so 'takes less thought' - because it's just plain obvious - but the difficulty of it is not the issue here. You may have to think, it may 'take more thought' to believe without evidence in the sense of you're going to have to think of reasons to believe without it! - because you're not thinking of what's already 'known' - but then that's superficial creativity and thought, until it is first given support[/i] (i.e - evidence) and the fact that it's superficial and creative rather than real and actual is the issue here, not how difficult or creative it is or isn't to believe without evidence.

So basically I was talking about rationality and not difficulty. Not the amount of 'thought', but rather the quality of the reason for believing.
It may be 'easier' to believe when there's plainly obvious evidence, because indeed, basically everyone religious or non-religious, accepts things with evidence - but then why I wonder is why the religious go on believing in something without it, and how they can justify that is rational? I still wonder this, and I'm still kind of...probing here.

EvF

[fr0d0]

So you accept my reasoning then: Belief in, as you put it: "the self evident" is not something we really need to rationalise.

How people conclude a rational position re the belief in God is the $64mil question. To explain that to you would be preaching.. and against the forum rules!!!

For that question you need to visit your local church k? LMAO