Faith Vs Knowledge

[fr0d0]

Guys - those are your thoughts. I'd agree with you but then we're not the ones making the claims of knowledge.

[Chas]

No, it supports the claim that god isn't necessary, that the existence of god doesn't explain anything, therefore there is no reason to believe in the existence of any gods.

You are making an assumption that has nowhere near the information to do so.

If the universe is alive, which is very real possibility unless you can support it being not alive. Then the formation of the universe as it is may have "it's life" as a requirement.

I am making no assumption at all. "The universe is alive" is an hypothesis with absolutely no evidence to support it, and it explains nothing. There is no reason to believe it.

You might as well believe the Flying Spaghetti monster made the universe 7 minutes ago, and now it's al dente.

[archangle]

Guys - those are your thoughts. I'd agree with you but then we're not the ones making the claims of knowledge.

"there is no god/gods" and people that believe in them are delusional.

That sounds like a claim of knowledge to me. that we don't have.

Delusional "not there" but you think it is. Now "illusion" is better. It may very well be there, we don't know, just not what you think it is.

[professor]

I view the question of the OP as rather like a legal trial.

For myself, evidence has been presented.
Any positional change for me came, because of evidence.

Blind faith is a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing.

All faith (confidence/ expectation) comes because of some kind of evidence.
I stepped out on the evidence I had.
I found knowledge after stepping out- I would call that - experience.

Mother Teresa, like most Catholics, apparently had a faith based on her performance rather than on an encounter/ Biblical veracity, subsequent encounters/ and more evidence.

Doubting Thomas, previous to encountering the risen Jesus, had the testimony of the other Disciples which he REFUSED to believe.

I have a friend who has heard the audible voice of God when he had a difficult choice to make. Two times he was directed that way. It is not the norm.
Occasionally, I hear of a similar experience by others.

We don't know why God has chosen the way of walking by- understanding/ perception/ clues/ inspiration ........rather than by sight.
There always seems to be an element of risk anytime you step out to do anything.
Maybe God likes to reward risk when it involves Him.

[Rampant.A.I.]

I view the question of the OP as rather like a legal trial.

For myself, evidence has been presented.
Any positional change for me came, because of evidence.

Blind faith is a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing.

All faith (confidence/ expectation) comes because of some kind of evidence.
I stepped out on the evidence I had.
I found knowledge after stepping out- I would call that - experience.

Mother Teresa, like most Catholics, apparently had a faith based on her performance rather than on an encounter/ Biblical veracity, subsequent encounters/ and more evidence.

Doubting Thomas, previous to encountering the risen Jesus, had the testimony of the other Disciples which he REFUSED to believe.

I have a friend who has heard the audible voice of God when he had a difficult choice to make. Two times he was directed that way. It is not the norm.
Occasionally, I hear of a similar experience by others.

We don't know why God has chosen the way of walking by- understanding/ perception/ clues/ inspiration ........rather than by sight.
There always seems to be an element of risk anytime you step out to do anything.
Maybe God likes to reward risk when it involves Him.

Define evidence.

[ShaMan]

Doubting Thomas, previous to encountering the risen Jesus, had the testimony of the other Disciples which he REFUSED to believe.

And what did Jesus do for Thomas to quell his doubts? He gave him proof that he could believe. Physical evidence. Now, on the other hand, I will agree that theists often have personal experience of God which they cannot display for others, but in the case of Thomas, God showed him the munny.

[professor]

Evidence- you are involved in a jury trial for OJ Simpson.
All you have is circumstantial evidence.
Is circumstantial evidence "Fake evidence" or is it real evidence?
I say evidence is any number of things pointing to a possible conclusion.

As for Thomas, it just so happened that he was in the presence of his buddies when Jesus entered their room.
It easily could have been otherwise.
We are all different.
To expect a replication of a particular person's experience for oneself is unrealistic when that person's experience is unusual.

You have to play the ball where it lays.
It does no good to demand the ball be where you would rather have it.

[Chas]

Evidence- you are involved in a jury trial for OJ Simpson.
All you have is circumstantial evidence.
Is circumstantial evidence "Fake evidence" or is it real evidence?
I say evidence is any number of things pointing to a possible conclusion.

As for Thomas, it just so happened that he was in the presence of his buddies when Jesus entered their room.
It easily could have been otherwise.
We are all different.
To expect a replication of a particular person's experience for oneself is unrealistic when that person's experience is unusual.

You have to play the ball where it lays.
It does no good to demand the ball be where you would rather have it.

Someone's internal experience is not evidence. Nor is a story from the Bible.

[ShaMan]

To expect a replication of a particular person's experience for oneself is unrealistic when that person's experience is unusual.

I semi-agree. Do you commune with plants?

[professor]

Not yet.
I did an experiment with microwave water on one and it withered and died but said nothing.