A reason to believe?

[fr0d0]

No - religion is about the why, the reason for... things strictly outside the realm of science.

Things to consider that cannot oterwise be known, only speculated over. Point being of religious contemplation > the increased attainment potential. Theologically the God idea is posited as an actual exitant entity with the ability to create and influence this physical reality. Then we have the difficulty of explaining that interaction. For theologians there's not much satisfaction to be gained here... any claim of hard evidence is easily refuted, and the opposite claim of necessary obfiscation is also frustrating to scientific exploration.

This leaves religion where it should be... considering what is right and wrong in a way complimentary to, and not in opposition to, observations of physical reality.

[Paul the Human]

Heheh! Okay, fr0d0. That's a fancy way of saying that religion (or god) is beyond the reach of evidence. Or maybe it doesn't. It doesn't matter. My question to you was, why do you believe that god exists when his existence is a prerequisite to holding that belief? It seems rather nonsensical to me and I hoped you could explain.

[Watson]

But my point is, possible or impossible, and whether you want to believe without it or not - how the fuck is it rational to believe without evidence? If there's no evidence, why believe?

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that the sun will rise the next morning when I wake up.

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that when I come home I will not find it burned down to the ground when I get there.

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that if I make a mistake in my relationship it will still be possible to reconcile with the person I love.

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that having hope through bad times is no more false hope than having hope through good times.

I have to wonder, EvF, why does it bother you so much, and why be so vehement in lashing out at fr0do? Take a chill pill, dude, it's only a debate. Right?

Oh, and Paul, I don't think that was a fancy way of saying God is outside the realm of evidence. He is just outside the realm of scientific evidence. In the case of God, experience is the most reliable form evidence takes. Trust, faith, and belief are required for the experience to be taken as such, however.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah I know. You want to know a reason to believe God actually exists outside of theological conosideration.

No. I didn't say that. You're twisting my words again. I didn't say "outside of theological consideration". I want your reason to believe that he exists at all. You've said silly things like he doesn't actually exist he 'just is' which doesn't make any sense at all because he can't do or be anything if he doesn't exist. If he doesn't exist he isn't anything. If he doesn't exist he isn't real.

You want to know if he's real or not. That's what 'true' means to you.

Well if he isn't real then your belief in him is a belief in something unreal and hence it's a placebo at best.

Like I've just said, it's of less importance to me than anything I can think of right now.

And as I've said. If you don't care about the existence of the thing you believe in, God, then your belief is a placebo at best. That's what a placebo is, the belief in something that makes you feel good regardless of whether that belief is actually based on reality or not, regardless of whether that very thing you believe in actually exists or not.

It's up there with impossible stuff I just find no merit in persuing. I already know I can dismiss it. You say the same. We have the same stance on the 'knowledge' of God.

You can't have any reasons to believe that God exists if you can't have evidence for it because that's the same thing. You repeatedly state there can be no evidence but that means that there can be no reason to believe he exists. And since you have no reason to believe he exists then your belief is just a placebo.


EvF

[tavarish]

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that the sun will rise the next morning when I wake up.

You can see the sun, it's demonstrably real. However, the fact that you believe it to survive another rotation of the Earth has no merit on whether it will actually do so.

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that when I come home I will not find it burned down to the ground when I get there.

Again, this belief has absolutely no merit as you absolutely need evidence to say such a thing. I think you meant to say "I don't believe that when I come home I will find my house burned down to the ground when I get there." It's a non-belief, and does not require evidence. You don't actively hold the belief that something WON'T happen, and if you do, I'd wonder what else you hold as an active belief.

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that if I make a mistake in my relationship it will still be possible to reconcile with the person I love.

3rd time with this BS. Your belief in trying to make things work in a relationship has absolutely no merit in deciphering whether your belief is relevant to anything. It doesn't make it necessarily true in the least, especially just because you believe in it.

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that having hope through bad times is no more false hope than having hope through good times.

See above.

I have to wonder, EvF, why does it bother you so much, and why be so vehement in lashing out at fr0do? Take a chill pill, dude, it's only a debate. Right?

I agree. I've learned to just tune out his shitty reasoning and vague explanations.

Oh, and Paul, I don't think that was a fancy way of saying God is outside the realm of evidence. He is just outside the realm of scientific evidence. In the case of God, experience is the most reliable form evidence takes. Trust, faith, and belief are required for the experience to be taken as such, however.

That's ridiculous. How do you know God is outside the realm of scientific evidence?

By the way, subjective experience is subjective evidence. That's how you make decisions in life, through similar experiences. If you touch a hot stove and get burned, would you touch it again, having knowledge of your experience? Would you then say "I believe without evidence, but through experience, that a stove will burn my hand"?

Your experiences in life ARE your evidence.

[Caecilian]

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that the sun will rise the next morning when I wake up.

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that when I come home I will not find it burned down to the ground when I get there.

etc

Have you ever heard of inductive reasoning? Its an interesting concept- you should try it some time.

Basically, the idea is that you can generalize from specific cases. For example, if I hit my thumb with a hammer, and it hurts, then I can use induction to conclude that it would also hurt to hit my index finger with a hammer. Similarly, if the sun rises every morning, then by induction we can say that it will rise the next morning.

All of the empirical sciences use induction. If an experiment is run repeatedly, with replicable results, then by induction it is assumed that the results represent some sort of general regularity. Thats how science works.

Clearly, induction needs to be used carefully, and does not produce absolute knowledge. But I'm afraid that if what you're after is absolute knowledge of the world, then you're out of luck. There isn't any.

Knowledge gained through induction certainly counts as evidence. So when you say that there isn't any evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow, you're simply wrong.

[Watson]

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that the sun will rise the next morning when I wake up.

You can see the sun, it's demonstrably real. However, the fact that you believe it to survive another rotation of the Earth has no merit on whether it will actually do so.

No, it's not. The only thing proving it is real, to me subjectively, is that I can experience it's warmth, I can see the light it gives, and I can benefit from it's existance. I'm fairly confident through faith in my experience with the sun that it will not, in fact, explode or go out overnight. My belief has no bearing on whether or not it does or does not, that's correct, but I don't have to sit around worrying like a paranoid schizo because, hey, I believe in the sun and it's nature pretty confidently.

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that when I come home I will not find it burned down to the ground when I get there.

Again, this belief has absolutely no merit as you absolutely need evidence to say such a thing. I think you meant to say "I don't believe that when I come home I will find my house burned down to the ground when I get there." It's a non-belief, and does not require evidence. You don't actively hold the belief that something WON'T happen, and if you do, I'd wonder what else you hold as an active belief. [/quote]
I hold everything as an active belief, so you're comment is moot. In other words, my beliefs are all actively held and I always hold them somewhere within me, whether or not I'm focusing on them at one time or another.

Further, I don't need evidence to say that my house is not going to be burned to the ground when I get home, I'm just confident it wont be. Why would I need evidence for that? Especially if I'm certain of other factors, like having unplugged or turned off all my electronics before leaving, having turned my stove off, likewise, or not having left anything flammable within the home. I can be certain, to a point, that my house will not be burned down.

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that if I make a mistake in my relationship it will still be possible to reconcile with the person I love.

3rd time with this BS. Your belief in trying to make things work in a relationship has absolutely no merit in deciphering whether your belief is relevant to anything. It doesn't make it necessarily true in the least, especially just because you believe in it.[/quote]
Except that holding the belief motivates certain logical actions on my part. In believing that the relationship will work, I will take courses of action and hold myself in a very confident manner throughout the relationship. When the relationship is threatened, I put up a fight for it, rather than laying down and taking abuse. When problems arise, I will try to solve them rather than leave them lying and growing. My actions and feelings are dictated by this belief.

If I'm constantly worrying, instead, that the person I love will leave me, the chances increase that that person will pick up on those feelings and actually leave. Why? Because they will sense my lack of confidence, and really, who wants to be in a relationship where one party feels that the whole thing is extremely fragile? Not many, because love is not a fragile thing.

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that having hope through bad times is no more false hope than having hope through good times.

See above.[/quote]
What? No. I think anyone would agree that holding hope throughout your life is better than losing hope entirely when things get rough.

I have to wonder, EvF, why does it bother you so much, and why be so vehement in lashing out at fr0do? Take a chill pill, dude, it's only a debate. Right?

I agree. I've learned to just tune out his shitty reasoning and vague explanations. [/quote]
Don't use your response towards me to take petty pot-shots at fr0do. Your qualm, at present, is with me and not him.

Oh, and Paul, I don't think that was a fancy way of saying God is outside the realm of evidence. He is just outside the realm of scientific evidence. In the case of God, experience is the most reliable form evidence takes. Trust, faith, and belief are required for the experience to be taken as such, however.

That's ridiculous. How do you know God is outside the realm of scientific evidence?[/quote]
Because I've had experiences with God that suggest to me he is above and beyond the realm of scientific evidence. Furthermore, he is, to an extent, within the realm of scientific evidence. I.e.- all of your scientific evidence is just as much a part of God as is me or you, or my subjective experience evidence.

By the way, subjective experience is subjective evidence. That's how you make decisions in life, through similar experiences.

This is what I'm saying, dude. You ask for objective proof of everything, but some things can only be trusted on the subjective level, and do not super-impose onto the objective unless one takes the time to think. I should have been clearer in my attempt to combine the idea of experience and evidence.

If you touch a hot stove and get burned, would you touch it again, having knowledge of your experience? Would you then say "I believe without evidence, but through experience, that a stove will burn my hand"?

If you touched it once, you don't have to touch it again to know it's going to burn you. But on some subconscious level, yes, you do in fact say to yourself "From experience, I know that tove will burn me if I touch it."

Your experiences in life ARE your evidence.

Yes...Yes! Exactly!

[Paul the Human]

Wow. What a load.

None of that shows that belief in god(s) is in any way rational. In fact, I am now lost as to what point you are even trying to make other than you believe in god, so you will continue to believe in god - regardless of the lack of evidence to support that belief - and- regardless of how much evidence there is to suggest other explanations are more likely than 'god'. If anything, you have supported what we all keep saying: To believe in god is to suffer delusion.

[Watson]

I am trying to demostrate how faith works. If that point is unclear, I can attempt to make it clear for you, but we wont get anywhere very quickly unless you actually have and understand faith.

[Minimalist]

And if we prefer fact to faith?