Evidence God Exists: Part II

[Minimalist]

No. Faith is deciding to believe in things there is subjective, personal evidence for. Experience, in other words.

So, why do we lock up people who murder their families because 'god told them to do it?' Following your absurd line of reasoning we should accept the murders because how are we to know that god didn't tell them to do it.

You've gone off the deep fucking end.

[Watson]

No. Faith is deciding to believe in things there is subjective, personal evidence for. Experience, in other words.

So, why do we lock up people who murder their families because 'god told them to do it?' Following your absurd line of reasoning we should accept the murders because how are we to know that god didn't tell them to do it.

It's self-evident that murder is detrimental to society and to individual life. Also, to those who believe in God and understand His nature, it is obvious that this sort of thing is not the sort of thing God would 'tell someone to do.'

You've gone off the deep fucking end.

I re-iterate; most people having discussions are, more often than not, talking about themselves rather than the other person before them.

[Minimalist]

It's self-evident that murder is detrimental to society and to individual life.

How many passages in your own silly bible would you like me to trot out to show where your bloody god has ordered murder?

I get it now. YOUR experiences are proof of god but no one else's.

That's a fascinating religion you have concocted there. You have your own personal god.

[Watson]

How many times do I have to say that not all of the messages in the Bible are accurate and correct to God's?

EDIT: And obviously, my own experiences with God are proof of God to me. Everyone else's experiences are proof to them.

[Minimalist]

Uh-huh...and "god" tells you which are which, of course.

How very convenient religion must be for you. You cherry-pick at will and god tells you it is okay. I see a padded cell in your future unless you wise up.

---

EDIT: And obviously, my own experiences with God are proof of God to me. Everyone else's experiences are proof to them.

Which brings us right back, full circle, to religious nut jobs who kill people because of their god delusions.

[Scented Nectar]

Just as I have many subjective measurements and observations which indicate the probability of my theory.

I'll bite, show me your measurements. I expect objective ones by the way, since that's what Einstein used and what you are comparing godproof to.

How they react to the societal expectation to believe in gods doesn't matter as far as whether the gods are real or not.

...What?

Your response to the sexy woman in bed not really being there, was to talk about how people act when they deny God's existence. The biggie that comes to mind is that they may respond differently than how a godbelieving society/family expects of them regarding religious issues such as church attendance, praying, teaching one's children to believe, etc. I was too narrow though, and would like to ask now, how one's reaction to not believing in a thing change the fact of whether the thing is real or not?

And by my concept, God is all of the world around you. Thus, that instinctual belief in the world is an instinctual belief in God; without all the clutter of 'what will my parents think?' and 'what will society say?' and 'how will this affect me?' that occurs later in life.

No, the world is the world. And my cat is my cat. And the lunch I ate was a lunch. Thoughts are thoughts. Beliefs are beliefs. Belief in the reality of the world happens when you are presented with a very real world being there for you to touch and see and perceive in a huge way. You can't believe in an invisible universe creator until two things happen, one, that being has to be perceived in some very real way, and two, one would have to be old enough to understand the concept that everything one's perceiving (the world/universe) could be created by that also perceived invisible god.

It wasn't a choice.

It was.

was not was too was not was too was not ...

The default was a state of not having any thoughts whatsoever about invisible universe creators.

Exactly. The default was living as if the world truly did exist and you needed no external proof to verify that.

The world's existence only becomes the default once it is perceived in some way. When does your god make itself known to us humans? We are not talking about the world, which I think we can all agree is perceivable, but of your invisible god.

When the idea was presented to me, and obviously without any proof or even indicators, well, of course the default then is to conclude it isn't real but be open to any evidence showing otherwise.

I don't know you. I don't know what your beliefs were at the time. I can't make an accurate prediction because I don't have enough data at this time.

That's fair about my beliefs, I could be making it up or delusional. From your view, it must be considered anecdotal. As to predicting, I would like to suggest that that means you can't state as a fact godbelief is instinctual, even if you believe that it was for you.

Why would you put any stock in anything if you didn't have faith in it?

I put stock into tons of stuff, all completely without using faith. Do you know the actual definition of the word faith?

Do you simply not trust anyone or anything around you? Was your trust violated at some early age?

No, why would you think that? I've probably had either an average or even better than average 'early age' than most people in the world. I was just simply never someone who blindly believed others. I have always trusted facts and my real perceptions over things people tell me. What puzzled me about the believers when I was a kid, was that they weren't usually wrong about things, yet they seemed to really believe this god stuff even though there were a bunch of holes in the story and the god was completely unperceivable, can't see him, hear him, etc. Yeah, yeah, I know in your imagination you can hear him, but let's not go there.

Faith is deciding to believe in things there is no evidence for.

No. Faith is deciding to believe in things there is subjective, personal evidence for. Experience, in other words.

Yikes, someone get this person a dictionary. It's the only humane thing to do people. Dial 911 on your phone. This is an emergency. Subjective personal stuff is not evidence. And faith is belief WITHOUT evidence. That's pretty much the whole point of the word.

[Minimalist]

It's gonna take more than a dictionary.

[Scented Nectar]

It's gonna take more than a dictionary.

I'm not a qualified prescribing doctor, the 911 call and a dictionary are the best I can do. Like a bandaid over the neck wound he chopped his own head off from, but still....

Even though the dictionary gives additional generalized definitions of faith to mean following and trusting a religion in general, when it is specifically used in regards to the word 'belief', the definitions are as follows, from the multiple dictionaries quoted at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith , here they are:

belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

There is also a bible dictionary definition that starts off ok, "Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true" but right after becomes a huge huge run-on paragraph of word salad and bible quotes. What is it with christians and run on paragraphs? I think this is a phenomenon worthy of research. Are they all going to the same school, and that school has a really bad English teacher? Is this a bad influence from the bible and its writing style? Is it indicative of a particular brain pattern of ardent faithful self delusion affecting the parts of the brain responsible for separating thoughts into groups? I've seen this too frequently to consider it anecdotal anymore. Here is the run-on, hidden so as to not offend those who find it unpleasant

---

Bible Dictionary

Faith definition


Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests. Faith is the result of teaching (Rom. 10:14-17). Knowledge is an essential element in all faith, and is sometimes spoken of as an equivalent to faith (John 10:38; 1 John 2:3). Yet the two are distinguished in this respect, that faith includes in it assent, which is an act of the will in addition to the act of the understanding. Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith, and the ultimate ground on which our assent to any revealed truth rests is the veracity of God. Historical faith is the apprehension of and assent to certain statements which are regarded as mere facts of history. Temporary faith is that state of mind which is awakened in men (e.g., Felix) by the exhibition of the truth and by the influence of religious sympathy, or by what is sometimes styled the common operation of the Holy Spirit. Saving faith is so called because it has eternal life inseparably connected with it. It cannot be better defined than in the words of the Assembly's Shorter Catechism: "Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel." The object of saving faith is the whole revealed Word of God. Faith accepts and believes it as the very truth most sure. But the special act of faith which unites to Christ has as its object the person and the work of the Lord Jesus Christ (John 7:38; Acts 16:31). This is the specific act of faith by which a sinner is justified before God (Rom. 3:22, 25; Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:9; John 3:16-36; Acts 10:43; 16:31). In this act of faith the believer appropriates and rests on Christ alone as Mediator in all his offices. This assent to or belief in the truth received upon the divine testimony has always associated with it a deep sense of sin, a distinct view of Christ, a consenting will, and a loving heart, together with a reliance on, a trusting in, or resting in Christ. It is that state of mind in which a poor sinner, conscious of his sin, flees from his guilty self to Christ his Saviour, and rolls over the burden of all his sins on him. It consists chiefly, not in the assent given to the testimony of God in his Word, but in embracing with fiducial reliance and trust the one and only Saviour whom God reveals. This trust and reliance is of the essence of faith. By faith the believer directly and immediately appropriates Christ as his own. Faith in its direct act makes Christ ours. It is not a work which God graciously accepts instead of perfect obedience, but is only the hand by which we take hold of the person and work of our Redeemer as the only ground of our salvation. Saving faith is a moral act, as it proceeds from a renewed will, and a renewed will is necessary to believing assent to the truth of God (1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 4:4). Faith, therefore, has its seat in the moral part of our nature fully as much as in the intellectual. The mind must first be enlightened by divine teaching (John 6:44; Acts 13:48; 2 Cor. 4:6; Eph. 1:17, 18) before it can discern the things of the Spirit. Faith is necessary to our salvation (Mark 16:16), not because there is any merit in it, but simply because it is the sinner's taking the place assigned him by God, his falling in with what God is doing. The warrant or ground of faith is the divine testimony, not the reasonableness of what God says, but the simple fact that he says it. Faith rests immediately on, "Thus saith the Lord." But in order to this faith the veracity, sincerity, and truth of God must be owned and appreciated, together with his unchangeableness. God's word encourages and emboldens the sinner personally to transact with Christ as God's gift, to close with him, embrace him, give himself to Christ, and take Christ as his. That word comes with power, for it is the word of God who has revealed himself in his works, and especially in the cross. God is to be believed for his word's sake, but also for his name's sake. Faith in Christ secures for the believer freedom from condemnation, or justification before God; a participation in the life that is in Christ, the divine life (John 14:19; Rom. 6:4-10; Eph. 4:15,16, etc.); "peace with God" (Rom. 5:1); and sanctification (Acts 26:18; Gal. 5:6; Acts 15:9). All who thus believe in Christ will certainly be saved (John 6:37, 40; 10:27, 28; Rom. 8:1). The faith=the gospel (Acts 6:7; Rom. 1:5; Gal. 1:23; 1 Tim. 3:9; Jude 1:3).

Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

---

Nowhere do the definitions say evidence is used to believe as true when using faith, trust yes, but evidence no. It says clearly that evidence is NOT used, so it's the opposite of evidence based belief.

[Fluké]

Faith is deciding to believe in things there is no evidence for.

No. Faith is deciding to believe in things there is subjective, personal evidence for. Experience, in other words.

There is no such thing as 'personal' evidence.

That is a euphemism for wishful thinking and delusional thoughts.

I watched Bill Maher's documentary called "religulous" and a chap thought that because it started to rain the moment he wsihed it rained, that God exists and that was evidence!

This sort of rationality is against logic & reason.

[Samson]

What I meant when I said that was, I believe in the Christian teachings, principles and ideals, and have found them to be true in my observances and experiences throughout life, but I do not claim to know if they are real or not. I.e.- I have never literally met Jesus Christ in the flesh, I have never spoken with an angel or with a manifestation of God, at least ot in the English language, et cetera, et cetera.

I'll accept that personally as an answer, but then it brings up another question of morality of those before a Judean type sect. In other words, the civilizations throughout our history that had moral teachings, in which, were considerably older than any type of "Judean, Christian, Islamic, sect....Almost the same type of teachings at that, and then some.....??

I am applying the lessons I have learned throughout life to the Bible, and in so-doing, I gain more understanding of the Christian religion and its beliefs.

Live and learn lessons I get.....But again, the above sentence I put forth still comes to play and why you would label/follow to a "Christian" backing...

I have had experiences throughout life which I can not explain, nor can anyone else explain, as being anything more likely than God. These experiences are things which are very real to me, and which can only be explained or make sense through a theist view-point.

I believe you to be smart enough to acknowledge that this answer is nothing more than a "Goddidit" type response.
We all have had crazy experiences throughout our lives in which are unexplained. Hell, the so called, "Dejavu" is an interesting phenomenon...But as a rational thinker, I still do not believe the "Theist Approach" is the answers to questions unanswered. (And for many reasons)....

It is unfortunate, but such is human nature. People are bound to misinterpret, warp, or otherwise take out of context what they read in books, see on TV, or simply hear from word of mouth. It permeates our society, even in things outside of religion.

And everything you stated in the above response, is exactly what formed a "Theist Approach" instead of trying to identify the trials and reasons for behavioral thinking.

I agree with this. Our perception is largely based on what we believe in; believing in a world with God reveals His markings quite clearly; believing in a world with no God reveals a quite Godless looking world. Only if you understand God, however, will you be able to see His nature for what it truly is.

No, you believing in God and putting "IT" in "YOUR" world, is what makes sense in a world of "your"-reality, but, no more, no less.
I could state the same with any written down "God". It still does not make it true or evidential.

Well, in a sense, I also believe this. Jesus was simply a man, a son of God just as I am a son of God. The difference between He and I, however, was that He was supposedly the prodigal son of God. Prodigal indicating He was a protege, He would have been connected and in tune with the lessons of God in such a way as to be adept, nearly perfect, at them, and at understanding and teaching them.

By your definition of "Jesus", you could say the same for every other "Preacher/Priest" out there....
Or for that matter, what about Confucius or Buddha? You can say they were the "Son's of God", but would you say they were "His" protege as well...??
If so, then your labeling of yourself as a "Theist" would be a bit different....