God's character

[Edwardo Piet]

So what use does the 'faith' have?

If it's based on evidence then isn't it merely trusting in the evidence?

Evidence is never completely conclusive... then it would be beyond evidence, it would be absolute proof.

[tavarish]

@EvF,
1- When the evidence isn't completely conclusive but indicative and you can't eliminate every possible bias or variable, yes.
2- Faith that enough biases have been removed to indicate more truth and reliability then falsity.

1. What biases or variables can you eliminate purely by faith? If anything, it is a method for introducing them.
2. You wouldn't need faith for this, as such a thing ( a claim having very little bias) would be demonstrable.

I still don't understand how you've arrived at this conclusion.

[chasm]

What do you mean?

I mean, can you answer my questions?

[LastPoet]

Mr Olefemi, please define god, then provide proof of it, something we can all experience in some given conditions, if god is absolute truth, then the moment you say it, everyone will be in awe with it, because it will be instantaneously perceived as true to everyone, EVERYONE. Can you provide such a truth?

[Darwinian]

Stand by for the weedling excuses and the claims that you simply don't understand.

[Mr Olefemi]

What are you talking about,you two? We are talking here about god's character.Please post your questions on the relevant threads.

[chasm]

What are you talking about,you two? We are talking here about god's character.Please post your questions on the relevant threads.

Hey, you there. You mind answering my questions NOW?

[tackattack]

So what use does the 'faith' have?

If it's based on evidence then isn't it merely trusting in the evidence?

Evidence is never completely conclusive... then it would be beyond evidence, it would be absolute proof.

So if faith in evidence (subjective or not) is proof (seeing as little to no proof is absolute). Then how could there ever be absolute proof of God? My point was there could been proof for God based on subjective evidence. There in lies the usefullness. If you have subjective evidence it's good for subjective proof. If peers get similar subjective evidence and you weed out those that are just agreeing without observation or to prevent rejection, is that also not peer review? So could proof and peer review substantiate a belief in God? Yes, IMO.

@EvF,
1- When the evidence isn't completely conclusive but indicative and you can't eliminate every possible bias or variable, yes.
2- Faith that enough biases have been removed to indicate more truth and reliability then falsity.

1. What biases or variables can you eliminate purely by faith? If anything, it is a method for introducing them.
2. You wouldn't need faith for this, as such a thing ( a claim having very little bias) would be demonstrable.

I still don't understand how you've arrived at this conclusion.

1-purely by reasonable and logical faith based off of a cycle of occurences? lots of variables... especially for usefullness. However the biggest (I'm assuming your point) bias of subjecivity and personal incredulity can't be eliminated completely.

2-It is subjectively demonstratable, which is appropriate for a subjective evidence and subjective proof leading to a personal viewof God. Aside from stepping outside our universe and seeing God (impossibility) this is objective as it can get. It does NOT however limit it's usefullness within this universe to not be able to completely objectify something because of the unattainability of absolute proofs.

[Edwardo Piet]

So if faith in evidence (subjective or not) is proof (seeing as little to no proof is absolute).

Isn't 'proof' absolute and conclusive whilst evidence is not?

Then how could there ever be absolute proof of God?

How can there can be absolute proof of anything?

My point was there could been proof for God based on subjective evidence.

And how do you come to this conclusion?

There in lies the usefullness.

Of faith? What has 'subjective evidence' got to do with 'faith'? If you have evidence or reasoning of any form what use does 'faith' have? You naturally trust whatever reasoning/evidence is reasonable if you are a rational and reasonable person - where does 'faith' come into that when it comes to rationality and reasonableness?

[Facejacker]

Why does every thread always end up being about the same thing? Can't we stay on topic for five minutes?