Evidence that God exists

[fr0d0]

Hey Fr0d0, you roamed over from ThinkingAloud I guess?

Hi Leo

My statement has nothing to do with the existence of God. It's about the illogicality of requiring evidence for faith. If it's drivel, give a good reason why it isn't so.

To me the illogicality is having faith without any valid basis for it. I base my faith in seeing the Sun tomorrow on past experience and evidence that the Earth will keep spinning for quite some yet. Where do you base your faith on the existence of a god on if not evidence?

Again OT. It's based on rationalisation.

---

The conflict is between the person who believes in a god because of faith(it has to be faith, as there is no evidence), and the person who does not believe in god because of the lack of evidence. The faithful believer is choosing faith over evidence as the determiner of what is real.

The believer who chooses faith over evidence is a tiny minority in my experience; and also a nut. I said above, you'd have conflict with that, yes.

I'd wan't to see the psychiatrist's report, as that'd be an impossible statement, which is my point.

Therefore, you have faith in a god, despite lack of evidence. There's the conflict between belief based on faith and disbelief based on evidence.

No there isn't! You can't have a faith in God with evidence. It defies logic.

---

..Because believing in a big man in the sky for no reason is lunacy. Faith is not only not a good reason - is it even a reason at all? Isn't it just bare asserion? "I have faith". Or in other words: "There's no evidence. So I have to have faith".

There is reason, there just can't be evidence, but again, we digress.

If there was actual evidence of God then it would be rational to believe in him (if the evidence was strong enough of course) - you wouldn't need to claim faith!

'Believe in one sense yes, but not in all senses, and it's the one you missed out that's important. Again OT

Then burden of proof is on those who make claims that have no evidence supporting them. When people claim that God exists then the burden of proof is on them therefore - because there is no evidence of God.

Burden of proof suggests to me that faith needs proof. The burden of proof is out of it's pond here because no one is talking evidence.

The conflict is with those who believe in the absurd with no evidence to support their belief (they "have faith") not those who have minds that are free from believing in the supernatural.

You are suggesting people with faith in the unprovable are in conflict with themselves? I don't see your logic.

If you are free from believing in the supernatural, do you have 1 more limit than someone who is free to do the same?

[Edwardo Piet]

Its a conflict because they believe in loads of things because of evidence - but when it comes to God or anything supernatural or 'miraculous' that they believe in - then they "have faith".

Since when you require evidence to believe in God just as with anything else and it isn't given any special treatment: then there is no conflict.

Its almost like cherry picking. You require evidence for things apart for some things when you just illogically don't! And what criterion do you do that by exactly? Why doesn't God need evidence but everything else does? Its special treatment. No logical contradiction maybe but I think there's a conflict!

You only really say you believe something because you "have faith" when there's no evidence for those things. If there was evidence you wouldn't need faith. You wouldn't call it faith, its just evidence.

Its just a semantic thing there. If you want to say you can have rational faith then I'd ask where's the evidence. As far as I'm concerned if its not based on evidence, then its not faith. All faith is blind faith as far as I'm concerned - by how [I define it. For reasons said above.

E(rational)v(lacks evidence, irrational)F

[Eilonnwy]

I don't even understand what he is on about anymore. It seems his religious views aren't the only things that are "changeable".

this

[fr0d0]

You've missed the point EF. Nice rant about why you shouldn't believe in a God. Maybe another time

Missed the point have I? I just corrected you on what I thought was completely incorrect. You don't need to show why something ISN'T drivel. If something's drivel then its assumed to be drivel until someone DOES show it isn't.

Hope you aren't getting dizzy up there on that horse

God is assumed to be drivel untill there is evidence of him.

So: its NOT ridiculous to require evidence of God. On the contrary, its ridiculous to believe in God WITHTOUT requiring evidence.

Ridiculous to you, I have no problem with that. But unfortunately that is precisely what belief in God is all about. Belief without proof. For you to pull it up because of lack of proof seems pointless.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah I agree. But I think that's already obvious now.

Afterall, a lot of theists shapeshift though don't they? Cherry-picking the bible and all that jazz.

EvF

[Even Adam]

The believer who chooses faith over evidence is a tiny minority in my experience; and also a nut. I said above, you'd have conflict with that, yes.

There is no evidence for any god(this is something with which you apparently agree). They are, therefore, choosing faith over evidence. If they were choosing evidence over faith, they wouldn't believe in any gods.

No there isn't! You can't have a faith in God with evidence. It defies logic.

I didn't say you could. You can't have a faith in God with evidence. They are, therefore, mutually exclusive ways of determining what is real. The lack of evidence for God means that we have no reason to think that God is there, while basing your representation of reality on faith allows for belief in god. How is this not a conflict?

[fr0d0]

Yeah I agree. But I think that's already obvious now.

Afterall, a lot of theists shapeshift though don't they? Cherry-picking the bible and all that jazz.

EvF

Nice cop out. Better luck next time

[Edwardo Piet]

You've missed the point EF. Nice rant about why you shouldn't believe in a God. Maybe another time

Missed the point have I? I just corrected you on what I thought was completely incorrect. You don't need to show why something ISN'T drivel. If something's drivel then its assumed to be drivel until someone DOES show it isn't.

Hope you aren't getting dizzy up there on that horse

You say I digress and I missed the point. I explain why I didn't and ask how I did exactly.

Then you digress. And you didn't even explain how me responding to you telling me that I digressed - by saying that I don't believe I did - is being 'on my high horse' either. Total digression as far as I'm concerned. When I only tried to explain that I don't believe I had digressed and that I thought my point was still valid .

Ridiculous to you, I have no problem with that. But unfortunately that is precisely what belief in God is all about. Belief without proof. For you to pull it up because of lack of proof seems pointless.

I don't understand why you would believe in the FSM you see. I know you don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster either - but I equally don't understand for exactly the same reasons why you believe in God when you say its not because of evidence but because of 'other reasons'.

What are these other reasons exactly? And how are they only applicable - in your eyes - to one particular supernatural being that you believe in? Unless you believe in more than one?

And when you briefly mentioned these 'other reasons' you then said "but I digress".

But you're arguing that its ridiculous to require evidence for belief in God but then the only alternative you briefly suggested are these 'other reasons' which you won't reveal because that would be a digression!

Well I'm sorry but I know of no such other logical reasons. So I can only so far assume that evidence is the only valid option. And its ridiculous NOT to require evidence for belief in God.

EvF

---

Yeah I agree. But I think that's already obvious now.

Afterall, a lot of theists shapeshift though don't they? Cherry-picking the bible and all that jazz.

EvF

Nice cop out. Better luck next time

I wasn't talking to you.

EDIT: Oh, I see the misunderstanding I think - I was replying to Eilonnwy but the time I posted it you had already posted before me.

[fr0d0]

There is no evidence for any god(this is something with which you apparently agree). They are, therefore, choosing faith over evidence. If they were choosing evidence over faith, they wouldn't believe in any gods.

You can't have a faith in God with evidence. They are, therefore, mutually exclusive ways of determining what is real.

There can't be evidence for God, yes, that's what I'm postulating.

The lack of evidence for God means that we have no reason to think that God is there, while basing your representation of reality on faith allows for belief in god. How is this not a conflict?

There's that 'reason' word again. Reason is involved, evidence isn't.

So you're saying that for those who believe God to exist (necessarily without evidence), have conflict with physical reality? Can you give me one example of that being true?

[Tiberius]

Ridiculous to you, I have no problem with that. But unfortunately that is precisely what belief in God is all about. Belief without proof. For you to pull it up because of lack of proof seems pointless.

This is the exact reason why belief in God is so silly. Everything else in life depends on evidence for it to be held true, but this one thing needs complete faith and the abandoning of all things rational. Why would a God make a world that can only be truly understood by rationality and evidence, and then make sure that itself was completely separate from these terms.

So you're saying that for those who believe God to exist (necessarily without evidence), have conflict with physical reality? Can you give me one example of that being true?

Yes. People who believe in God and don't believe in Evolution.