Evidence that God exists

[fr0d0]

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 .

Apologies then EvF. take one credit:

Let's try & tidy up this salad. The OP was what I was saying you were digressing from.. i.e. a discussion on the idea that faith needed evidence was contradictory. Discussion on the actual existence or not, or what anyone believes or not, is OT IMHO.

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'.

How do you know I don't believe in the FSM!?

Obviously you don't understand the reasons why, or you'd believe yourself! Reasoning is the methodology though. (I didn't say other reasons, I said 'reasoning'.)

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?

To answer that question would totally derail this topic. I hope you can understand.

And its ridiculous NOT to require evidence for belief in God.

Why isn't that illogical? I don't understand.

[Edwardo Piet]

What ARE these other reasons exactly Frodo? Evidence is the only rational reason for believing in the existence of something that I know of. Why believe in God if you admit that there is no evidence? What other reasons are there to believe exactly? As far as I'm concerned belief without evidence=no good reason for believing. And that's faith.

[fr0d0]

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.

Everything? Are you sure? Are you saying that the (non superstitious) guidance passed down over generations had absolutely no validity to it's practitioners down the centuries?

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.

What any individual chooses to believe has no bearing on my (the theoretical me's) reality, in this instance.

[Even Adam]

And its ridiculous NOT to require evidence for belief in God.

Why isn't that illogical? I don't understand.

Evidence is collect from and by observing the natural, physical world.
Things that are real can only be found in the natural, physical world.

If there is evidence for something, it is real.

If there is no evidence for something, we have no reason to think that it is real. It is speculation.

[fr0d0]

What ARE these other reasons exactly Frodo? Evidence is the only rational reason for believing in the existence of something that I know of. Why believe in God if you admit that there is no evidence? What other reasons are there to believe exactly? As far as I'm concerned belief without evidence=no good reason for believing. And that's faith.

LOL

Unfortunately, like I said, to go there would seriously derail this topic.

Isn't reasoning possible without evidence?

---

If there is no evidence for something, we have no reason to think that it is real. It is speculation.

You narrowly define 'real' to achieve that statement. So I call 'foul'

West's Encypedia (the first Google came up with):

• Philosophy. Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language.
  

[Edwardo Piet]

Let's try & tidy up this salad. The OP was what I was saying you were digressing from.. i.e. a discussion on the idea that faith needed evidence was contradictory. Discussion on the actual existence or not, or what anyone believes or not, is OT IMHO.

I'm using analogies with the existence of God to explain about the evidence vs faith thing if I can.

There is no evidence of the FSM. Its irrational to believe in the FSM because of this.

Same with God. You believe in evidence generally, but not with God.

You started this topic talking about my name and I do indeed think there is a conflict between evidence and faith. I don't think there's necessarily a logical contradiciton though because you can have evidence in some things and not have evidence in others but still believe anyway. I think thats conflicting and sometimes more than others - but I'm not sure whether it's contradictary really?

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'.

How do you know I don't believe in the FSM!?

I don't know. I don't seriously claim to know anything absolutely 100%. I meant know in the usual sense in general conversation and I was just assuming it.

Why, DO you believe in the FSM?

Obviously you don't understand the reasons why, or you'd believe yourself! Reasoning is the methodology though. (I didn't say other reasons, I said 'reasoning'.)

Well its apparently digressing to talk of this special 'reasoning' of yours. And yet if I don't know about it then I can assume that its completely rational to require evidence for God because its the only rational option that I know of. Yet you are arguing the opposite - that its irrational. Your only alternative is your 'reasoning' which you have said is a digression to discuss.

Will you discuss it or not?

To answer that question would totally derail this topic. I hope you can understand.

What's the purpose of this topic then? Your 'reasoning' which you won't discuss because it 'would totally derail this topic' is the only alternative that you are giving for having a rational reason for believing in God. It seems therefore that unless you say what this 'reasoning' is - you explain what your reasons are - then I can only assume that evidence is the only real rational reason.

And yet you are arguing that evidence for God is ridiculous. You won't present the alternative though, because it would: 'derail this topic'.

[fr0d0]

@ EvidenceVsFaith

Blimey! That was a merry-go-round!

Yes, I don't want to discuss anyone's reasoning on this thread, as that would be off topic.

I have no problem discussing it with you or anyone, elsewhere, and hopefully we'll get chance in future.

So without knowing what other reasoning there might be without hard evidence, do you deny any other form of reaching a conclusion? Can you think of no other situation that doesn't require evidence for you to know it to be true?

[Edwardo Piet]

If there is no known other reason. How do I know of one? Lol.

Well can't think of one so far lol. Might have to wait forever mate.

No evidence=no reason to believe in the existence of something. That's logical. That IS required. If you can't display an alternative then I certainly can't!

Not a serious one.

I've got one but its silly and hypothetical: Believe in God for no reason totally illogically. Believe in the FSM if you wish.

But you can't actually MAKE yourself believe it if you DON'T believe it And if you already do then it does nothing and you don't need it. Its illogical you see It fails.

Like I said its silly.

But its either a silly suggestion like that, belief in evidence - or no belief for me! That's the only known rational choice available as far as I'm concerned! So I certainly wouldn't call it ridiculous to require it!

[Even Adam]

If there is no evidence for something, we have no reason to think that it is real. It is speculation.

You narrowly define 'real' to achieve that statement. So I call 'foul'

West's Encypedia (the first Google came up with):

• Philosophy. Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language.
  

Are you saying that definition counters my argument? It backs it up pretty well.

[fr0d0]

No, I'm saying it nullifies your statement.

It may back up your argument, but it also does mine.