Evidence that God exists

[fr0d0]

Faith (including a belief in God) isn't the only thing exempt from evidence. As Kyu says, so is Maths.

Well I agree in the sense that mathematics isn't something that exists physically in outside reality; that we have evidence OF.

But maths is evidently a very strong tool for helping us understand the world.

Faith is exactly that.

I've been over the rest of your points already.

---

In the first place, you misquoted me, and I have added in bold the portion of my remarks that you redacted, for what reason I cannot imagine. Does it bother you that the supposed god never does anything and never shows up? It certainly would bother me, if I were a religious believer.

I have no idea how that happened. I simply pressed the quote button. It certainly wasn't intentional, and makes no difference to my answer.

No it does not bother me. How many times do I have to tell you, IT WOULD BE A LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. Please please please please please please please, don't say it again. Please.


I'm sorry you find it insulting to be requested not to repeatedly ask what has already been answered.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Faith (including a belief in God) isn't the only thing exempt from evidence. As Kyu says, so is Maths.

Um, why would maths require evidence? Maths isn’t made of theories, it’s made of proofs. And even when maths based ideas are advanced as fact they are tested in the real world with real world evidence so I'm not at all sure what your point is.

It's worth pointing out that there are many thing that are exempt from evidence; The plot lines of novels, the screenplays of movies, the renaissance painting are all ways of describing things every bit as interesting as maths or faith ... none require evidence but then again they don't pretend (or are not taken) to offer any specific truths either.

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

Good point Kyu.

And fr0d0 I was actually predicting that you would say that faith is a way of understanding the world just like maths is.

It's just a pity that you didn't remotely explain how on earth it is!

How on earth does faith exactly help you understand the world? How does 'believing without evidence' help you understand the world? And how does 'believing without evidence' help you for subjects like 'God' anymore than anything else? And how does it help with one particular God, or a few particular gods, or one particular religion that you personally prefer: Any more than any other Gods or religions???

[fr0d0]

No EvF. Both yourself and others stated that everything, without exception, required evidence, and now it appears that this is far from the case. We've moved on. Of course Maths isn't the same as faith, I was in no way saying that.

[Edwardo Piet]

I didn't say everything requires evidence because I was of course talking about claims about reality. About existence claims.

Now you're just trying to find an excuse to move on it appears.

And no you didn't say that maths was the same as faith; it's just when I said it doesn't need evidence for it's own existence in outside objective reality - but it does evidently help us accurately understand the world...

You said faith does that too. It helps us accurately understand the world.

And I am now asking: How exactly does it? How does 'belief without evidence' help us understand the world exactly? And why would faith in certain things be more logical, rational, correct than others in any way?

[fr0d0]

I'm not trying to find an excuse! That's insulting! Lets go back then if you feel that way, sorry if I misunderstood you, but forgive me for thinking that you're moving the goalposts.

Did I say that faith 'accurately' describes the world? Care to show me where? Are you going down this road of literal interpretation of myth again?

Faith does help you to understand the world. The bible is full of wisdom to this end.

[Mark]

In the first place, you misquoted me, and I have added in bold the portion of my remarks that you redacted, for what reason I cannot imagine. Does it bother you that the supposed god never does anything and never shows up? It certainly would bother me, if I were a religious believer.

I have no idea how that happened. I simply pressed the quote button. It certainly wasn't intentional, and makes no difference to my answer.

No it does not bother me. How many times do I have to tell you, IT WOULD BE A LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. Please please please please please please please, don't say it again. Please.


I'm sorry you find it insulting to be requested not to repeatedly ask what has already been answered.

You did not ask me anything; you told my that I maintain a "twisted" point of view and that should "go outside and smell the mustard." That is an insult.

I do not ask repeatedly what has been answered, but I will certainly ask repeatedly what has not been answered.

I asked, "Does it bother you that the supposed god never does anything, and never shows up?" and you reply "it would be a logical impossibility." I fail to see why. Didn't he make the Sun stand still at Jericho? Didn't he part the waters of the Red Sea? Didn't he give Moses the Ten Commandments? Didn't he raise Lazarus from the dead? Apparently the authors of the Bible didn't have your understanding of logic.

If it's a logical impossibility that the supposed god would ever do anything, or ever show himself, then this poor god must really be a frustrated and lonely fellow.

Further, essentially at no time in history has anyone ever seriously proposed the worship of a god that had no actual influence on nature and on human affairs. Historically worship, and obedience to a supposedly divine code set forth by a priesthood, was invariably based on the supposition that this would bring about good real effects, or at least that failure in this would cause bad real effects. It is only within the past two hundred or so years, as science gradually demonstrated that all that was formerly supposed to be an effect of god (e.g. plagues, comets, the various species of life) originates in fact in a chaotic nature blind to human interest. So modernly, people who want to maintain their religious belief and yet not deny science have retreated to this remarkable idea that it's not necessary that God have any real effects, because he's God anyway, and you should just, well, worship him. Because it, um, feels good. It's the incredible shrinking God, really, a pathetic figure. In the old days He could smite Egypt with a plague of locusts and part the Red Sea; He could make the sun stand still so that the last remnants of heathen army could be slaughtered; but today all He can do is listen people's prayers. But be sure not to pray for anything that requires his intervention in nature, because it is not something that He is capable of delivering.

What has changed between those days and these, of course, is not the powers of God but mankind's knowledge and command of nature.

But I rather suspect that if Moses has stood before the captive Jews in Egypt and called them to the worship of a god who would never once intervene in this world on their behalf, but would, at best, cause their hearts to feel his wonderful love during periods of communion with him, they would have soaked him in the latrine.

[Edwardo Piet]

something that exists physically in outside reality; that we have evidence OF.

But maths is evidently a very strong tool for helping us understand the world.

Faith is exactly that.

Well I didn't mean exactly; I was referring to your response to what I said here.

If faith is also a very strong tool for helping us understand the world; how exacly is it? And how does it help us understand?

I have been trying to ask you two things: 1. Why the existence of God doesn't require evidence the same as any other existence claim does.

And 2. How exactly does faith, - 'belief without evidence' - help us understand the world according to you?

Also: you can't expect us to believe that God doesn't require evidence like anything else simply by your bare assertion. Any other existence claim is a scientific claim that requires evidence; why should the existence of God not require evidence? Why should merely the emptiness of faith; the emptiness of 'lack of evidence' be given any support to be used on a subject like 'God'? Why is the existence of God to be treated any differently than the existence of anything else?

And about you saying I was insulting; all I said is that you appear to be making excuses. Basically it has something to do with your digressions and the fact that I think you keep making bare assertions and refuse to back them up; telling me that I need to prove that it's NOT so.

And if you find THAT insulting then bloody hell. What don't you find insulting? I mean it's just my own opinion from an observation. Where was the insult? I'm just trying to actually discuss with you without all the frustrating, pointless digressions.

You started this thread saying it's ridiculous for belief in God to require any evidence. I am yet to see you back it up. If people (or at least some people, most people, etc) require evidence for the existence of other things; why on earth is it ridiculous for the same to be required for God? How exactly is the existence of God a special case?

And HOW does 'faith' have any bearing on the existence of God exactly?

How does it have any bearing on anything for that matter?

EvF

[Mark]

@fr0d0: Is faith in Baal the Destroyer a tool for understanding the world? Is atheist belief a tool for understanding the world?

[Sam]

I don't agree that any old deity you could dream up could deserve equal respect.

Why? What is it about one deity that makes it more deserving of respect than any other?

Did I say that! ..sorry - I was referring to the succeeding list. Of course any deity would stand on it's merits.

But here you're talking about merits which you accept can have no proof, so God, Raw, Allah etc ... are all judged as being omnipotent etc, where i might postulate these are all creations of their followers? I just don't get your logic in that statement ...

Sam