Reasons

[fr0d0]

I'm establishing Eilonnwy that faith has nothing to do with demonstrable proof. To want to validify claims of God's existence is a fallacy as there can be no demonstrable proof. So where does that leave us - it leaves us in a position where if you want to talk about claims of God existing you're talking with the wrong person. (I'd also suggest that the persuit is utterly foolish, but then let's just stick to what I think).

I have faith that God exists. I have no demonstrable proof. I don't wish to impose my ideas onto you, I want you to have your own ideas and I want to hear them.

I wouldn't say your mind is closed to science. I would say it's closed to stuff outside science, from your answer. Unfortunately I don't have access to that library. I reject supernatural hogwash too. Does that make me closed minded? I address the subject of philosophy but I limit myself to what is reasonable. I'd guess you don't address the subject of philosophy, counting it all as unreasonable.

You're most gracious. Respect to you for that.

[Eilonnwy]

I'm establishing Eilonnwy that faith has nothing to do with demonstrable proof. To want to validify claims of God's existence is a fallacy as there can be no demonstrable proof. So where does that leave us - it leaves us in a position where if you want to talk about claims of God existing you're talking with the wrong person. (I'd also suggest that the persuit is utterly foolish, but then let's just stick to what I think).

I have faith that God exists. I have no demonstrable proof. I don't wish to impose my ideas onto you, I want you to have your own ideas and I want to hear them.

I wouldn't say your mind is closed to science. I would say it's closed to stuff outside science, from your answer. Unfortunately I don't have access to that library. I reject supernatural hogwash too. Does that make me closed minded? I address the subject of philosophy but I limit myself to what is reasonable. I'd guess you don't address the subject of philosophy, counting it all as unreasonable.

You're most gracious. Respect to you for that.

I agree, faith doesn't require evidence, and I find that to be an illogical way to approach belief. I respect your right to hold that belief, but because of that we can't have too much of a meaningful conversation because we're starting out with a premise we disagree on.

I find it kind of futile to come here and try and talk about religion/god when we require proof and you don't. There's really no way to come to a consensus, but that's your prerogative. I have no problem talking with you if you can concede to the points that we make if you don't have anything but blind faith to back up your reasons.

I have no problem with philosophy. It's interesting, though admittedly I'm not as educated on it as I would like to be. But I'm trying to self educate since I cannot afford college. What I do know is that philosophy is based on reason and reason is based on evidence, at least that's what my reasoning is.

And yeah, I wish the article was online in full. It's really good. :/

[fr0d0]

Yes, I have faith without demonstrable proof. I do have reasoning though to back up my position. My reasoning is in the realm of philosophy, philosophy not based on provable evidence. So I disagree that philosophy is based on empirical evidence, if that's what you're saying.

All the best people self study Like a teacher friend used to say, it sets apart those who have real and sustainable motivation.

[athoughtfulman]

Philosophy, by it's very nature, can be used to argue almost anything.

One can reason God exists, but one cannot demonstrate 100% proof either way. Depending on what argument you use, you can get yourself to either side.

I've heard Christians pull Pascals Wager - "If you believe in God and you die only to find out God's not real, what have you lost? If you don't believe in God and die only to find out he's real, you're damned for eternity (I know you don't believe in the afterlife Frodo ) So therefore, it's much more reasonable to be a Christian". Honestly, this one strikes me as fairly reasonable, but that would be to ignore the burden of proof suggesting a high likelihood of him not being real.

A lot of Christians (or so-called) have absolutely no idea how to defend their faith. I've heard some good cases before but I can't remember them all now. But there is hundreds of hopeless ones for every good one.

So I understand where you're coming from Frodo; I think there are some reasonable arguments for the existence of god. I just think there are more for God's non-existence.

[Edwardo Piet]

All that wordplay aside, you're saying then that you refuse to think about anything which doesn't concern itself with hard physical fact? I don't think Dawkins would be with you there.

I quoted Dawkins. I don't see how I am disagreeing with him when I quote him.

You created a total strawman. I never said that I 'refuse to think about anything which doesn't concern itself with hard physical fact?'. I mean, man - how would I live!
I am saying I do not believe in the existence of things without evidence.

I have desires and goals and urges - and I like music and comedy and some TV and movies. I love the internet computers and games.

I think about the future - things I want to do and get on with my life. Things that aren't physical fact - I never said that I refuse to think about things that aren't about physical fact! I think about whatever the hell I want to think about! My mind just floats - I think about stuff. I wouldn't even be able to function if my mind was that restricted.

I am just saying that I certainly do not wish to believe in the existence of things without any real evidence. And if that means I'm close-minded then I guess I'm close minded. If being pro-evidence and if being - also crucially to me - anti- faith, if being more rational and less irrational about reality - and the existence of things - if that's close-minded - then I guess I'm close minded. But at least I don't believe in stuff that almost certainly doesn't exist - at least I'm almost certainly not being delusional because I don't believe in those things and I'm favouring evidence over faith ( faith being belief without evidence.

Besides if ANYTHING goes and you believe in as many things as you want on FAITH - if ANYTHING goes - how open minded is that exactly?

I don't think it's very imaginative and open minded to simply shrug your shoulders and think "I'll believe whatever I want. I'm completely 100% open minded." - I think actually having some structure and commiting to reality - believing in what actually the evidence shows - I think if anything, that's more open minded.

If 'anything goes' - and just taking anything on faith is MORE open minded - then I guess as people say: you can have too much of anything!

EvF

[Eilonnwy]

Yes, I have faith without demonstrable proof. I do have reasoning though to back up my position. My reasoning is in the realm of philosophy, philosophy not based on provable evidence. So I disagree that philosophy is based on empirical evidence, if that's what you're saying.

All the best people self study Like a teacher friend used to say, it sets apart those who have real and sustainable motivation.

See now we're getting into semantics. To me provable evidence is empirical, but what it seems you mean by provable is that essentially you can argue god into existence and to me that's fallacious.

Besides, most philisophical arguments I have seen for god, if they can prove true which I don't think is the case, seem to argue for a deistic god, and I think if such a god exists, (Which, to be clear I'm agnostic about the deistic god) he's not really worth worshipping or believing in. You can't make the jump from saying something like god is love to then putting attributes on him like answering prayers and caring about your sex life.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Yes I've heard other cults say that ... I would like to hear some kind of reasoned justification outside of some kind of innate prejudice.

These things aren't biblical and aren't accepted by the wider church:

• Interercession of saints
  
• Mary as God/ Praying to Mary
  
• Worship of Idols & Idols in Church
  
• Priests as intermediaries for God
  
• The pope is a descendant of Peter
  
• That Peter was ever meant to lead the church
  
• That the Pope is the head of the church
  

Just a few things off the top of my head.

None of which denies them the label of Christianity.

Who exactly has agreed with you then?

Demonaura, Adrian and thoughtful I think.

Where would that be then?

That's a good excuse for not being open minded isn't it? Or to limit your open mindedness.

As previously said (and I admit it needs an update following D's video):

Contrary to popular opinion being open-minded is not about treating garbage as if it were the equal of proper research science nor is it about believing everything one hears nor even about giving every fantasy world someone claims to have experienced the same credibility as reality.

In fact being open-minded is about:

* Establishing exactly what phenomenon is being tested or evaluated.
* Establishing all possible explanations to account for the phenomenon and ...
* Setting up and executing a series of strictly controlled tests or observations designed to systematically and rationally eliminate the wrong possibilities and establish which accounts for the phenomenon in question.

Open-mindedness requires observation, evidence, hypothesis, verification, tentativeness, falsifiability & it requires logic ... in short, true open-mindedness requires science. Furthermore open-mindedness is fairly evidently necessary to investigate the universe & world in which we exist.

I have often been accused of not being open-minded indeed some have accused me of being a fundamentalist atheist because they imply I am "unwilling to expand my borders" when in fact what they mean is that I am not able to suspend my objectivity enough to accept a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys as a valid hypothesis. However those people are wrong ... science is open-minded, science is empirical, I am an adherent of such science and an atheist because of it so I am as open minded as science.

However, that ones mind is open, does not give anyone the right to pour their crap into it! Nor does it justifiably give others the right to say that one is not open-minded because they are not prepared to tolerate fantasy views touted as fact or because their views are based on logic & reason ... I would argue that such individuals, like science, are open-minded in the most objective sense!

Kyu

[fr0d0]

So I understand where you're coming from Frodo; I think there are some reasonable arguments for the existence of god. I just think there are more for God's non-existence.

Well none of those arguments sound reasonable to me, but of course if you thought like me your position would be different. :p

I am saying I do not believe in the existence of things without evidence.

I'm saying that too. I'm also saying that God as a thing never presents the opportunity to prove him/ her. Our only option is to consider God's existence philosophically. If you insist on using provable evidence you have an easy job.. no thinking to do. If you use philosophy, there's lots of thinking to do.

See now we're getting into semantics. To me provable evidence is empirical, but what it seems you mean by provable is that essentially you can argue god into existence and to me that's fallacious.

No, I agree more with you. I can never argue God into existence - he/ she must remain unprovable to be God.

Besides, most philisophical arguments I have seen for god, if they can prove true which I don't think is the case, seem to argue for a deistic god, and I think if such a god exists, (Which, to be clear I'm agnostic about the deistic god) he's not really worth worshipping or believing in. You can't make the jump from saying something like god is love to then putting attributes on him like answering prayers and caring about your sex life.

I do. But obviously we see things differently.

Yes I've heard other cults say that ... I would like to hear some kind of reasoned justification outside of some kind of innate prejudice.

These things aren't biblical and aren't accepted by the wider church:

• Interercession of saints
  
• Mary as God/ Praying to Mary
  
• Worship of Idols & Idols in Church
  
• Priests as intermediaries for God
  
• The pope is a descendant of Peter
  
• That Peter was ever meant to lead the church
  
• That the Pope is the head of the church
  

Just a few things off the top of my head.

None of which denies them the label of Christianity.

True. Catholicism is accepted by the wider Christian church as Christian. And me (I'm sure they'd be thrilled (joke)). But all these things I listed are anti Christ's teachings. Some Catholics are Christians, but a lot aren't.

Who exactly has agreed with you then?

Demonaura, Adrian and thoughtful I think.

Where would that be then?

Demonaura, Adrian and thoughtful

[Demonaura]

For the record that wasn't me agreeing with anyone, that was me saying you guys should get a third party to aid in debate. Because I was sick of "Yes I did/No I didn't" posts.

And as far as I care catholicisim is just another variation of christianity, same god same jesus same book same religion. They can disagree on any material thing they bloody well want too but, they still fall under the umbrella of christianity.

\\

[Edwardo Piet]

I am saying I do not believe in the existence of things without evidence.

I'm saying that too. I'm also saying that God as a thing never presents the opportunity to prove him/ her. Our only option is to consider God's existence philosophically. If you insist on using provable evidence you have an easy job.. no thinking to do. If you use philosophy, there's lots of thinking to do.

If there's no evidence of God's existence what kind of reasonable thinking is there in favour of his existence, exactly?

What sort of philosophical argument or decision can you make for his existence that is rational and reasonable if there is absolutely no evidence?

Are you suggesting some kind of wager? Whether it is Pascal's Wager or whatever?

Well I don't really know of any other 'God wager' as far as I know Pascal's wager and other variations of it is the only 'God wager' available. Do you know of any others? If you are not talking about evidence and not talking about risk/reward (whether for you and/or "God") what exactly are you talking of?

And I think Pascal's wager, for example; absolutely fails because there is no evidence, no rational reason - to believe that any good would come from believing in God IF there is one. God could just as easily punish believers and reward non-believers. There is no evidence or rational reason to think that 'faith' is a virtue according to 'God'. Hypothetically speaking, if God exists then the bible certainly isn't evidence of God preferring belief over non-belief. If there is a God - we still have no idea what he is thinking.

Other than evidence I cannot think of anything rational or reasonable that would be a reason to believe in God. Unless there's evidence I can't think of one.

What other rational reason(s) other than evidence (if there was any) are you thinking of, for belief in God?

If it's a philosophical wager of some kind (other than Pascal's) - what could that possibly be? If there is no evidence of God then IF there is one we still have no idea what he is thinking anyway. There is no reason to think he would approve of belief, or that he is Good rather than Evil or neutral or whatever, etc.

Other than evidence what rational reasons would there be for believing in God? There's no evidence so why believe? What good reasons are there according to you fr0d0?

EvF