Enough Evidence to Help My Unbelief?

Personally, I just can't buy the "Because I told you so" argument, which in the end is the only argument the religionist has. - timberlandko

How true.

0 Replies

Mindonfire wrote:

maporsche wrote:
hingehead wrote:
`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

more controversial than Oolon Colluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes and Who is this God Person Anyway?

I'm bored.

I like this......I wonder if any Christians will comment on it.

Well, they probably will not respond because the first sentence is so terribly ignorant. And because of it's ignorance, it is not worth responding to. But proof does not deny faith. Proof actually gives birth to faith.

Yes, the entire premise is ignorant.

God hasn't refused to provide proof that He exists.

Proof doesn't deny faith.

God doesn't need faith, so to say that 'without faith' God would be nothing is ignorant.

So, you really liked it , eh maporsche?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Mindonfire wrote:
maporsche wrote:
hingehead wrote:
`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

more controversial than Oolon Colluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes and Who is this God Person Anyway?

I'm bored.

I like this......I wonder if any Christians will comment on it.

Well, they probably will not respond because the first sentence is so terribly ignorant. And because of it's ignorance, it is not worth responding to. But proof does not deny faith. Proof actually gives birth to faith.

Yes, the entire premise is ignorant.

God hasn't refused to provide proof that He exists.

Proof doesn't deny faith.

God doesn't need faith, so to say that 'without faith' God would be nothing is ignorant.

So, you really liked it , eh maporsche?

Don't you need 'blind faith' to truly have faith. Otherwise you have proof.

Proof is the opposite of Faith. They cannot exist together in the same place/at the same time.

According to Websters, faith means "belief that is not based on proof", so if you have belief that is based on proof, you lack faith.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:
Mindonfire wrote:
maporsche wrote:
hingehead wrote:
`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

more controversial than Oolon Colluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes and Who is this God Person Anyway?

I'm bored.

I like this......I wonder if any Christians will comment on it.

Well, they probably will not respond because the first sentence is so terribly ignorant. And because of it's ignorance, it is not worth responding to. But proof does not deny faith. Proof actually gives birth to faith.

Yes, the entire premise is ignorant.

God hasn't refused to provide proof that He exists.

Proof doesn't deny faith.

God doesn't need faith, so to say that 'without faith' God would be nothing is ignorant.

So, you really liked it , eh maporsche?

Don't you need 'blind faith' to truly have faith.

No.

maporsche wrote:

Otherwise you have proof.

So?

maporsche wrote:

Proof is the opposite of Faith.

No.

maporsche wrote:

They cannot exist together in the same place/at the same time.

Nonsense.

maporsche wrote:

According to Websters, faith means "belief that is not based on proof", so if you have belief that is based on proof, you lack faith.

That is one way that some people use the word 'faith'. It doesn't mean that it is the only way, or even the correct way.

Like when someone says 'you bad' and they mean you're good (at something). Context determines meaning, correct?

from http://merriamwebster.com/dictionary/faith

'faith' and 'belief' are listed as synonyms

from http://merriamwebster.com/dictionary/belief

Quote:

Main Entry: be·lief
Pronunciation: b&-'lEf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan -- more at BELIEVE
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

0 Replies

real life, this dictionary you used...Miriam Webster, is OK when it agrees with you....but totally ridiculous when used to define what is a "human being"?

Oh, wait, I forgot. You are busy shouting in every second post that it is MY definition you think is absurd. Like I made it up myself.

0 Replies

Substitute the word 'chocolate' for god...

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life, this dictionary you used...Miriam Webster, is OK when it agrees with you....but totally ridiculous when used to define what is a "human being"?

Oh, wait, I forgot. You are busy shouting in every second post that it is MY definition you think is absurd. Like I made it up myself.

No, actually what you did was to take an article in wikipedia which describes various things that humans may do (build fire, produce art and music), and then you tried to say if one does NOT do those things or can NOT do those particular things, then they aren't human.

So,

a) you didn't use a dictionary, or a definition

b) you twisted the intent of the article you did use

Get it? No, probably not.

BTW how many of your neighbors have never written any music? how many children in your neighborhood have never built a fire?

Do you see the absurdity of your position yet?

*sigh* Probably not.

0 Replies

Appreciating Timber for pulling this thread back on topic. (Maybe its time to start another abortion thread so we and all the newbies can have a go at it again.)

timberlandko wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
It is true that some believe what they have not experienced based on witnesses presenting evidence of their own experience. They cannot see the oxygen and hydrogen in water, for instance, but they believe it is there based on a cloud of witnesses testifying to the truth of that.

Ignorant nonsense. Learn a little chemistry, perform a simple electrolysis experiment, and there you have tangible, visible, measureable, reproducible, independently verifiable proof that water is composed of two volumes of hydrogen and one of oxygen ... no "witnesses" involved, unless you invite some freinds over to share the experience.

Ignorant nonsense for the person who does not have access to a chemistry lab or the knowledge to perform the experiments but who still believes? Ignorant nonsense for the person who does not have access to a microscope but still believes in the existence of bacteria? Have you never believed a thing that was true BEFORE you saw it with your own eyes or proved it scientifically? The point I was making was in HOW we come to believe. And I am guessing despite the fact that your response is a bit snitty, you are not so strange that you believe nothing that you have not proved for yourself.

FF wrote

Quote:

It is also true that those who have experienced God have a small and limited sense of who and what God is and they do believe. Some are persuaded of the existence of God based on a cloud of witnesses testifying to the truth of that.

And finally, I believe all willing to experience God will experience God, but that is something that each much experience for himself. I cannot transfer my experience to you.

Timber responded

Quote:

"Faith is believing in what you know isn't so"
Mark Twain

Anecdote, no matter how devoutly believed, no matter how sincerely presented, is evidence of nothing beyond belief. Religious faith expressly, explicitly, and inherently is a circumstance of belief, not just willingness to believe, but, more importantly, requiring active desire to believe. "In order to believe, one must have faith, in order to have faith, one must believe; without faith, one cannot believe, and without belief, one cannot have faith" - pardon me or not, but it just plain don't get no more circular - or sillier - than that, and that precisely is the proposition you, in comon with most religionists in these discussions, repeatedly, in fact all but invariably, present.

I never said one must have faith in order to have faith. I know quite a few folks, including myself, who now believe what they did not want to believe about many things, and they came to believe when the proof was presented to them. Others who have never experienced the proof or who have denied the proof still do not believe.

And while there is much that can be used in the way of logic to argue a case for devine intelligence, you are right that any expression of the experience of God, as well as any other personal experience, will be anecdotal. I suggested nothing less and said as much.

Yet your rather strained attempt to dispute the existence of God carries no more force of verifiability, now does it?

Quote:

Science readily admits not all questions have answers, even that some questions may remain forever unanswerable. Beyond accepting that, science depends on it, derives from it, proceeds because of that. Science is about asking questions then discovering, verifying, demonstrating, and constantly refining answers to questions, whereas religion is about declaring The Answer, apart from and immune to question. Personally, I just can't buy the "Because I told you so" argument, which in the end is the only argument the religionist has.

I have not argued for the "because I told you so" concept in any matters of religion. And you're wrong that this is the only argument the religionist has. We have a plethora of testimonies from those who have experienced God. And we have our own experience. I have offered those willing to be convinced of the existence of God my counsel on how to be convinced. But any God who could be proved by a scientific experiment or discovery wouldn't be much of a God now would he?

There is no mind so closed as one who says "Well I have never seen it and I have never experienced it, so it is not true."

0 Replies

Foxfyre: "But any God who could be proved by a scientific experiment or discovery wouldn't be much of a God now would he?"

Where is the truth in that statement? I would consider the opposite to be true.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Foxfyre: "But any God who could be proved by a scientific experiment or discovery wouldn't be much of a God now would he?"

Where is the truth in that statement? I would consider the opposite to be true.

The way I see it, if there is a Creator God, he would be the author of science and much bigger than his creation. Also if there is a Creator God, a spiritual or supernatural world exists in which other than scientific principles as we know them would likely apply.

So why do you think God would be provable by scientific experiment?

0 Replies

It seems reasonable to me that if God created everything that exists, his own existence would be evident in his creations. Also, if he wants us to believe in him and worship him, it seems that he would have made his existence very plainly obvious. That would be a win for God AND Man.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

It seems reasonable to me that if God created everything that exists, his own existence would be evident in his creations. Also, if he wants us to believe in him and worship him, it seems that he would have made his existence very plainly obvious. That would be a win for God AND Man.

But again, how do you prove your logic? Is not your very logic a personal belief?

My belief is that God is too big and too complex to be fully comprehended by we mere mortals here on Earth any more than we can fully comprehend what might lie out there in the universe beyond what we have currently detected. Only the smallest mind would conclude that we have it all figured out.

Yet I cannot prove my logic any more than you can prove yours. But based on the testimonies of those who claim to have experienced God plus my own experience in which I KNOW I have experienced God, I believe. I do not presume to dictate to God how He shall make Himself known to us or any principle upon which that should be done. That again would put God in a box and reduce God to a finite entity capable of being comprehended by humankind. To me that would be illogical.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

echi wrote:
It seems reasonable to me that if God created everything that exists, his own existence would be evident in his creations. Also, if he wants us to believe in him and worship him, it seems that he would have made his existence very plainly obvious. That would be a win for God AND Man.

But again, how do you prove your logic? Is not your very logic a personal belief?

My belief is that God is too big and too complex to be fully comprehended by we mere mortals here on Earth any more than we can fully comprehend what might lie out there in the universe beyond what we have currently detected. Only the smallest mind would conclude that we have it all figured out.

Yet I cannot prove my logic any more than you can prove yours. But based on the testimonies of those who claim to have experienced God plus my own experience in which I KNOW I have experienced God, I believe. I do not presume to dictate to God how He shall make Himself known to us or any principle upon which that should be done. That again would put God in a box and reduce God to a finite entity capable of being comprehended by humankind. To me that would be illogical.

Foxfyre, are you a Christian, or are you talking about some non-specific god?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Foxfyre: "But any God who could be proved by a scientific experiment or discovery wouldn't be much of a God now would he?"

Where is the truth in that statement? I would consider the opposite to be true.

Expecting the supernatural to be subject to natural observation may not be the most likely course to produce a satisfactory result.

It's like trying to smell the color 'nine'.

Nine isn't a color.

And even if it was , you can't smell colors.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
echi wrote:
It seems reasonable to me that if God created everything that exists, his own existence would be evident in his creations. Also, if he wants us to believe in him and worship him, it seems that he would have made his existence very plainly obvious. That would be a win for God AND Man.

But again, how do you prove your logic? Is not your very logic a personal belief?

My belief is that God is too big and too complex to be fully comprehended by we mere mortals here on Earth any more than we can fully comprehend what might lie out there in the universe beyond what we have currently detected. Only the smallest mind would conclude that we have it all figured out.

Yet I cannot prove my logic any more than you can prove yours. But based on the testimonies of those who claim to have experienced God plus my own experience in which I KNOW I have experienced God, I believe. I do not presume to dictate to God how He shall make Himself known to us or any principle upon which that should be done. That again would put God in a box and reduce God to a finite entity capable of being comprehended by humankind. To me that would be illogical.

Foxfyre, are you a Christian, or are you talking about some non-specific god?

I am a Christian relating my experience with and belief about the being I call God. But I think my reasoning would apply to any deity, real or unreal, worthy to be called God or some facsimile of that designation.

0 Replies

I was thinking about one other statement Echi made

Quote:

It seems reasonable to me that if God created everything that exists, his own existence would be evident in his creations.

If I bake a cake, there is no way to know that I was the one who baked it if there is no name on it and nobody saw me assemble the ingredients and place them in the oven. Even if I claimed to have baked it, there would be no way to know for sure.

And, if I used special secret ingredients to give a particular texture and flavor to this cake as had been included in many other cakes, those eating the cake would likely recognize it as being from the same recipe, but they still might not know who the baker was or anything about him/her other than s/he bakes unique cakes.

If I secretly place an unsigned painting on the wall, there would be no way to identify me as the painter unless I revealed it. And even if I revealed it, there is no way for others to know with certainty that I painted it. But I would know with absolute certainty that I painted it.

But if I secretly place many paintings, critics with a good eye would be able to see the similarities of style, use of color, etc. and would identify the paintings as being from the same artist. But they still would know nothing about the artist other than the sort of painting s/he paints.

In the same way, God's handiwork in His creation is there for all to see, but it does not logically follow that acknowledging the existence of the Earth and Universe and all that we know to be in it would necessarily reveal who the Creator is.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

echi wrote:
It seems reasonable to me that if God created everything that exists, his own existence would be evident in his creations. Also, if he wants us to believe in him and worship him, it seems that he would have made his existence very plainly obvious. That would be a win for God AND Man.

But again, how do you prove your logic? Is not your very logic a personal belief?

I'm choosing to value that which makes the most sense, in terms of simplicity and consistency.

Quote:

My belief is that God is too big and too complex to be fully comprehended by we mere mortals here on Earth any more than we can fully comprehend what might lie out there in the universe beyond what we have currently detected. Only the smallest mind would conclude that we have it all figured out.

Here, I think we can easily find some agreement. My concept of "God" would be as close to a non-concept as any concept could be.

Quote:

Yet I cannot prove my logic any more than you can prove yours.

"My" logic? "Your" logic? Logic is logic.

Quote:

But based on the testimonies of those who claim to have experienced God plus my own experience in which I KNOW I have experienced God, I believe.

Are those the only reasons? How much of it is fear?

Quote:

I do not presume to dictate to God how He shall make Himself known to us or any principle upon which that should be done. That again would put God in a box and reduce God to a finite entity capable of being comprehended by humankind. To me that would be illogical.

Yeah, I know. So, what is this "God" thing you keep mentioning?
Your "God" concept, according to you, does not and cannot represent "God". Why do you not consider your concept to be a false idol?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
echi wrote:
It seems reasonable to me that if God created everything that exists, his own existence would be evident in his creations. Also, if he wants us to believe in him and worship him, it seems that he would have made his existence very plainly obvious. That would be a win for God AND Man.

But again, how do you prove your logic? Is not your very logic a personal belief?
I'm choosing to value that which makes the most sense, in terms of simplicity and consistency.

Quote:
My belief is that God is too big and too complex to be fully comprehended by we mere mortals here on Earth any more than we can fully comprehend what might lie out there in the universe beyond what we have currently detected. Only the smallest mind would conclude that we have it all figured out.
Here, I think we can easily find some agreement. My concept of "God" would be as close to a non-concept as any concept could be.

Quote:
Yet I cannot prove my logic any more than you can prove yours.
"My" logic? "Your" logic? Logic is logic.

Quote:
But based on the testimonies of those who claim to have experienced God plus my own experience in which I KNOW I have experienced God, I believe.
Are those the only reasons? How much of it is fear?

Quote:
I do not presume to dictate to God how He shall make Himself known to us or any principle upon which that should be done. That again would put God in a box and reduce God to a finite entity capable of being comprehended by humankind. To me that would be illogical.
Yeah, I know. So, what is this "God" thing you keep mentioning?
Your "God" concept, according to you, does not and cannot represent "God". Why do you not consider your concept to be a false idol?

Having experienced God I know He is no false idol. And I also know I have nothing to fear from Him.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

echi wrote:
Foxfyre: "But any God who could be proved by a scientific experiment or discovery wouldn't be much of a God now would he?"

Where is the truth in that statement? I would consider the opposite to be true.

Expecting the supernatural to be subject to natural observation may not be the most likely course to produce a satisfactory result.

That's an interesting way to look at it.
Here's what I think:
Science helps people learn about and understand nature. The concept of "nature" keeps pace with discovery. "Supernatural", I think, would refer to processes believed to exist in ways that are, due to physical limits of observation, unobservable.

Quote:

It's like trying to smell the color 'nine'.

Nine isn't a color.

And even if it was , you can't smell colors.

Have you been smoking marijuana?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Having experienced God I know He is no false idol. And I also know I have nothing to fear from Him.

With all due respect Foxfyre, all you really experienced was a feeling. All anyone can ever experience is a feeling (or an interpretation of our senses). You may interpret it as "God" and you may 'feel' it is God, but you have no external foundation upon which to guage those assumptions.

0 Replies

Enough Evidence to Help My Unbelief?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know