Enough Evidence to Help My Unbelief?

Sure you can. An infant has no understanding of genetics, family, parents, or what a human being is but responds favorably to loving stimuli and quickly bonds to the primary caregiver(s). In comparison to God we are like newborn infants with as limited knowledge comparatively about Him as a newborn has of his/her parent, but we still have a sense of presence and respond favorably to loving stimuli etc.

If you walk through the woods and see a creature that you never knew existed would you question its existence? Wouldn't you accept the reality of it though you don't have a clue what it is? If you found a substance left by some departing space alien and had no clue whether it was animal or mineral or what its function was or whether it was inert, beneficial, or harmful, would you question whether it existed at all?

I do accept that those who have not experienced God have difficulty believing those who have. And that's okay. I cannot prove the existence of God to you any more than you can disprove the existence of God to me. But I believe you can prove the existence of God to yourself.

I don't know, Foxfyre.

It's like you're not paying attention, or something. We're not really having a conversation. It's just me trying to think of new ways to explain myself... But then you keep on going back to the same thing that we both already agreed is not even possible, and so it all starts over again... And I'm doing all the work!

How do you see it?

Because they believe that they have not seen enough evidence to satisfy their questions, who is responsible for the atheist's or agnostics unbelief?


1. Is it because of the failure of the Believer to provide the necessary tangible evidence. And if so, does the responsibility or blame fall squarely on the shoulders of those who are the defenders of their faith?

2. Do many believe that there has been a presentation of ample tangible necessary evidence and those that remain atheists and agnostics just refuse to believe. And if so, does this mean that the responsibility or blame squarely falls on the shoulder of the atheist and agnostic?

Just because something is invisible does not mean that it can't be seen.

Erol, You assume God doesn't exist.

You assume science can explain everything.

You assume I don't know who God is.

Why do you place so much FAITH in science. Did you perform the experiments on your own? Or did you read about them in a magazine or book written by people who got paid? Why do they not always agree? Sounds like religion to me.

Foxfyre, I think that we can all agree that you felt something that you interpret as a direct experience of God.

Those of us who have never felt any such Presence and have come (for various reasons) to believe that none of the wide assortment of Gods/Goddesses promulgated by Christian and other religions actually exist, are skeptical of your interpretation, not your experience.

Echi writes

Quote:

In order to convince me of the exisence of God I would first have to know what we're talking about. What is "God"?

Well if you have to have a complete answer to that, we have a problem because I don't think we mortals can comprehend what God is. I don't think He would be much of a God if we could.

But we don't have to know what something is to know that something exists. Would you agree with that?

Could this thread get more inane? I'm guessing not.

Foxfyre wrote:

Echi writes

Quote:

In order to convince me of the exisence of God I would first have to know what we're talking about. What is "God"?

Well if you have to have a complete answer to that, we have a problem because I don't think we mortals can comprehend what God is. I don't think He would be much of a God if we could.

But we don't have to know what something is to know that something exists. Would you agree with that?

LOL! Who taught you that? That seems like one of those lines which are used by the preachers and teachers who have no idea who or what God is. So they tell the sheep, " God is so complex that you cannot comprehend him. That is why you can't see him." And as always the sheep fall back in line and say, "Hmm, he's right. God is too much for our small minds to comprehend. This is why we can't see him."

Echi writes

Quote:

I don't know, Foxfyre.

It's like you're not paying attention, or something. We're not really having a conversation. It's just me trying to think of new ways to explain myself... But then you keep on going back to the same thing that we both already agreed is not even possible, and so it all starts over again... And I'm doing all the work!

How do you see it?

I thought we were having a conversation, and I'm sorry that you think we are not. I keep going back to the same thing that I know to be true because I know it is true. I sort of have a policy of not agreeing to things I do not think are true.

You suggest that God must be defined in order for us to proceed, and I disagreed and said such definition is impossible. We don't agree, but how is this not responsive?

You say I did not experience something; I say I did. We don't agree, but How is this not responsive?

You suggest that you cannot know that something exists without knowing what that something is, and I explained in some detail that you indeed can know that something exists without knowing what something is. We apparently disagree, but how is that not responsive?

I did let slide your statement (I think it was yours) that you can "see love".

I fully accept that you do not want to accept my point of view on this topic, but I don't accept that we have to agree in order to have a conversation.

But Timber apparently agrees with you and he didn't want to deal with my responses to his post some pages back either.

Maybe it would be more satisfying to you for the the two of you to have the conversation?

Logic and reason are primarily to blame for our unbelief. Why do you suppose that your version of God gave some people the predisposition/religious training/experiences to engender belief, and withheld the necessary qualities for belief from others? Why do you suppose that your God gave some people the skeptical nature/education/experiences to engender disbelief and fails to provide the simple evidence we need to be convinced of his existence?

If God wants us to believe in him, why wouldn't he reveal himself to everyone in the world in an unambiguous and indisputable manner? Why allow so many guesses about his nature to be turned into conflicting religions, and why put so many contradictions in his alleged Holy Word? Case in point: the Bible says both that God cannot be seen and that men have seen him. It seems to me that the demand for "faith without evidence" is Religion's attempt to justify God's continuing failure to do anything that would prove he exists.

If a world in which God exists is indistinguishable from a world in which he doesn't, why would he expect anyone to believe in him without any evidence? The most logical answer to the question of life, the universe, and everything is that God doesn't exist and never has, but the religious establishment has a vested interest (money, jobs and power) in maintaining belief.

Uh, that IS what "invisible" means. Something in-visible CANNOT be seen, but may be inferred by the visible effects it has on other things.

sandspider wrote:

Erol, You assume God doesn't exist.

Incorrect - Eorl makes no such assumption, his position quite clearly, and repeatedly expressly stated, is that, by logic, reason, and history, the existence of any gods is extremely unlikely. It is the religionist who presumes to assume.

Quote:

You assume science can explain everything.

Incorrect - Eorl's position is that science provides clearcut, testable, readily verifiable answers where and as it can, drawing from those reasoned, reasonable conclusions - conclusions always subject to refinement and revision - where it may, and forthrightly admits that which it does not know, while religion offers only claim, conjecture and assumption. It is the religionist who presumes to assume.

Quote:

You assume I don't know who God is.

Incorrect. Eorl offers only the observation that your argument proceeds from assumptions ... assumptions you to this point haver failed to justify, therefore, assumptions which for the purposes of this discussion are unwarranted. It is the religionist who presumes to assume.

Quote:

Why do you place so much FAITH in science. Did you perform the experiments on your own? Or did you read about them in a magazine or book written by people who got paid? Why do they not always agree? Sounds like religion to me.

Now here we get to the rub. There is a distinction to be made between "Faith" - most particularly in the religious sense - and concretely understood, experientially derived, tested, and validated confidence in humankind's assembled body of knowledge in context of the manner through which that knowledge has been and is obtained, refined, revised, employed, and ongoingly developed. It is the religionist who fails to make that distinction, and that precisely is the dead end into which the religionist proceeds.

Sandspider, you assume that one challenging your assertions perforce rejects the proposition behind those assertions, when in fact no such circumstance need necessarily obtain and in further point of fact no such rejection has been presented; that which has been requested is that you validate your assertions, thereby validating the proposition from whence proceed those propositions. You have not to this point met the challenge, but rather have brought to the discussion nought but additional unwarranted assumptions.

Sure you can. An infant has no understanding of genetics, family, parents, or what a human being is but responds favorably to loving stimuli and quickly bonds to the primary caregiver(s). In comparison to God we are like newborn infants with as limited knowledge comparatively about Him as a newborn has of his/her parent, but we still have a sense of presence and respond favorably to loving stimuli etc.

If you walk through the woods and see a creature that you never knew existed would you question its existence? Wouldn't you accept the reality of it though you don't have a clue what it is?

If you found a substance left by some departing space alien and had no clue whether it was animal or mineral or what its function was or whether it was inert, beneficial, or harmful, would you question whether it existed at all?

Is it correct to assume i'm not welcome in this discussion? I'm not trying to assume anything I was only trying to join in on a friendly debate, not change the world. Maybe i'd get lucky and say something worthwhile.

Is it correct to assume i'm not welcome in this discussion?

I'm not trying to assume anything I was only trying to join in on a friendly debate, not change the world. Maybe i'd get lucky and say something worthwhile.

Is it correct to assume i'm not welcome in this discussion? I'm not trying to assume anything I was only trying to join in on a friendly debate, not change the world. Maybe i'd get lucky and say something worthwhile.