Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's say you want to believe that a supreme, supernatural being known as God did the following:
- created the heavens and earth and all life on earth
- made humans in his image
- sent his only Son to die for the sins of humanity
- will give humans eternal life after they die
However, you can find absolutely zero evidence that any of this is true. So, is it still okay to believe in all of this in spite of the absence of evidence?
Does evidence matter at all in deciding whether or not someone should believe in God?
Of course it is OK, you can believe anything you want to as long as it doesn't harm others. But maybe the above are not your discovered truths. If you are personally troubled because you want to believe the above but don't, have you ever tried reading poetry like Rumi? Maybe our human experience is one great koan, and spiritual truths can only be discovered internally. Or maybe not.
If one's belief are not based on evidence, then what are they based on? And why is that "ok"?
The more I ponder over the question the more convinced I am everybody has some evidence for whatever they believe, even though others may not view their evidence as a valid support of the belief.
1) It's a free country, people can adopt any beliefs they choose (evidence not required)
2) Evidence may be outside our human powers of detection, thus understanding is limited by our very humanness (evidence present bt not detectable)
3) Religious beliefs cannot be disproven (no evidence to the contrary)
4) Evidence is contained in revelations or spiritual experiences, for example nderf.org (there is evidence)
5) Evidence is found through direct spiritual knowledge and internal contemplation, not externally (there could be evidence)
6) The universe is a fixed system, or contained in a box, and "God" is outside of it (evidence present but not detectable)
I'm not religious, but I do think it is possible to hold contradictory, unproven, or false beliefs. Humans do all the time. Alternatively, just because evidence is not detectable via our science or physical laws does not mean that the possibility is not there. Thus, there really is no point in arguing religious beliefs.
Last edited by west seattle gal; 08-18-2013 at 09:46 AM..
1) It's a free country, people can adopt any beliefs they choose (evidence not required)
2) Evidence may be outside our human powers of detection, thus understanding is limited by our very humanness (evidence present bt not detectable)
3) Religious beliefs cannot be disproven (no evidence to the contrary)
4) Evidence is contained in revelations or spiritual experiences, for example nderf.org (there is evidence)
5) Evidence is found through direct spiritual knowledge and internal contemplation, not externally (there could be evidence)
6) The universe is a fixed system, or contained in a box, and "God" is outside of it (evidence present but not detectable)
I'm not religious, but I do think it is possible to hold contradictory, unproven, or false beliefs. Humans do all the time. Alternatively, just because evidence is not detectable via our science or physical laws does not mean that the possibility is not there. Thus, there really is no point in arguing religious beliefs.
Sure, I can believe in the "possibility" of a god. And if I am ever presented with any convincing evidence of one, then at that time, I would believe that a god exists. However, we're not talking about possibilities, were talking about people actively believing now, that a particular god exists. You say that evidence in not required to have a belief, and I agree that there are people that believe in things without evidence. My question though, is what is it that these people are basing their beliefs on? Just their wants? They believe something exists because they "want" to, or they think they can get something out of it? Is that actual belief? To me, belief is the end result of being convinced of the truth of something. There are many things that I would like to believe in, but don't, because I am not convinced of its truth. Likewise, there are things that I believe, that I would rather not, but have no choice based on the evidence presented.
Last edited by mythunderstood; 08-18-2013 at 01:41 PM..
Sure, I can believe in the "possibility" of a god. And if I am ever presented with any convincing evidence of one, then at that time, I would believe that a god exists. However, we're not talking about possibilities, were talking about people actively believing now, that a particular god exists. You say that evidence in not required to have a belief, and I agree that there are people that believe in things without evidence. My question though, is what is it that these people are basing their beliefs on? Just their wants? They believe something exists because they "want" to, or they think they can get something out of it? Is that actual belief? To me, belief is the end result of being convinced of the truth of something. There are many things that I would like to believe in, but don't, because I am not convinced of its truth. Likewise, there are things that I believe, that I would rather not, but have no choice based on the evidence presented.
There is objective/logical evidence and subjective/intuitive evidence. We humans rely on both to form our versions of the universe. Spirituality is in the subjective domain of understanding, along with concepts of love, creativity, art, timelessness, compassion, beauty, etc... It is understood and evidenced indirectly and internally, and perhaps best grasped via the language of poetry vs the objective senses (ie. the scientific method and what we see/touch). It is as "OK" for someone to have spiritual beliefs as it is to love another human being -- these things are inseperable from our humanness.
Some people believe that sacred religious scriptures are spiritual insights, discovered either via deep contemplation or divine inspiration, that are recorded into writing. Sometimes the meaning of a scriptural passage has more than one meaning, as with poetry. Some believe that a system of rules has been discovered this way and codified into objective language (ex. "Thou shalt not..."). Some believe that a divine being ("Christ") penetrated through our thick cloud of subjective understanding in order to reveal to us a more expansive reality, something beyond the grasp of our objective investigations. Others interpret the Jesus tale (or that of any other religious figure) as allegorical. Since spirituality is subjective, there are as many interpretations and belief systems as there are people.
You probably believe that concepts of religion and spirituality derive from the human brain, as do love and other subjective concepts. Some believe that the human brain is a conduit for spiritual reality, and just as some insects can see in the UV spectrum or dogs smell in an intensity akin to all of the colors in a crayon box or electrons are constantly jumping from my hand into this wall I am touching and back, life is surprising and we don't really know what we don't know -- can't even conceive of it. Since you/I can't prove it one way or another, per the scientific method we cannot reject the null hypothesis (that a spiritual reality does not exist).
Though I'm not a Christian or of any religion, I do understand how intelligent people can have religious beliefs.
There is objective/logical evidence and subjective/intuitive evidence. We humans rely on both to form our versions of the universe. Spirituality is in the subjective domain of understanding, along with concepts of love, creativity, art, timelessness, compassion, beauty, etc... It is understood and evidenced indirectly and internally, and perhaps best grasped via the language of poetry vs the objective senses (ie. the scientific method and what we see/touch). It is as "OK" for someone to have spiritual beliefs as it is to love another human being -- these things are inseperable from our humanness.
Some people believe that sacred religious scriptures are spiritual insights, discovered either via deep contemplation or divine inspiration, that are recorded into writing. Sometimes the meaning of a scriptural passage has more than one meaning, as with poetry. Some believe that a system of rules has been discovered this way and codified into objective language (ex. "Thou shalt not..."). Some believe that a divine being ("Christ") penetrated through our thick cloud of subjective understanding in order to reveal to us a more expansive reality, something beyond the grasp of our objective investigations. Others interpret the Jesus tale (or that of any other religious figure) as allegorical. Since spirituality is subjective, there are as many interpretations and belief systems as there are people.
You probably believe that concepts of religion and spirituality derive from the human brain, as do love and other subjective concepts. Some believe that the human brain is a conduit for spiritual reality, and just as some insects can see in the UV spectrum or dogs smell in an intensity akin to all of the colors in a crayon box or electrons are constantly jumping from my hand into this wall I am touching and back, life is surprising and we don't really know what we don't know -- can't even conceive of it. Since you/I can't prove it one way or another, per the scientific method we cannot reject the null hypothesis (that a spiritual reality does not exist).
Though I'm not a Christian or of any religion, I do understand how intelligent people can have religious beliefs.
So, if there is no proof that something does NOT exist, is that a reason to believe that something DOES exist (if there is no proof that it does)?
The op asked if one finds zero evidence for the existence of god, is it ok to believe in god? I think you guys are getting stuck on the word: "ok". Of course it is "ok" to have whatever beliefs one wants, wrong or otherwise, (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone). I think the more appropriate word to use would be "justifiable."
The question I would like an answer to is:
If one find zero evidence for the existence of god, is it justifiable (or even reasonable) to believe in god? I'm not going to get into arguments about whether one needs to justify their beliefs. I'm just asking, can they? If a person has found no evidence whatsoever (zero!) that a god exists, can they justify a belief in one? Based on what?
You know what I say is the truth, otherwise you would present your empirical, testable evidence wouldn't you....So either present it or stop claiming that you have it.
You're not searching for truth, you just like to bully folks....
So, if there is no proof that something does NOT exist, is that a reason to believe that something DOES exist (if there is no proof that it does)?
The op asked if one finds zero evidence for the existence of god, is it ok to believe in god? I think you guys are getting stuck on the word: "ok". Of course it is "ok" to have whatever beliefs one wants, wrong or otherwise, (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone). I think the more appropriate word to use would be "justifiable."
The question I would like an answer to is:
If one find zero evidence for the existence of god, is it justifiable (or even reasonable) to believe in god? I'm not going to get into arguments about whether one needs to justify their beliefs. I'm just asking, can they? If a person has found no evidence whatsoever (zero!) that a god exists, can they justify a belief in one? Based on what?
::Sigh:: Another of the "zero evidence" cohort . . . with the narrow and absurdly limited definition of evidence. Is the Source of our life and existence God? Is the Source of our entire reality and its "laws" and ubiquitous "processes" that constrain, support and evolve life and our universe God? Is the Source of our fantastic consciousness and intelligence God? Why do you limit the evidence you will accept for God to those that would establish the unprovable man-made BELIEFS ABOUT God? This is so tedious having to deal with the persistent and wrong claims of "zero evidence."
::Sigh:: Another of the "zero evidence" cohort . . . with the narrow and absurdly limited definition of evidence. Is the Source of our life and existence God? Is the Source of our entire reality and its "laws" and ubiquitous "processes" that constrain, support and evolve life and our universe God? Is the Source of our fantastic consciousness and intelligence God? Why do you limit the evidence you will accept for God to those that would establish the unprovable man-made BELIEFS ABOUT God? This is so tedious having to deal with the persistent and wrong claims of "zero evidence."
As soon as you provide some falsifiable, verifiable, concrete evidence, we'll reconsider. Until then, there is ZERO evidence for a god.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
