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.
You said, “there is no evidence or proof God exists”.
Ok, and?
What information am I supposed to know about your faith or the lack of it, from this statement that is also made by you?
On the surface, this statement perhaps becomes irrelevant,
Because,
You believe that, “there is no evidence or proof God exists”.
I believe that, “there is no evidence or proof God exists”.
But then you are an Atheist and I am a believer. How come?
Wouldn’t we like to explore this interesting phenomenon?
Interesting point you raise. So why do you believe if you believe there is no evidence.
I believe there is no evidence too, so I simply don't believe. Mind you, if there was conclusive evidence amounting to undeniable proof, there would be no need to believe. But we a talking about evidence, not conclusive proof.
Indeed. This is one that seems to cause confusion, too.
Fact, conclusive proof and balance of probability.
Fact is that a box contains an apple or it doesn't. It has to be one or the other. Undeniable binary situation.
Not knowing whether or not the box contains the apple is Not a belief that the box does not contain an apple. 'Don't know' is the right answer and that mandates not believing there is an apple until that claim is proven. The burden of proof does Not fall on the doubter to prove there is no apple.
However, you open the box and there is no apple there. Case closed. Not for the Believer, it ain't. You can't trust human sense you know, you might not be able to see the apple. It might be invisible. Denial of the apple may be deluding you not to see it..."I saw in the Matrix where an apple winked in and out of existence so it looked like it wasn't here..."
This is where 100% proof is not possible, but becomes a remote undisprovable and really is not a valid case.
There also comes into it indirect probability. If we are not talking about apples but a Dragons' egg, then we have a probability input. An apple or not is not improbable. Of course it could equally well be an orange or banana (the 'which god' argument) but some kind of fruit is not improbable. A priceless Faberge egg becomes a lot less probable, right? And a dragon's egg is way down the probability -scale.
These niceties are very often misunderstood and not only by the theist apologists, even those without a vested interest in misunderstanding them.
And that's without even looking at 'argument from incredulity' as it manifests with 'I don't understand that, so it must be nonsense'
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-24-2021 at 07:22 AM..
Interesting point you raise. So why do you believe if you believe there is no evidence.
I believe there is no evidence too, so I simply don't believe. Mind you, if there was conclusive evidence amounting to undeniable proof, there would be no need to believe. But we a talking about evidence, not conclusive proof.
the way some people say it ...
"In fact, don't believe me. Is what I am saying consistent with what you experiencing."
The we unpack the parts.
To take a thing apart is to understand that thing.
To interact wit a thing is to know the thing.
Belief, lack of belief, has nothing to do with it form some.
The shift you're describing is simply an evolution away from your religious convictions on the basis of a lack of personal experience of God as you would have expected if God were real. If your religious convictions had been stronger, the absence of personal experience might not have been decisive; not every believer experiences anything dramatic. In my case, my convictions were strengthened by experiences that, trying to view them as objectively as I could, I felt could only be explained as the hand of God.
Those who claim to know, including me, are invariably referring to a high level of conviction or an "inner knowing" that wouldn't qualify as actual knowledge in any conventional sense. It isn't knowledge that can be shared with someone else. Just as with my example of Jesus appearing in my bedroom, I accept that even my inner knowing theoretically could have alternative, non-theistic explanations.
I haven't either, but I know people who have and aren't Christians at all. In Michael Prescott's recent book The Far Horizon, which I reviewed on Amazon, he describes an encounter with Jesus very similar to what Mystic describes here. Surprisingly, he quickly forgot all about it and moved on to other things. (The book is his speculation as to possible models of reality and how the survival of consciousness might work. Christianity doesn't seem to be on his radar screen.)
You would "know" only if you could be absolutely certain that the appearance of Jesus in your bedroom actually was an appearance of the biblical Jesus. Whether the percipient were me or you, I would seriously consider a raft of alternative possibilities before concluding it was actually Jesus. I doubt I would ever reach such a level of conviction that I could actually say "Yes, I know with certainty that was Jesus and I thus know with certainty that the God of Christianity exists." The appearance would merely be one piece of evidence, albeit fairly compelling, in the construction of my belief system.
You say an appearance of Jesus in your bedroom would be decisive for you. But many believers, including me, say that a collective body of experiences of God in our lives is far more compelling than a single vision of Jesus could ever be. Yet you, who would be willing to accept an appearance of Jesus as sufficient, keep insisting we have "no evidence." See the incongruity?
Again you repeat your mantra "no real evidence or proof" when what you really mean is "no evidence that I personally find sufficient." Millions of people who have seriously considered the matter have found the evidence sufficient. This doesn't mean you should find it sufficient just because others do, but it does show that the supposed insufficiency is merely your personal opinion.
You'd be convinced if someone came to your house and turned a glass of water into wine? In some respects, you seem highly credulous. It would take a great deal more than that to convince me the wizard was the Son of God.
That being said, you seem to have no grasp of the frequency with which miraculous or otherwise inexplicable events are still experienced and documented, including by scientists and medical professionals. The literature in this area is very rich and worth exploring. You write, "No, none of this rises to the level of proof of the existence of God, but it is a vast body consistent with his existence. It's hardly "no evidence."
God's ultimate revelation was his incarnation in Jesus. We can't ask for more than that. As Jesus taught in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, where the rich man in torment urged Abraham to send Lazarus back from paradise to warn his brothers, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." Despite what you say, if the Incarnation and Resurrection are not enough for you, I strongly suspect that no more contemporary evidence would sway you either. Those who are hardened against belief will always find the evidence insufficient.
I don't think my explanation is convenient or expedient at all. It makes perfect sense to me that a God who wanted his creatures to turn to him in the exercise of their free will would not coercively override their free will by eliminating all doubt about his existence. If to you belief should be a simple matter of scientific proof, I say again that you seem to have no real grasp of religious belief - and certainly not of Christianity.
For the reasons I have described, I don't believe anyone can legitimately say that he or she is certain God exists. The existence of God is an unknown. Belief thus is ultimately a matter of faith no matter how much evidence one has assembled. The very fact that those who claim to be certain hold such disparate beliefs tells us all we need to know about their supposed knowledge and certainty.
I don't know enough about you to know in what sense you ever were religious or what the foundation of that religiousness may have been. When you keep saying things to the effect that there is no evidence of God and that only scientific proof would satisfy you, this indicates to me that you have no real grasp of how religious belief develops or faith works. If you want to restrict your quest to scientific methodology and proof of the existence of God, then you have short-circuited your quest before you start and the answer is inevitable. No, there is no scientific proof of the existence of God. But there is certainly evidence from a host of scientific disciplines that is suggestive of and consistent with the existence of God. When that evidence is considered in the context of other bodies of evidence, including human experience, it is sufficient to serve as the foundation of faith for millions of people.
It seems to me that you are confusing or conflating "evidence that is consistent with or suggestive of the existence of God" with "evidence that constitutes proof of the existence God." Apart from divine revelation, there will never be evidence of the latter type. Such evidence will never be discovered through scientific methodology. If you insist on such evidence, you have made a category mistake and short-circuited any genuine spiritual quest, You're sort of the mirror image of the extreme fundamentalist who says "I don't CARE what science thinks it has proven, no so-called scientific evidence is EVER going to be allowed to shake my conviction in God's truth as set forth right here in Genesis."
Tell you what...
I will ask you the same thing I ask anyone else interested in providing the evidence or proof that God exists. Please present whatever you feel is the most compelling evidence or proof that God exists far as you are concerned. If it is not one experience but a combination of many, please describe your top three, five or as many as you wish. Will be much appreciated if specific, honest and clear no matter the number.
Why? Because again I can't really know what someone considers evidence or proof unless they provide those sorts of specifics. With the specifics, I/we can establish whether you are relying on objective or subjective truths.
I have for a very long time considered all the many versions of what you describe as "the frequency with which miraculous or otherwise inexplicable events are still experienced and documented, including by scientists and medical professionals." I'll give you inexplicable, of course, but it's a rather big leap to go from inexplicable to evidence or proof God exists.
You also claim the literature in this area is very rich and worth exploring. No, none of this rises to the level of proof of the existence of God, but it is a vast body consistent with his existence. It's hardly "no evidence."
Either is or is not. You seem to be vacillating. I agree none rises to the level of proof of the existence of God. What's the difference between that and "no evidence." I'm looking for what DOES rise to the level of evidence or proof God exists.
Again of course. I consider most of the holy books "very rich and worth exploring" along with more current literature, but again what evidence and/or proof are you referring to specifically? You assume I have not read and seriously considered the likes for a long time? Wrong again, but again without the specifics that you consider evidence and proof that God exists, it seems you are finding all manner of ways to pick around the far edges of my simple request rather than simply presenting the evidence and proof.
We both know there are millions, perhaps billions of people who believe things that you and I don't. Only with the specific evidence, proof, reason and logic that substantiates these beliefs can we judge whether the evidence and/or proof is worthy. To you and/or me. Show me what has you convinced, so we both know what has you convinced.
Interesting point you raise. So why do you believe if you believe there is no evidence.
I believe there is no evidence too, so I simply don't believe. Mind you, if there was conclusive evidence amounting to undeniable proof, there would be no need to believe. But we a talking about evidence, not conclusive proof.
Demanding "Evidence" of faith, is an oxymoron.
How is it a "FAITH" anymore if there is an "evidence"?
And as I stated quite a few times, those who demand evidence, don't have the knowledge and capacity to verify and validate the evidence.
Me being a believer, if anyone approaches me and says, "I have an evidence of my faith", I will probably reject and dismiss his "Faith" before even analyzing his "Evidence".
You said, “there is no evidence or proof God exists”.
Ok, and?
What information am I supposed to know about your faith or the lack of it, from this statement that is also made by you?
On the surface, this statement perhaps becomes irrelevant,
Because,
You believe that, “there is no evidence or proof God exists”.
I believe that, “there is no evidence or proof God exists”.
But then you are an Atheist and I am a believer. How come?
Wouldn’t we like to explore this interesting phenomenon?
Ok! We agree! Finally!
I've really grown bored with all the reasons people believe God exists without any evidence or proof to justify such a belief. Sorry, but "dime a dozen."
Really just wanted to clarify whether the belief(s) are based on evidence and proof or not, and with respect to this thread, the further point that one must have faith if they don't know God actually exists as a result of evidence and proof.
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.
Not for the Believer, it ain't. You can't trust human sense you know, you might not be able to see the apple. It might be invisible. Denial of the apple may be deluding you not to see it..."I saw in the Matrix where an apple winked in and out of existence so it looked like it wasn't here..."
