No evidence whatsoever, is it a reason to lose faith or a reason to keep faith? (hell, myth)
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.
From my own experience it was a reason to lose faith. All the things I had faith would happen never did happen. So the book claims if you ask you will recieve and it never happens....guess I wasn't good enough or didn't pay enough money.
Or maybe you had the entirely wrong expectation. If all you expected from God was that your every prayer would be answered, I could have told you in advance and saved you the trouble: You can't always get what you want. :-)
Disappointment resulting from the wrong expectations is not a valid reason to lose faith.
Things in religion have no evidence whatsoever, some say that's the reason to keep faith going, while others say that's the reason not to have faith in it. Which is for you?
The problem with this is that your question is based on an error. There is evidence, but one has to want to accept the evidence.
Where are you getting the idea that faith is evidence based? Evidence comes from what you can objectively see, taste, touch, smell, hear, weigh and measure. Why don't you provide us with this supposed evidence that supports your faith. I'm not talking about personal experience, clouds, sunsets or grass. I'm talking about things verified through empirical testing.
What you're doing here is saying that if something can't be established using the methods of science, then it must be rejected. It's based on a huge assumption, that science is the measure of all things. Science is valuable, but it doesn't apply to everything. The evidence for God's existence doesn't need to be empirically tested unless it has to fall within the jurisdiction of science. I"m not so sure it has to, though you seem to come to this with that assumption.
It's easy. That which exists in any form in this universe and has any influence on this universe can be empirically tested. That which does not exist in this universe and has no influence on this universe either does not exist, or if it does, it is completely irrelevant (by the fact that it has no influence).
Whether I live or not tomorrow, the sun still "rises" in the east.
Plans are what people do to (ones that have some morals and scruples) forge ahead and make provisions for their families.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for that are unseen - your bible definition.
Here is the text you refer to (Hebrews 11:1-3):
1Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2For by it the men of old gained approval.
3By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.
That which is seen does factor in. Faith looks beyond that to the cause of those visible things. It is not an empirical knowledge but a faith-knowledge. Those who have this faith believe because they see nature's testimony to God's existence and do not want to reject it. Those who do reject it are without excuse:
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen,being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Rom. 1:18-21)
Let me guess, a tired rant about how great nature is.
Obviously your mind is made up.
This is why I don't try to prove creation. Those who believe in the existence of God do so because they do not want to reject the evidence. Those who don't believe do so because they want to reject it. The real question, then, is not whether evidence exists. The real problem is whether people are willing to acknowledge the evidence. Nobody is neutral, not even scientists. They have their assumptions, too, their unprovable foundations which they rely on as their ultimate authority, which they choose as their starting point because they want to do so. If you approach a discussion like this thinking, "Just show me the evidence and I'll believe because I am 100% neutral and swayed only by the facts," then you are blissfully unaware of your own biases and presuppositions. Only when you come to the realization that you are anything but neutral will you be ready to discuss this in a fair way.
This is why I don't try to prove creation. Those who believe in the existence of God do so because they do not want to reject the evidence. Those who don't believe do so because they want to reject it. The real question, then, is not whether evidence exists. The real problem is whether people are willing to acknowledge the evidence. Nobody is neutral, not even scientists. They have their assumptions, too, their unprovable foundations which they rely on as their ultimate authority, which they choose as their starting point because they want to do so. If you approach a discussion like this thinking, "Just show me the evidence and I'll believe because I am 100% neutral and swayed only by the facts," then you are blissfully unaware of your own biases and presuppositions. Only when you come to the realization that you are anything but neutral will you be ready to discuss this in a fair way.
Objective evidence isn't refutable.
Quit dancing around the issue and show me this evidence you speak of.
Or maybe you had the entirely wrong expectation. If all you expected from God was that your every prayer would be answered, I could have told you in advance and saved you the trouble: You can't always get what you want. :-)
Disappointment resulting from the wrong expectations is not a valid reason to lose faith.
Ah, so it's impossible to distinguish between "God does answer prayers", and "God does not answer prayers", because God says no at approximately the same rate as one would expect if there were no God at all.
This is why I don't try to prove creation. Those who believe in the existence of God do so because they do not want to reject the evidence. Those who don't believe do so because they want to reject it. The real question, then, is not whether evidence exists. The real problem is whether people are willing to acknowledge the evidence. Nobody is neutral, not even scientists. They have their assumptions, too, their unprovable foundations which they rely on as their ultimate authority, which they choose as their starting point because they want to do so. If you approach a discussion like this thinking, "Just show me the evidence and I'll believe because I am 100% neutral and swayed only by the facts," then you are blissfully unaware of your own biases and presuppositions. Only when you come to the realization that you are anything but neutral will you be ready to discuss this in a fair way.
Objective evidence isn't refutable.
Oh yes it is! Do you expect me to believe that it is impossible for a scientist to reject evidence when it conflicts with a pet theory? Do you actually believe that science is above that?
Quote:
Quit dancing around the issue and show me this evidence you speak of.
I'm not dancing around the issue at all, though I'm sure it looks that way to you. You have an ultimate authority, as do I. You come to discussions like this with the mistaken notion that you are free from biases that affect your acceptance or rejection of whatever is offered as evidence. It is a mistaken notion because you, like everyone else, have an unprovable foundation which you have made your starting point. Since it is unprovable, you must have chosen it because you wanted to. Here is part of a post I made in another thread that explains it well:
Everyone has some kind of ultimate authority that they rely upon as a foundation upon which to build their belief system. As soon as you appeal to something else to establish authority C, for example, that thing you appealed to now becomes your higher authority--call it authority B. If you then appeal to yet something else to establish authority B, then that new thing to which you have appealed has now become your ultimate authority--authority A. If we continued like this, we would go on forever in infinite regress. Nobody does that, though, so everyone has some starting point, some point beyond which they do not go, some unprovable foundation. Otherwise they could never form any beliefs at all, scientific or otherwise.
For example, if you claim to rely on just plain facts--no feelings, no personal interpretations, but just the facts--on what basis do you know that those facts are true--by reasoning? If so, then reason is your ultimate authority, by which you judge all the "facts." In that case you would be holding reason as unprovable, presupposing that it is beyond question, the ultimate authority.
On a slightly different note, are your reasoning capabilities beyond error? If not--and I'm sure you'll admit that we all can and do make errors in reasoning--why would you make it your ultimate authority, your starting point?
Perhaps your ultimate authority is empiricism. Perhaps you think that all knowledge comes through our senses. But the same question I asked about reasoning also applies to empiricism: Is it beyond error? Are our senses always reliable? A green shirt, for example, appears to have the color green, but in reality it doesn't have one bit of green in it: All it's doing is reflecting that color from the spectrum of the light that is falling upon it. Our senses can deceive us in other ways, too. I've heard of people who, after having a limb amputated, actually sensed that the amputated limb was still there.
And if you really want to get down to the nitty-gritty, can you prove empiricism empirically? If it cannot be proven using its own principles or any others, then it must be assumed.
I say all this to make this one point: You are not right to claim or imply that Christians are at some kind of disadvantage because they rely on faith while you allegedly examine the straight facts in an unbiased manner. The truth is that you are not neutral at all. You have an ultimate authority just as much as Christians do, and you have chosen that ultimate authority because of your own personal presuppositions. I say this with certainty because in order for an authority to be ultimate, it cannot be subjected to any higher authority to establish it. Otherwise it would no longer be the ultimate authority. Thus, that ultimate authority is unprovable and, therefore, must be presupposed by the one who holds to it.
For me, my ultimate authority for the Christian life and spiritual matters is the Bible. For those who reject the Bible as infallible, their ultimate authority is something else, perhaps reason or empiricism.
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.
