Evidence VS Faith

[ChickenSoup]

SWEET! *eats the muffin*

 

[Dark Virtue]

Normally I'd break this down line by line, but you have a theme that runs through the post. Labels aside, my decision not to follow God has nothing to do with faith. Personally, I see Faith as a copout. I refuse to be intellectually dishonest with myself and believe in something that I have no proof of or reason to believe in.

You've created a strawman argument by claiming there are only two choices: believe or disbelieve. Sorry, but the decision isn't that cut and dry. There ARE other positions. Where you see black and white, I see varying shades of gray. You are also confusing agnosticism with atheism.

Let's take a look of something you said, "I don't believe anyone makes the decision entirely on faith though. At certain points they see their faith justified, and they believe evidence they perceive to support their position."

I think this argument is a bit convoluted. You say that the decision is based on things other than faith, but then you say that faith is justified and evidenced perceived. You've created a circular argument. What, exactly, helps make the decision in addition to faith? If faith is justified, if evidence is given, is faith still FAITH? Is it even needed anymore?

Let me say, once again, that I do not believe in God because I have no evidence, no logical reasoning, no proof, to believe God exists.

What YOU want me to do is to get into a position where I WANT to believe. That, my friend, is intellectually dishonest.

And again, I can't believe you are offering up Pascal's Wager. Do you REALLY think God wants followers that are only there to save their butts?

Rev 3:15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

Isn't that pretty self explanatory?

Rev 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

I have heard no voice, I have heard no knock. Do you answer your door randomly throughout the day, just in case someone may be there? Of course not, you wait for the knock. No one is knocking on my door.

I was afraid of this. Chopped up in counterpoint style, I believe you took this out of context, or perhaps I should have elaborated. My point is not that you have claimed that, I'm simply trying to establish the fact that you're on the same river, only in a different boat (Your decision is largely based on faith as well). Since you can't have absolute certainty in either direction, any decision for or against God requires faith, because there isn't absolute certainty it's correct.

Yes, exactly, it's a two way street! Which means there isn't sufficient evidence to invalidate his existence either, but you've clearly made a decision that would favor this outcome, which requires faith.

I disagree. I believe you've taken our disagreement over what a label signifies and have hastly attempted to use this as a reason for disgregarding everything else. "Strong" or "weak", you stand at your position on faith. There's no factual error here.

I don't believe anyone makes the decision entirely on faith though. At certain points they see their faith justified, and they believe evidence they perceive to support their position.

On the flipside, I point out the loathed Pascal's Wager. Put aside the fact that you'd be believing just to save your hide. Either Christianity is right or Chrisitianity is wrong. If it's wrong and you don't believe, you've lost nothing. If it's right and you don't believe, you've lost everything. Sure, you may see a substantial lack of evidence for it to be right, but you can't be absolutely certain (and you wouldn't be on these boards ), so why not hedge your bets?

 

[Dark Virtue]

probably not. The majority of the generation of my family right before me was raised non christain, and have each come to know God. I could go off on buhdists and the muslim, but your question can only be answered by speculation. What I see is other religions tend to keep you in via pressure of family or pressure of peers. A extreme example would be mormons. Christianity is 100% personal from where I stand.

Obviously, you've never met any Catholics

 

[Dark Virtue]

Truly? When you were striving to serve Him, you don't think there was an original wooing from Him?

No, I do not. I WANTED there to be, and I fooled myself into believing there was.

I knew. I don't know how, perhaps my feeling that He was lonely when He created the earth appealed to the times I felt lonely. I am not sure. It humbles me to think how He brought me, from the pondering and inquisitiveness of a little child.

So you have no idea? Maybe you WANTED to believe it so much that, in your mind, you made it so.

But DV, I am a child of the eternal, immortal, invisible, only wise God! It is an eternal circle of knowledge and wisdom gained by belief on the LORD Jesus Christ!...
Take that! In addition, consider it my Christmas wish list

I think you know that circular reasoning is not the same as a circle of "knowledge".

[quoteWill you please explain faith and Faith one more time? I missed it somehow. I suspect that I may not agree for faith, is faith, is Faith, is Faith!

*gasp* I resent that!

Sometimes, the truth hurts

Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof. I'm sure you're familiar with the biblical definition.

faith: complete trust

Having faith my car will start in the morning is not the same thing as having Faith in the existence of God.

Three guesses! The answer has three letters! Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

Uh...what does this have to do with what I was saying.

Considering what it took Jesus to go through, leaving His Heavenly throne, coming to earth, being stuck here for 33 years...then the torture that left Him beaten beyond recognition of man or animal...yea, it is reasonable to believe. The life of Jesus ringing out since time began, that should tell you something of its truthfulness.

I love this line of thinking. You're talking about GOD here, what's 33 years on earth to a god? It's an infinitesimal slice of time. It's not much of a "sacrifice" if you know you're going to be resurrected as the son of God in three days now is it?

Yes, I think wanting and needing may lead one to believe in God. Does it cause one to invent Him out of thin air? Nope! We have the amazing Word of God that points us in the right direction.

And that's where the intellectual dishonesty comes in.

They are old poots?
Fair enough, I am not being entirely fair, I am thinking of many Christian women to be specific, when I stated that. Yet surely you have known a bitter old person, they are tough to be around, they don't have a kind word to say about anyone or anything.

I think you are beginning to uncover the problem. You are NOT being entirely fair, nor are you being objective.

I will not say that they all are perfect, but I have the joy and privilege of knowing many that have an inner...Holy Spirit full grown, I don't know how else to describe it! The group of ladies I am thinking of are dolls, literal dolls, beautiful in so many ways. They shine the Love of God through and through, they have inner peace, they act as Jesus did.

You've missed the point.

I can say the same thing about eldery people of ANY faith, or lack thereof. There's nothing inherantly "special" about elderly Christians as you claimed.

 

[Master~Plan]

Obviously, you've never met any Catholics

Thats why I'm worried about catholics. A lot of what they do scares me. I guess God will sort them out.

 

[MeridianFlight]

Normally I'd break this down line by line, but you have a theme that runs through the post. Labels aside, my decision not to follow God has nothing to do with faith. Personally, I see Faith as a copout. I refuse to be intellectually dishonest with myself and believe in something that I have no proof of or reason to believe in.

Here's the issue though. No one can be absolutely certain of which, if any, beliefs are proper. You have your probabilities and improbabilities, but you can't have absolute certainty. If you can't have absolute certainty, then any position you take up will be "intellectually dishonest" to some extent. You can choose Christianity, but this requires considerable faith. You can choose atheism, but this also requires considerable faith.

Essentially, every position comes with some "intellectual dishonesty" because you can't verify your position beyond resonable doubt. So, in essence, you can't take "intellectual hill", because no one really knows where it is. You can stand on one hill and yell to those on the other hills that you're on intellectually secure ground, but you can't be certain, and neither can those on the other hills who make the same claim.

You've created a strawman argument by claiming there are only two choices: believe or disbelieve. Sorry, but the decision isn't that cut and dry. There ARE other positions. Where you see black and white, I see varying shades of gray. You are also confusing agnosticism with atheism.

Yarg, I had to dig out my notes on argumentative fallacies. A strawman argument is when someone assails a view that is similar to but not the same as view held by their opponent. I suppose the different versions of atheism ("strong" and "weak") that you've talking about would be an example.

You've accused me of claiming there are only two choices, which is a fallacy referred to as false dilemma. False dilemma, of course, presents an either-or situation, with no alternatives.

I don't believe this is a false dilemma, but an actual dilemma. In the instance of black and white, there is no grey when it comes to ideology. If you try and combine Christianity with atheism for example, you reject the key principals of both, and you're not an adherent of either. Even agnostics, those who aren't sure, take a position of "temporary" disbelief with everything. Indifference is a position as well. It really is as simple as believe or disbelieve.

Let's take a look of something you said, "I don't believe anyone makes the decision entirely on faith though. At certain points they see their faith justified, and they believe evidence they perceive to support their position."

I think this argument is a bit convoluted. You say that the decision is based on things other than faith, but then you say that faith is justified and evidenced perceived. You've created a circular argument. What, exactly, helps make the decision in addition to faith? If faith is justified, if evidence is given, is faith still FAITH? Is it even needed anymore?

I didn't say the decision was based on things other than faith, but I did say that faith can be justified, which is one way faith grows.

Let me say, once again, that I do not believe in God because I have no evidence, no logical reasoning, no proof, to believe God exists.

You also have no evidence, logical reasoning, or proof to disprove the existence of God. You can claim to have taken the most logical path, but you can't prove it.

What YOU want me to do is to get into a position where I WANT to believe. That, my friend, is intellectually dishonest.

So is claiming to be intellectually honest when you can't prove that you are. You're playing with probabilities. You can certainly argue that taking the most probable route is the logical choice, but it's only probable, not necessarily actual truth. If any position cannot be disproven (such as Chrsitianity), then that lends creedence to its probability. Yes, there are many elements of Christianity, including the existence of God, that cannot be proven or disproven. However, I'm talking about the elements of Christianity that occurred here, on earth, particularly the things found in Scripture. There is no place in Scripture someone can point to and say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the event did not take place, or did not occur in as is recorded in that account. You can claim improbability, but so far, no one has turned that into impossibility. Unless it becomes impossibility, you must remain open to the possibility that it happened, which means you can't be entirely intellectually honest when taking up an opposing stance. Intellectual dishonesty is at every position, because no one can accurately identify the proper position that elimantes all shreds of skepticism.

And again, I can't believe you are offering up Pascal's Wager. Do you REALLY think God wants followers that are only there to save their butts?

Rev 3:15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

Isn't that pretty self explanatory?

Under the principals of Sola Fide, Pascal's Wager works. Who is to argue what lukewarm is? So, assuming you perceive Sola Fide as the proper interpretation of Scripture, you have nothing to loose. Again, that's if you subscribe to Sola Fide. You'll be saved, you just might not be the most popular human when you reach heaven.

Rev 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

I have heard no voice, I have heard no knock. Do you answer your door randomly throughout the day, just in case someone may be there? Of course not, you wait for the knock. No one is knocking on my door.

What if you're opening the wrong the door (looking in the wrong place)?

 

[Dark Virtue]

Here's the issue though. No one can be absolutely certain of which, if any, beliefs are proper. You have your probabilities and improbabilities, but you can't have absolute certainty. If you can't have absolute certainty, then any position you take up will be "intellectually dishonest" to some extent. You can choose Christianity, but this requires considerable faith. You can choose atheism, but this also requires considerable faith.

Would you mind explaining why you believe atheism requires faith? I don't believe it does, at all.

Essentially, every position comes with some "intellectual dishonesty" because you can't verify your position beyond resonable doubt. So, in essence, you can't take "intellectual hill", because no one really knows where it is. You can stand on one hill and yell to those on the other hills that you're on intellectually secure ground, but you can't be certain, and neither can those on the other hills who make the same claim.

I'm not sure you understand what intellectual honesty is, or how I'm using it in this situation.

If you base your decision based on facts, evidence and reason and your decision is incorrect, you can still claim intellectual honesty, since your decision was based on available information. Making decisions without evidence, reason and/or facts is NOT intellectually honest.

Science stands on that hill and does exactly what you said. Is science certain? As certain as you can be with the evidence at hand. Prior to 1930 we believed there were only 8 planets in our solar system. Was that belief wrong? Yes, due to a lack of evidence for Pluto. It was, however, intellectually honest.

Yarg, I had to dig out my notes on argumentative fallacies. A strawman argument is when someone assails a view that is similar to but not the same as view held by their opponent. I suppose the different versions of atheism ("strong" and "weak") that you've talking about would be an example.

That's not quite accurate. This may help:

"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.
From: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

You've accused me of claiming there are only two choices, which is a fallacy referred to as false dilemma. False dilemma, of course, presents an either-or situation, with no alternatives.

Actually that's not true.

A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.

Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy.

As you can see, YOU are the one creating a false dilemma, not me.

I don't believe this is a false dilemma, but an actual dilemma. In the instance of black and white, there is no grey when it comes to ideology. If you try and combine Christianity with atheism for example, you reject the key principals of both, and you're not an adherent of either. Even agnostics, those who aren't sure, take a position of "temporary" disbelief with everything. Indifference is a position as well. It really is as simple as believe or disbelieve.

Again, you are the one that has created the logical fallacy here by creating a false dilemma.

I didn't say the decision was based on things other than faith, but I did say that faith can be justified, which is one way faith grows.

How does one justify faith? If faith has justification, can it still be called faith?

You also have no evidence, logical reasoning, or proof to disprove the existence of God. You can claim to have taken the most logical path, but you can't prove it.

Once again, you are accusing me of something that I do not subscribe to. I have never claimed to disprove the existence of God. I'm not sure why you keep accusing me of this.

If I claimed that God doesn't exist, the burden of proof would be on me to show that he does not. Since I am not claiming that, I do not need to prove God's nonexistence. Christians, however, claim that God DOES exist, yet are unable to prove that he does.

So is claiming to be intellectually honest when you can't prove that you are. You're playing with probabilities. You can certainly argue that taking the most probable route is the logical choice, but it's only probable, not necessarily actual truth. If any position cannot be disproven (such as Chrsitianity), then that lends creedence to its probability. Yes, there are many elements of Christianity, including the existence of God, that cannot be proven or disproven. However, I'm talking about the elements of Christianity that occurred here, on earth, particularly the things found in Scripture. There is no place in Scripture someone can point to and say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the event did not take place, or did not occur in as is recorded in that account.

Exactly what scriptures can you point to and say beyond a shadow of a doubt that some noteable event took place?

You can claim improbability, but so far, no one has turned that into impossibility. Unless it becomes impossibility, you must remain open to the possibility that it happened, which means you can't be entirely intellectually honest when taking up an opposing stance. Intellectual dishonesty is at every position, because no one can accurately identify the proper position that elimantes all shreds of skepticism.

As I have stated many, many times, I am open to the possibility that God exists. I simply have no evidence to believe that he does.

Are YOU, however, willing to be open to the possibility that God does NOT exist?

Under the principals of Sola Fide, Pascal's Wager works. Who is to argue what lukewarm is? So, assuming you perceive Sola Fide as the proper interpretation of Scripture, you have nothing to loose. Again, that's if you subscribe to Sola Fide. You'll be saved, you just might not be the most popular human when you reach heaven.

Hedging bets isn't exactly my definition of intellectual honesty.

This quote about Bertrand Russell sums my position up nicely:

In conclusion, there is a marvelous anecdote from the occasion of Russell's ninetieth birthday that best serves to summarize his attitude toward God and religion. A London lady sat next to him at this party, and over the soup she suggested to him that he was not only the world's most famous atheist but, by this time, very probably the world's oldest atheist. "What will you do, Bertie, if it turns out you're wrong?" she asked. "I mean, what if -- uh -- when the time comes, you should meet Him? What will you say?" Russell was delighted with the question. His bright, birdlike eyes grew even brighter as he contemplated this possible future dialogue, and then he pointed a finger upward and cried, "Why, I should say, 'God, you gave us insufficient evidence.'"

What if you're opening the wrong the door (looking in the wrong place)?

Please examine the verse I posted:
Rev 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

Who is doing the knocking?

 

[Genesis1315]

locked

starting down a path towards a hostile path