On Faith, Doubt, Certainty, and Uncertainty {poll added}

[Shad]

Verifying someone's existence and trusting them are two very different (unrelated) things. We can verify Clinton's existence but trusting her? Secondly, my inability to show someone else verifiable evidence of something I know to be true doesn't make it any real the people or systems.

The point is I can verify that which I place trust in. You can verify they exist. None of us can verify which holy book is right, which religion is right. Thus people place faith in which they can not verify at all. Hence faith is not trust.

 

[Thanda]

The point is I can verify that which I place trust in. You can verify they exist. None of us can verify which holy book is right, which religion is right. Thus people place faith in which they can not verify at all. Hence faith is not trust.

And some can verify God exists - but not to others, just to themselves - and that is sufficient.

 

[Shad]

And some can verify God exists - but not to others, just to themselves - and that is sufficient.

They can not demonstrate it to those that do not already subscript to the belief while anyone can demonstrate the existence of people regardless of belief system. Subjective verification is worthless.

 

[Thanda]

They can not demonstrate it to those that do not already subscript to the belief while anyone can demonstrate the existence of people regardless of belief system. Subjective verification is worthless.

That is irrelevant. Should I cease to trust in what I know because I cannot verify to you? Is trust not a deeply personal thing that one should extend as and when they feel it is appropriate. Why am I required to first verify it to you before I can trust it?

 

[McBell]

Faith is to follow something, or accepting it, without evidence. Trust is evidence based.

who follows something, anything without evidence?
Perhaps you can present an example?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Oh, you mean the assumption that the assumption has no supports?
It may be based on inexplicable observations, witness testimony, inference, or other stuff, or any other combination thereof, which may in and of themselves may be logically true, but may be disproven with more evidence.

Rhetoric.

Try again please.

 

[crossfire]

Rhetoric.

Try again please.

Would you prefer the word hypothesis, instead? It is a proposed explanation based on limited yet disprovable data that could serve as a starting point for further investigation.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

It's illogical to extend to assumption of good faith to another party in a business transaction?

Well, in nursing, we're always taught to CYA.

 

[Shad]

who follows something, anything without evidence?
Perhaps you can present an example?

Religion.

 

[Shad]

That is irrelevant. Should I cease to trust in what I know because I cannot verify to you? Is trust not a deeply personal thing that one should extend as and when they feel it is appropriate. Why am I required to first verify it to you before I can trust it?

You missed the point. The thing which you trust in, the person, exists. You can introduce me to this person or I can end up meeting this person before you point out that the person in question is one you trust. You can not point me to God and say "There is the God I trust"

 

[McBell]

Religion.

Bull ****.
look at any thread asking for evidence of god or religion and they will present with all manner of evidence.

 

[paarsurrey]

Religion.

It is the Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism who accept without evidence. Their world-view is neither evidenced/supported by religion nor by science, it is all fanciful if not whimsical.
Regards

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

And some can verify God exists - but not to others, just to themselves - and that is sufficient.

If they're trying to convince themselves, absolutely. When they're trying to convince others, it's quite insufficient.

 

[crossfire]

It is the Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism who accept without evidence. Their world-view is neither evidenced/supported by religion nor by science, it is all fanciful if not whimsical.
Regards

Excuse me? I regard myself as a skeptic, and I have already stated in this thread that I love both Faith and Doubt.

I go after Truth, not Victory. In light of this above quoted assertion, can you honestly say the same about yourself?

 

[Shad]

It is the Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism who accept without evidence. Their world-view is neither evidenced/supported by religion nor by science, it is all fanciful if not whimsical.
Regards

Nope as my worldview is grounded in what we do know rather than a belief that has grounding in superstition

 

[viole]

It is the Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism who accept without evidence. Their world-view is neither evidenced/supported by religion nor by science, it is all fanciful if not whimsical.
Regards

Why are you guys so focused on atheists, a small minority, when the majority of believers in God do not buy your own version of God for a second?

This is valid, of course, for any God you might believe in.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shad]

Bull ****.
look at any thread asking for evidence of god or religion and they will present with all manner of evidence.

They do not present evidence of God. They present evidence they believe is from/about God. Hence there is a difference and their evidence is subjective hinging on a presupposition belief. What we do have are texts written by people making claims. Just as if I claim I won the lottery. My claim is not evidence, it is a statement.

 

[McBell]

It is the Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism who accept without evidence. Their world-view is neither evidenced/supported by religion nor by science, it is all fanciful if not whimsical.
Regards

this just does not make any sense without playing games with definitions

 

[McBell]

They do not present evidence of God. They present evidence they believe is from/about God. Hence there is a difference and their evidence is subjective hinging on a presupposition belief. What we do have are texts written by people making claims. Just as if I claim I won the lottery. My claim is not evidence, it is a statement.

They do present evidence for god.
Your not accepting their evidence does not make it not evidence.

 

[Shad]

They do present evidence for god.

No they do not. They infer that X is evidence based on faith foremost, nothing more than this.

Your not accepting their evidence does not make it not evidence.

I challenge their identification of evidence.

Besides by your argument the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, etc are all evidence of God rather than claims about God.