If evidence for god is in abundance, why is faith necessary?

[Mister Silver]

I take it that's why you've chosen not to respond to my earlier question asking you to clarify some things?

That aside, your approach here is... odd to me. And it makes me wonder why you are here and why you created this thread.

To clarify, sometimes when reading a response my mind perceives something akin to "that is a banana" while the person is pointing at an apple; it's better for me to ignore that kind of ill logic than to respond to it.

 

[Quintessence]

To clarify, sometimes when reading a response my mind perceives something akin to "that is a banana" while the person is pointing at an apple; it's better for me to ignore that kind of ill logic than to respond to it.

Fair enough. The post read as kinda condescending to me, so I wasn't sure how to take it.

Regardless, I am still curious how this follows:

• Faith is needed* in "the religious community" (a term I'd still like clarification on, because I don't know which religious communities you are talking about)
• Therefore, there is zero evidence** of god(s).

*as has already been pointed out, many religions are not faith-based, but we'll overlook this for the moment as this quibble isn't really the point I'm having trouble following
**it seems you are operating by a particularly narrow definition of evidence, which, while problematic, we'll grant it for the moment​

It's possible I missed some additional articulation of this argument, as the thread has gotten kinda long and I will admit to skimming. Enoch made a really good post earlier articulating how this doesn't necessarsily logically follow for one-god worshipers which you also didn't seem to notice:

Evidence or proof that God exist would not make faith useless. Someone knowing God exist does not mean that they will love or trust in God. That is what faith is after all. Trust in and love of God, knowing that in the end He will make good on His promise to us. There is a difference between knowing of His existence, and loving Him.

I guess on the whole the argument rests on a lot of assumptions that seem kinda shaky, so I'm curious if you could clarify it a bit. You don't have to, just curious.

 

[Mister Silver]

• Faith is needed* in "the religious community" (a term I'd still like clarification on, because I don't know which religious communities you are talking about)
• Therefore, there is zero evidence** of god(s).

*as has already been pointed out, many religions are not faith-based, but we'll overlook this for the moment as this quibble isn't really the point I'm having trouble following
**it seems you are operating by a particularly narrow definition of evidence, which, while problematic, we'll grant it for the moment
​

From my experience of dealing with theists online and in real life, they have always proclaimed faith as their main reason for believing as they do in relation to religion, theism, god(s). Religious faith, not to be confused with secular faith, according to its dictionary definition, is a belief that is not based on proof.
the definition of faith



​

It's possible I missed some additional articulation of this argument, as the thread has gotten kinda long and I will admit to skimming. Enoch made a really good post earlier articulating how this doesn't necessarsily logically follow for one-god worshipers which you also didn't seem to notice:

I did not respond to Enoch because from my perspective there was nothing logical about what he posted. I did give him an "informative" rating, as I did many people to whom I did not respond.

Evidence or proof that God exist would not make faith useless. Someone knowing God exist does not mean that they will love or trust in God. That is what faith is after all. Trust in and love of God, knowing that in the end He will make good on His promise to us. There is a difference between knowing of His existence, and loving Him.

Going by the definition of faith, a belief not based on proof, veritable evidence of god's existence would make faith useless because there would no longer be a need for it. I can understand loving and trusting something or someone, but that has nothing to do with religious faith. It's as though secular faith is being irrationally intermingled with god belief to make an unreasonable theistic apologetic argument in favor of maintaining that religious faith would still be necessary when that would not be the case whatsoever.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

That's not nice. Not to mention the fact that it's an illogical thing for a non-theist to say. Which religions do you personally believe were not created by men?

None.
That’s the problem with religion.

 

[Katzpur]

None.
That’s the problem with religion.

Then why should any of them be singled out?

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Then why should any of them be singled out?

I wouldn’t single out any.
Your point is valid.
Whoever made that post was obviously in a mood.

 

[Mister Silver]

Then why should any of them be singled out?

I didn't do any singling out. The person I quoted specifically mentioned those religions in his post.

 

[Repox]

God in our world was evidence, but humans didn't believe it. Thus, we have son of God narratives, mixed up theology, and about 38,000 different Christian religions.

 

[savagewind]

I asked this question on the atheist forum of which I am a member; yes, we get theists who join the forum for debate all the time, we even have some years-long theistic members who still post there.

Anywho, onto the actual subject in relation to the title of the thread, verbatim:

By any logical standard if there was any evidence for the existence of god, that would make faith irrelevant.

That faith is needed in the religious community reasonably means that zero evidence is in existence to prove god is real.

It isn't zero evidence. It is different evidence for each person and life itself is evidence enough for some people.

 

[Katzpur]

By any logical standard if there was any evidence for the existence of god, that would make faith irrelevant.

Evidence and proof are not the same thing.

 

[Mister Silver]

Evidence and proof are not the same thing.

Yes, they are.

evidence

[ev-i-duh ns]
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief;proof.

proof

[proof]
noun
1.
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief inits truth.

They're also synonyms; it's in the thesaurus.

 

[savagewind]

I think that evidence must be experienced and proof is something that can be shared.
Evidence can't be shared without prejudice. Proof is undeniable. imo

 

[robocop (actually)]

Scientology and Mormonism, two religions clearly created by men. One in the early 1800s by a con man and the other recently by a science "fiction" writer.

Why would a con man go through the effort? Why would a science "fiction" writer write such profound little books?

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Many people have been executed because of evidence.
But then proof proved they were innocent.

 

[sayak83]

The empirical studies, as I have already mentioned, would prove that the two or more people view the rock as being the same. You seem to be going off on an illogical tangent merely to make your point seem more valid than it has any reason to be.

The fact that we have names, labels, for everything in existence that people across the globe can agree on simultaneously as being those things which the words describe proves that what we empirically perceive counts as evidential knowledge of that which realistically resides in existence.

Anything, and that is a problem in itself, can be easily argued, but without empirical evidence to back the claim it remains just that; an unproven claim based on an imaginative concept.

What you are failing to show is that only publicly available aspects of sensory experience count as knowledge generating. You personally can follow this principle, but you are hardly going to convince anybody else of this by only repeatedly stating all other experiences as "imaginary" by fiat.

 

[Grandliseur]

(ref: Post #1)

I asked this question on the atheist forum of which I am a member; yes, we get theists who join the forum for debate all the time, we even have some years-long theistic members who still post there.

Anywho, onto the actual subject in relation to the title of the thread, verbatim:

By any logical standard if there was any evidence for the existence of god, that would make faith irrelevant.

That faith is needed in the religious community reasonably means that zero evidence is in existence to prove god is real.

Good question!

Well, just because you know that another galaxy exist, does that mean that you expect it to bring you your breakfast and morning coffee! I hope not.

If you have some Biblical knowledge, you might remember Daniel's three friends when they were about to be put in the burning furnace?!

Daniel 3:17-18 17 If it is to be, our God whom we are serving is able to rescue us. Out of the burning fiery furnace and out of your hand, O king, he will rescue [us]. 18 But if not, let it become known to you, O king, that your gods are not the ones we are serving, and the image of gold that you have set up we will not worship.”​

This is the crux of faith. God exists, but he does what he wants to do, not what we want him to do for us, or to us.

I believe that agnostics at times believe that God exists but that they have trouble believing him interested in the microbes calling themselves human when viewed in the context of the universe at large.
God himself has defined himself as a 'God of faith.'

Isaiah 65:16 so that anyone blessing himself in the earth will bless himself by the God of faith, and anyone making a sworn statement in the earth will swear by the God of faith;. . .​

What this means is that God demands that people exercise faith in him. This means that there shall be troubles in our lives that need endurance and prayer so that He can see we have faith in his assistance and rescue. At some point, he will then save us from death, or save us in death -- for death is no obstacle to him since he can resurrect his servants.

That faith is needed in the religious community reasonably means that zero evidence is in existence to prove god is real.

This is not true. If you looked at the incident with the furnace, you saw that God did prevent their deaths. An angel was even seen walking with them in the fires, and they came out with not even the smell of fire or smoke on their clothes.

We have plenty of evidence, but our generational lives are so short that the next few generations don't believe the witness of their ancestors. That is our problem, and a lack of faith when evidence can be seen backing it up.

​

 

[Mister Silver]

We have plenty of evidence, but our generational lives are so short that the next few generations don't believe the witness of their ancestors. That is our problem, and a lack of faith when evidence can be seen backing it up.

That seems more like an excuse than an actual fact. We have accurate historical records of plenty of people who lived generations before our times and we believe that they existed. The difference is that the bible is not a history book; it is not historically accurate. Thus the continuing debate even among theologians.

As for lack of religious faith, of course there's no evidence. The very definition of faith in a religious context means the absence of evidence.

 

[Grandliseur]

Post #137 ref.

bible is not a history book; it is not historically accurate

I have provided, more than once, here evidence e.g. for the Exodus events having remains we still may look at and take pictures of. Thus your statement here only reflects your own disposition toward the Bible and its events. This is part of the 'faith' thing and is personal and different from person to person.

Since faith is required, it is also certain that many will not respond with faith. That unfortunately is their loss. The person of faith does not suffer less than those without - the opposite is many times true. The loss comes in the promise God has made to the ones who remain people of faith and obedience.

 

[Jumi]

Many people have been executed because of evidence.
But then proof proved they were innocent.

Good point. Many seem to believe their scripture or political preference is evidence enough and everyone else is made to fit what they want.

 

[Quintessence]

From my experience of dealing with theists online and in real life, they have always proclaimed faith as their main reason for believing as they do in relation to religion, theism, god(s).

​

I take it you listen to or hang out with mostly Protestant Christians, then? This hasn't been my experience at all. Faith (in the senses typically meant in these conversations) has almost no place at all in any of the religious communities I've associated with - Unitarian Universalism, and all varieties of contemporary Paganism. Not all members of those communities identify as theists, granted, but the majority that do... well... "faith" isn't really a thing talked about as it isn't so much of a thing.

I suppose the main thing to remember is that generalizing about theists is never, ever a good idea. I see it a lot, though, and it's quite frustrating. I wish I knew what the solution to that was, but on the whole, I've come to feel that the so-called dichotomy of "theist - atheist" is a load of crap from the outset given the diversity within each of those categories.