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

[Unveiled Artist]

that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief;proof.

The grounds of belief in christianity is the bible and believer's experiences.

evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief inits truth.

Given their proof is the bible and experiences, these form the basis of what they feel is true or not true.

These two definitions can be applied to anything, really.

Piggy backing on @Muslim-UK 's quote

I mentioned it because GOD tells us about the afterlife, it forms part of our 'beliefs'. I can't prove GOD exists, but I have good reasons for accepting He does indeed exist, and as such accept everything He has revealed to mankind.

His good reasons, Silver, is not harmful and is not an illness (no psychologist needed). By what reason would you want to prove Muslim-UK wrong and how would it benefit him to know what you know rather than accepting his reasons as proof and evidence and let it be?

If this does not make sense, ask for clarification.

 

[Mister Silver]

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.

And there are historians, theologians, as well as archaeologists who disagree with your "so-called" evidence. I personally know of a secular history expert on an atheist forum who debunks theistic claims on a regular basis with facts.

I digress, however.

This is not me denying your evidence, for from my perspective it is not evidence whatsoever. I have only seen two of your posts; none of which contains any evidence. I see reference to scripture, which is debunked via the circular reasoning fallacy.

My personal experience of theistic "evidence" tends to never be anything of the sort; for if there was real evidence then everyone would believe in god without question; there would be no need for skepticism of god's existence. No evidence equates to faith; provide the evidence, faith becomes irrelevant.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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

They were more honest than most. They knew it was profitable.

 

[Muslim-UK]

It is said by religious folk that god (the Abrahamic version at least) is capable of anything and everything

So the simple solution that would end atheism (and faith) in a second is for god to appear and say "hi".

He appeared to the whole assembly of Israel and spoke directly to them, yet they still turned their backs over time, so that wouldn't work. Furthermore, if He appeared to everyone today, people would think it a trick of Holly Wood and special effects. Scientists would proclaim mass hallucination took place, so again not much would change.

 

[ChristineM]

He appeared to the whole assembly of Israel and spoke directly to them, yet they still turned their backs over time, so that wouldn't work. Furthermore, if He appeared to everyone today, people would think it a trick of Holly Wood and special effects. Scientists would proclaim mass hallucination took place, so again not much would change.

He did? I don't consider single source a bronze age book to be valid evidence.

I think people are quite aware of cinematic tricks, despite great advances in 3D and CGI, the uncanny valley still exists to a degree.

And scientists would examine the evidence before making any statement.

 

[robocop (actually)]

They were more honest than most. They knew it was profitable.

I think that they had clear goals to help the human race long after their passing.

 

[Repox]

Scientific evidence is the most valid; it is called the “scientific method.” Hypotheses are tested with empirical facts or experimental evidence followed by statistical assessment for levels of reliability, (.05 in social science, .01 for natural and biological sciences). Mostly in science, replication studies do retesting of hypotheses for reliability. As it turns out, in comparison to social science research, high levels of reliability are most often found in the natural sciences. Apparently, it is because humans are more unpredictable than physical or biological entities.

As for religious beliefs, there is no way to test their validity. Not even proclamations from those who have had revelations can be considered valid. I include myself in that category. I have had revelations, but I can prove nothing.

 

[Ponder This]

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.

Faith is not diminished if justified. If evidence exists for a god, then it merely means faith is justified. It doesn't mean faith is irrelevant.

Faith is "complete trust or confidence in someone or something".
If evidence exists, then it makes faith easier.
Moreover, the presence of evidence does not mean that belief by spiritual apprehension can't occur.

If you want to argue that faith is "irrelevant" (i.e. not connected with or relevant to something), then you need to say what faith is actually irrelevant to. Is faith relevant to belief in a god? Yes, because people don't require evidence to have trust in someone or something.

Is faith necessary (i.e. required)? Well, if there is abundant evidence, then faith may follow automatically. But spiritual apprehension is not required if other evidence suffices. Even if evidence is abundant, it needs to be shown that it suffices.

 

[Mister Silver]

Faith is "complete trust or confidence in someone or something".

I personally view that as more of a secular definition of faith. The religious definition of faith is the second description: belief that is not based on proof

If evidence exists, then it makes faith easier.

If. So far there is no evidence.

 

[Mister Silver]

Faith is not diminished if justified. If evidence exists for a god, then it merely means faith is justified. It doesn't mean faith is irrelevant.

There is currently no empirical evidence for the existence of god; therefore, religious people rely upon personal religious faith (belief that is not based on proof) to claim that god exists. If empirical evidence for god's existence was to ever present itself, it would undoubtedly make religious faith irrelevant.

 

[Grandliseur]

ref: post 142

for if there was real evidence then everyone would believe in god without question; there would be no need for skepticism of god's existence.

I wouldn't expect anything else. If the world began to agree with the Bible it would not be ruled by satan, which you don't believe.

And there are historians, theologians, as well as archaeologists who disagree with your "so-called" evidence.

So, saying it in another way: this world can never begin to agree with the Bible no matter the evidence at hand; there are too many personal, local, national, global interest in the way for anyone to believe anything that would publicly claim the Bible right. Even the global evolutionary movement is dead set against this. It seems that on more than one occasion archaeological finds that speak against evolutionary claims have been destroyed.

You might not think it so, but it is a war fought tooth and nails against the Bible, and before when the Catholic church was in power, it was no different - thousands of people were killed because of studying the Bible, the translators were mercilessly pursued, killed, even dug out of the grave and desecrated.

for if there was real evidence then everyone would believe in god without question; there would be no need for skepticism of god's existence.

You are mistaken, but this is to be expected.

 

[sayak83]

There is currently no empirical evidence for the existence of god; therefore, religious people rely upon personal religious faith (belief that is not based on proof) to claim that god exists. If empirical evidence for god's existence was to ever present itself, it would undoubtedly make religious faith irrelevant.

If one has personal experience of God, why would she need faith to believe? The experience itself is proof to her that God exists.

If one does not have an experience that convinces, then he need not believe.

It's that simple.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

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.

There is no rational basis for a belief in God, and so, yes, belief in God, while not irrational per se, is irrelevant for us. As this is, if God exists, by divine design--so that we have no knowledge of It's existence, so that our free will is not undermined.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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.

You could even get a computer or something to take a look at it. If the computer also agrees it's a rock and not a kitten, it's a rock.

That's good to know we can fix things. It's about time we used our freewill to preserve and protect the Planet, rather than letting future generations have to deal with it.

<3

Every human wants to know the meaning of life, why we're here, and no other animal seeks to drill down into the Earth or build rocket ships to explore the Heavens.

To be fair, though, humans haven't been all that interested in what animals think unless using myths. We couldn't even admit some used tools until relatively recently in our quest for knowledge. For another thing, nonhumans might find our pursuits "stupid". We assume what we like is what is normal for all beings. If you asked Balaam's donkey about God, I would imagine it would discuss how Grass gives it life. It's not going to go on and on about some anthropocentric stuff like farming when it doesn't care.

Logically from a Darwinian naturalistic worldview, Atheists can not say there is a right and wrong, as everything is purely subjective.

Logically from the Abrahamic worldview, there cannot be any right or wrong, as it is whatever God's whim says it is at the time.

Dogs behave on instinct and yours likely know it's wrong to steal because you've taught them so.

Humans learn what is approved in society as well. There is really no difference.

Also, you need to make up your mind whether my dogs act on instinct, which I can't control, or my moral lessons, which I can.

From your CNN link:

A new genomic study has revealed that Aboriginal Australians are the oldest known civilization on Earth, with ancestries stretching back roughly 75,000 years.

The findings indicated their ancestors had diverged from Eurasians 57,000 years ago, following a single exodus from Africa around 75,000 years ago.

How are the Australians the first civilization when the article says they also came from Africa, where people already were?

Just seems like a poorly worded article, to me.

 

[Muslim-UK]

And who/what's responsible for bringing that Creator into existence?

That question leads to infinite regression, who created god's god, and who created that god. The problem here becomes, nothing ever comes into being. You must have a uncaused first cause, a uncreated first all powerful entity/energy/God etc

Now here you're just wrong. Life did evolve into complex forms during that time period -- more than once. There is simply no need to posit a magical, intentional "creator" when we have a pretty good understanding of the natural processes involved. In my mind, magic poofing is considerably more dubious than the natural processes i see around me every day.

Sorry but the Cambrian explosions proves many different species appeared in a relatively short period of time. The data flies in the face of small genetic mutations taking place over Millions of Millions of years and shows no signs of the expected Millions and Millions of intermediary mutations that are missing from the chain. It's very much like these animals were 'poofed' into existence.

What predictions did Allah make?
It's remarkable how, with 20-20 hindsight, so many different traditions find so many prophetic justifications for their particular God or scripture.

Many predictions were made, but amongst the ones looking into the long term future would be:

Islam would spread around the World.
Islam would become the dominant Religion.
Christians would follow a confused theology and fight amongst themselves until Judgement Day.
Poor barefooted Bedouins would compete with each other to build the tallest buildings.
People wouldn't leave their homes to visit the market places, yet they would still be able to shop.
The Muslims, though numerous like the stars in Heaven would be picked off and subdued by non Muslims.

 

[savagewind]

ref: post 142

I wouldn't expect anything else. If the world began to agree with the Bible it would not be ruled by satan, which you don't believe.

Do you really believe it is that simple? I can see that because people do agree with everything that they trust the Bible teaches the world is being ruled by satan.

People would have to agree with the way, the truth, and the life, and follow such as it really is for the world to be free of satan.

I think all people need not do it. Just the right people have to do it.

 

[Grandliseur]

Ref post #156

Do you really believe it is that simple? I can see that because people do agree with everything that they trust the Bible teaches the world is being ruled by satan.

People would have to agree with the way, the truth, and the life, and follow such as it really is for the world to be free of satan.

I think all people need not do it. Just the right people have to do it.

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. But, I will answer as if I do.
Why do you think that most of the evidence is scant and even hidden so that one constantly is reminded of "you'll find God if you search for him."

(Acts 17:27 27 for them to seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us.)​

Clearly, satan has been permitted make it a little difficult for the individual to find God while making it impossible for the world inclined to disobey to find him at all.

If I missed the mark with my answer, let me know how to do better.

 

[savagewind]

Ref post #156

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. But, I will answer as if I do.
Why do you think that most of the evidence is scant and even hidden so that one constantly is reminded of "you'll find God if you search for him."

(Acts 17:27 27 for them to seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us.)​

Clearly, satan has been permitted make it a little difficult for the individual to find God while making it impossible for the world inclined to disobey to find him at all.

If I missed the mark with my answer, let me know how to do better.

Perhaps God will be found only by the people who will be with them in heaven.
The rest of us are for naught if we disrespect God's arrangement.
There is plenty of evidence and easily found if a person will put off his or her ego.
And, it is my opinion that satan is making it very difficult for a person to discover belief in God.
So, finding God and finding a healthy belief in god are not the same, imo.

 

[ChristineM]

That question leads to infinite regression, who created god's god, and who created that god. The problem here becomes, nothing ever comes into being. You must have a uncaused first cause, a uncreated first all powerful entity/energy/God etc



Sorry but the Cambrian explosions proves many different species appeared in a relatively short period of time. The data flies in the face of small genetic mutations taking place over Millions of Millions of years and shows no signs of the expected Millions and Millions of intermediary mutations that are missing from the chain. It's very much like these animals were 'poofed' into existence.

Many predictions were made, but amongst the ones looking into the long term future would be:

Islam would spread around the World.
Islam would become the dominant Religion.
Christians would follow a confused theology and fight amongst themselves until Judgement Day.
Poor barefooted Bedouins would compete with each other to build the tallest buildings.
People wouldn't leave their homes to visit the market places, yet they would still be able to shop.
The Muslims, though numerous like the stars in Heaven would be picked off and subdued by non Muslims.

You are assuming the laws of thermodynamics have existed for infinite time. Not so, the laws of thermodynamics (including the second law which encompasses causality) did not begin to coalesce until 10e-34 of a second after the big bang.

The Cambrian explosion lasted 541 million years. That is more than 8 times longer than the time the dinosaurs went extinct. That is one very slow poof.

 

[Grandliseur]

Ref post: 158

Perhaps God will be found only by the people who will be with them in heaven.
The rest of us are for naught if we disrespect God's arrangement.
There is plenty of evidence and easily found if a person will put off his or her ego.
And, it is my opinion that satan is making it very difficult for a person to discover belief in God.
So, finding God and finding a healthy belief in god are not the same, imo.

Very few will be in heaven; most will be in the kingdom on earth, Paradise.

There is plenty of evidence and easily found if a person will put off his or her ego.

That I totally agree with. The ones who see the evidence and turn their noses up at it, simply have problems that prevent them from accepting the material. The teachings of pseudo scientists remind me of this:

Isaiah 5:18 18 Woe to those drawing error with ropes of untruth, and as with wagon cords sin;
​