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

[Mister Silver]

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.

 

[Muslim-UK]

GOD says look at Creation of the Universe, the fine tuning, our solar system, the perfect balance in the natural World, where everything has its role, to look at signs within us and come to know He exists 100%

Blind faith is not allowed. Once you're convinced GOD exists, then you have faith in the hereafter and a day when you will return to GOD.

 

[Mister Silver]

GOD says look at Creation of the Universe, the fine tuning, our solar system, the perfect balance in the natural World, where everything has its role, to look at signs within us and come to know He exists 100%

Blind faith is not allowed. Once you're convinced GOD exists, then you have faith in the hereafter and a day when you will return to GOD.

First, there is no evidence for god's existence; thus, why those who believe in god rely upon faith to believe in god.

How is one "convinced" that god exists? Doesn't there need to first be proof of that god's existence?

 

[PureX]

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

Because the evidence is not abundant, nor is it proof.

 

[InChrist]

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.

I don't think your assessment is accurate. I think there is enough reasonable evidence for one to know a Creator exists, yet finite humans cannot comprehend the vastness of God, therefore faith and trust is necessary. I like the answer to this question in the linked response below:

"The answer to your question is dictated by our own limitations, not because of some unreasonable demand that God makes. In order for everything to be proved and reasoned out for us, we would have to be equal to God. Obviously we are not: We are finite and God is infinite. We simply don’t have the capacity to understand everything about God and His universe. Therefore, we need to trust Him when He tells us about things that we cannot fully comprehend. That’s where faith comes in.

What we can understand of the universe and of our accountability to God from reason and our conscience is sufficient to point us in the right direction. Knowing on the basis of the evidence that God exists, we ask Him to reveal Himself to us and to show us His will for our lives. We are willing to trust Him in whatever He tells us, even though we cannot understand it all. We discover (as we shall see) that He has spoken to us in the Bible, and very clearly and comprehensively.


Faith Reveals a Universe Beyond Human Comprehension

True faith opens to us a knowledge of God and His truth that we could not otherwise discover. Such is the value of faith in God. Once we know Him and have confidence that we are indeed hearing from Him, then we understand His truth by believing what He says. As a result, we can know and understand what would otherwise be impossible for us to grasp....
Read further:
In Defense of the Faith

 

[Mister Silver]

I don't think your assessment is accurate. I think there is enough reasonable evidence for one to know a Creator exists, yet finite humans cannot comprehend the vastness of God, therefore faith and trust is necessary. I like the answer to this question in the linked response below:

"The answer to your question is dictated by our own limitations, not because of some unreasonable demand that God makes. In order for everything to be proved and reasoned out for us, we would have to be equal to God. Obviously we are not: We are finite and God is infinite. We simply don’t have the capacity to understand everything about God and His universe. Therefore, we need to trust Him when He tells us about things that we cannot fully comprehend. That’s where faith comes in.

What we can understand of the universe and of our accountability to God from reason and our conscience is sufficient to point us in the right direction. Knowing on the basis of the evidence that God exists, we ask Him to reveal Himself to us and to show us His will for our lives. We are willing to trust Him in whatever He tells us, even though we cannot understand it all. We discover (as we shall see) that He has spoken to us in the Bible, and very clearly and comprehensively.


Faith Reveals a Universe Beyond Human Comprehension

True faith opens to us a knowledge of God and His truth that we could not otherwise discover. Such is the value of faith in God. Once we know Him and have confidence that we are indeed hearing from Him, then we understand His truth by believing what He says. As a result, we can know and understand what would otherwise be impossible for us to grasp....
Read further:
In Defense of the Faith

I wish there had been real evidence in there somewhere, since you were so adamant about it existing.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

First, what criteria are you looking for and two, how do you define god that you know of personally?

I don't know Vishnu so if I asked someone to prove that Vishnu to exist, I would have no point in reference in whether "looking the universe" proves its existence or "reading the gita". I wouldn't know because I have not experienced Vishnu. It's a name and something written in a book. Hindu talk about Vishnu a lot. Very popular god and thousands of people are Vaishnavites. First I need some idea of what Vishnu is before I can figure a criteria of determining this god's existence.

Likewise with the god of abraham. How do you develop criteria for a god you may not believe exists? Unless there is an idea of what type of god you're looking for as proof-something that you believe not something someone told you.

People's words are a dime a dozen. Millions of people believe in Vishnu and the god of abraham. I'd think it goes deeper than that.

Also, I think the way you posed your OP, this sounds more appropriate for a debate forum unless?

 

[Mister Silver]

Also, I think the way you posed your OP, this sounds more appropriate for a debate forum unless?

Yeah, I posted it in the wrong area.

Is there any way a mod can move it?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yeah, I posted it in the wrong area.

Is there any way a mod can move it?

I don't know. I think you can ask in site feedback if a mod hasn't picked up on it already.

 

[Kapalika]

edit; ya move the topic to debates

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.

A problem I see is you are already approaching this from a perspective which excludes anything you don't agree with as not a "logical standard". I'm not even sure what you mean by "logical standard". Is this something we can measure or objectively define?

However I do agree with what you are trying to say though, saying that the necessity of faith would indicate that one can't believe on evidence. A valid point, but not everyone hinges their beliefs on faith.

I know personally I've been a little harsh to people who bevel a religion purely out of faith and not experiences. I almost want to say intellectual reasoning to but I find most justifications of that sort severely lacking, at least when it comes to Christianity and Islam, which to me seems to always be the two that are faith based. The ones that are not so faith based I find to usually have a better justifications.

First, there is no evidence for god's existence; thus, why those who believe in god rely upon faith to believe in god.

This is incorrect because you're assuming there is only faith and one version of "evidence". Many people have had experirences, eitehr spiritual, mystical or for some even supernatural, that would convince them, as very direct evidence, that god exists.

In any kind of supernatural, laymen sense of the word, I would agree that "God" probably doesn't exist, but I'm not willing to say that everyone who does does so solely on faith. If anything, most people believe on some degree of instinct (or so it would seem).

I also wouldn't say that those with good philosophical arguments believe so on faith, since they believe based on a compelling argument congruent with their philosophy.

In the same way you feel certain axioms are "self apparent" so they too might feel other ones are, and as an eventual conclusion of those axioms, come to the eventual conclusion that something that might be called "God" exist.

How is one "convinced" that god exists? Doesn't there need to first be proof of that god's existence?

There could be a proof as in a logical conclusion by philosophy or theology, or direct experience which one would constitute as proof.

 

[sun rise]

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.

That's a logical fallacy.The assumption behind that statement is that the evidence is wide-spread and obvious to the intellect.

There are statements such as these by Kabir that reflect an alternative perspective. This perspective is of course rejected by those who hold the intellect as supreme:

Kabir says: Student, tell me, what is God?
He is the breath inside the breath

Does Khuda live in the mosque?
Then who who lives everywhere?
Is Ram in idols and holy ground?
Have you looked and found him there?
Hari in the East, Allah in the West -
So you like to dream.
Search in the heart, in the heart alone:
There live Ram and Karim.

Or Rumi:
Cross and Christians, end to end, i examined. He was not on the Cross. I went to the Hindu Temple, to the ancient pagoda. In none of them there was any sign. To the heights of Herat I went and to Kandhar, I looked. He was not on the elevation not on the low lands.

Resolutely I went to summit of the fabulous mountain of Ka'af. There was only the dwelling of the Anqa bird. I went to Kaaba at Mecca. He was not there. I asked him from Avicenna the philosopher. He was beyond the range of Avicenna, I looked into my own heart. In that place I saw him.

He was in no other place.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

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.

The question is a very good one.
My answer from my understanding and belief is that:
I know there is a God in my life, I’ve seen him work.
I have faith he will take care of me for all eternity.
Why can’t I know AND have faith?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

GOD says look at Creation of the Universe, the fine tuning, our solar system, the perfect balance in the natural World, where everything has its role, to look at signs within us and come to know He exists 100%

Blind faith is not allowed. Once you're convinced GOD exists, then you have faith in the hereafter and a day when you will return to GOD.

A god didn't say that, some human named Paul said that . . . A guy who claims literal blindness being healed by Jesus. . . So blind faith is kind of a funny way to say it.

 

[Valjean]

GOD says look at Creation of the Universe, the fine tuning, our solar system, the perfect balance in the natural World, where everything has its role, to look at signs within us and come to know He exists 100%

There is no evidence of fine tuning. The solar system seems to be one of billions -- all a product of the blind forces of physics. The Natural world is anything but balanced. It's in constant flux and, at present, seems to be disintegrating.

Blind faith is not allowed. Once you're convinced GOD exists, then you have faith in the hereafter and a day when you will return to GOD.

And how is that faith not blind?
"Once you're convinced" seems to have skipped the whole "critical analysis of evidence" part of the process.

 

[Muslim-UK]

First, there is no evidence for god's existence; thus, why those who believe in god rely upon faith to believe in god.

His signs are everywhere as touched upon in my first post. Genuine people who accept He must exist are given signs to remove ANY doubt. However, this 100% evidence, which gives believers reassurance is highly subjective and untestable in even the most advanced laboratories. There are countless testimonies online from truth seekers, which you can view/read about and reach your own conclusion on..

How is one "convinced" that god exists? Doesn't there need to first be proof of that god's existence?

What sort of evidence do you personally require?

 

[Muslim-UK]

There is no evidence of fine tuning. The solar system seems to be one of billions -- all a product of the blind forces of physics.

Not true..

The Natural world is anything but balanced. It's in constant flux and, at present, seems to be disintegrating.

And as experts have pointed out, WE as a species are responsible for interfering with the balanced system with our systematic cutting down of the rain forest and polluting habits.

"The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus."

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming - IOPscience

And how is that faith not blind?
"Once your convinced" seems to have skipped the whole "critical analysis of evidence" part of the process.

See my post to silver above.

 

[Profound Realization]

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.

Not any, but your own current logical standard. When you create "standards," speak for your own self. Would it be logical if you claimed to know or speak for all other human beings?

You are not another and have never entered within another to know or not know whether there is evidence/validity within them. Or do you have faith that since it's not potentially in others because it's not evident or validated in you?

Are your standards for evidence that they must be physically seen with the eye rather than the inner eye of awareness?

Maybe "God" is dead in you and hasn't resurrected because you don't believe it exists or believe by your standards that it should be external and in the universe somewhere and seen with your eyes. Or if you have faith it doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist and you potentially may not come to know. Speak for your own inner world. Who are you or I to say that we know what others have experienced, or know their own logic, reasoning, validity?

 

[Profound Realization]

First, there is no evidence for god's existence; thus, why those who believe in god rely upon faith to believe in god.

How is one "convinced" that god exists? Doesn't there need to first be proof of that god's existence?

You sound as if you're needy for a particular standard of evidence. There doesn't need to be anything, perhaps for you there are needs within your own frame of standards.

The same way that you're unconvinced, faith that there is no such thing.

 

[Valjean]

His signs are everywhere as touched upon in my first post. Genuine people who accept He must exist are given signs to remove ANY doubt. However, this 100% evidence, which gives believers reassurance is highly subjective and untestable in even the most advanced laboratories. There are countless testimonies online from truth seekers, which you can view/read about and reach your own conclusion on..

There may be 'signs' and hearsay testimonies, but there is no actual empirical evidence. Moreover, each religion sees different signs. If there were real evidence there wouldn't be so many different religions in the world.
You say we must believe before we begin seeing clear signs. That seems to be putting the cart before the horse. It seems like a priori confirmation bias.

What sort of evidence do you personally require?

Observable, testable, repeatable, predictive evidence.

 

[Quintessence]

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

Well... yeah. For theistic traditions that are not faith-based, faith is irrelevant. We wouldn't say otherwise. It's why you don't see us talking up a storm about the concept of faith, yeah?

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

I don't think that logically follows like your first observation does, but if this story appeals to you, go for it. That said, I'm not really sure what "the religious community" is without some additional clarification from you, so maybe something in here makes more sense than it is to me right now at first brush. Which religious community?