Is Faith Evidence of Things Not Seen?

[ppp]

They are both important, but right now the ability of the institutions to exercise in the public square is in trouble. Think of it; religion is the primary motivator of doing right. If you are mature enough to do right without it, good for you, but there are many people who have become quite disagreeable of morality because they have been alienated or alienated themselves from religion.

Religion is the primary motivator for good people doing immoral things. To quote Weinberg, “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”

I don't know if you are generally a good person or a bad person, but valuing institutions over the people whom those institutions harm is a seed of evil.

 

[ppp]

All people should have their life, liberty, right of property, tranquility and free exercise of conscious protected.

To what extent? Without limit?

 

[robocop (actually)]

Religion is the primary motivator for good people doing immoral things. To quote Weinberg, “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”

I don't know if you are generally a good person or a bad person, but valuing institutions over the people whom those institutions harm is a seed of evil.

Now you have attacked me; if a person has a crutch, the more realistic that crutch, the better it helps. Some people want crutches.

 

[robocop (actually)]

To what extent? Without limit?

Of course with limits.

 

[ppp]

Now you have attacked me;

I said that your position on this subject was morally wrong. Is that an attack?

if a person has a crutch, the more realistic that crutch, the better it helps. Some people want crutches.

And religions do provide crutches that are unreliable in their realism and the moral material. I am not stopping anyone from having a crutch. But your right to tell tell people that they religions are a good crutch does not include the right to have your position criticized,.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I said that your position on this subject was morally wrong. Is that an attack?


And religions do provide crutches that are unreliable in their realism and the moral material. I am not stopping anyone from having a crutch. But your right to tell tell people that they religions are a good crutch does not include the right to have your position criticized,.

You said that it takes religion to make good people do evil!

Of course you can criticize me!

 

[ppp]

Of course with limits.

I cannot tell. You have provided two examples where you would give preference to religions battles over that of individuals. I don't know where (or if) you draw the line.

 

[ppp]

You said that it takes religion to make good people do evil!

Of course you can criticize me!

You said that I had attacked you. How is that an attack on you?

 

[robocop (actually)]

I cannot tell. You have provided two examples where you would give preference to religions battles over that of individuals. I don't know where (or if) you draw the line.

Here's where I draw the line:

I think the free exercise of religion is under attack right now. In a normal time I would draw the line so that both sides would be able to dance away on their own sides.

 

[robocop (actually)]

You said that I had attacked you. How is that an attack on you?

Because by disrespecting all religion, if that is what you did, you have deeply hurt my hope for humanity.

I'm sorry my schizophrenia is acting up so I can't focus now. Will get back to you when it's normal.

 

[nPeace]

Depending on your favorite translation, Hebrews 11:1 reads:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Some religious folks believe that their faith itself is evidence that what they have faith in is actually true. This is particularly the case, it seems, when it comes to supernatural claims or ones that don't have good evidence for them.

In my view, this is a manifestly absurd and circular position. People believe all kinds of things, some true, some untrue. The fact that I believe, for example, that the world is flat, is not evidence that I'm correct about that.

Do you believe faith is the evidence of things not seen? Why or why not?

In my view, the expressions made in Hebrews 11, are not understood by many, in light of how it ought to be.
Hebrews 11, is describing faith as the evidence of things not seen. So when one says a person has faith, it is the same as saying, one has evidence of what is not seen. hence to say one has faith in God, is simply to say, one has evidence of God's ability to fulfill his promises.... Rather than, I have faith that God "exists". See verse 6 of Hebrews 11.

Spoiler: Example

Would you walk a tight rope without prior knowledge, and evidence that you can do it successfully? Is faith not involved there?

Take for example, Jesus said, "have faith". He also said, "Have faith in God. Have faith also in me". What was he asking?

1) Have faith - What you are hoping for, see the reality based on the evidence you have.
So the person having faith needs to focus on the evidence. Once they see that evidence, they have the evidence of what is not seen - what they hope for.

2) Have faith in God. Have faith also in me - See the evidence that what they promise will be a reality.
So long as the person sees that evidence, they can have that faith.
Can? Yes, because faith is not automatic. Many are faithless, despite seeing the evidence, because faith is something that is exercised. It is not as though we are describing an object, like a boat, or a pair of glasses. It is a quality.
It is a quality that is gained, or acquired, and no, one does not acquire it at a university, or higher education facility.
One can acquire it there, but how, is a different story.

I hope this is clear and understandable to you, and it helps.
Feel free to question anything you would like further clarity on.
There are scriptural references I can refer to, which might lend more clarity, if needed.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Why don't you try Alma 32 in the Book of Mormon, possibly starting in verse 17? The next step after faith is repentance, so if someone isn't willing to repent, why would they want to have faith?. No one wants to believe in a God that wants them to improve when they don't see themselves as being willing to improve.

The difference between faith and science is that science doesn't require living a certain way after; well, it does, but so does faith in the way that the faith entails.

Faith involves living the right way, and if you live the right way, you are giving it a fair trial. Reasoning doesn't work because the Universe is so complex that you just fail because you're unwilling.

That's how I see it. Maybe I am dense, but I feel the Holy Ghost right now!

Yes, I looked at Alma, and it says what I've been saying -- if I know something I have no need to believe it. What it doesn't say is WHY I should believe something I don't know. Mysterious omission, really.

And I do not see "repentance" as a necessity for improvement. I can admit to being imperfect without needing to feel guilty about it, and repentence is, after all, about guilt. I've spent a lifetime trying to improve, as I am able, through learning, through reflection and many other ways, but I'm certainly not going to feel guilty and get all repentent because I'm not the best human being ever.

But perhaps you and I see "living the right way" differently. I do it without ghosts.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Crystal ball is a form of stone yes, used for divination. It's a tool for accessing other dimensions. But to be able to use those crystal balls one need psychic abilities of some sort. Spiritual practice can lead to those abilities.

Any evidence at all will suffice to convince me. Do you have any?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Any evidence at all will suffice to convince me. Do you have any?

Only personal experience with use of crystal ball some years ago, but personal experience does not count as evidence, I know
Most of what happens in spiritual practice is on the personal level and can not be "proven" by science. I do not believe it is meant for science to understand spiritual experiences.

 

[ppp]

Because by disrespecting all religion, if that is what you did, you have deeply hurt my hope for humanity.

Right back at you.

 

[ppp]

Here's where I draw the line:

I think the free exercise of religion is under attack right now. In a normal time I would draw the line so that both sides would be able to dance away on their own sides.

I think that your are conflating "free exercise of religion" with the claims of religion. The claims are under attack. As well they should be.

 

[blü 2]

First, a little technical point: If you cannot locate God you cannot demonstrate that God does not exist.

I can locate God easily enough. Since you can't tell me what real thing you intend to denote when you say God, I locate God as a concept / thing imagined, in your brain.

Second, a big technical point: There is no reason what God would have to have “objective existence” in order to have existence.

That's true, but it confines God to being a concept / thing imagined in an individual brain, with no real counterpart.

If you're not real ─ don't have objective existence, aren't found in nature ─ then the only thing you can be is conceptual / imaginary.

That is just what you WANT so you can put God to the test but God is not testable because God does not WANT to be testable

This is because, being a thing imagined in your brain, you can imagine God with whatever powers, knowledge and wisdom you wish. But neither the God nor the powers, knowledge and wisdom will be real. Unlike your own powers, knowledge and wisdom.

God always gets what he wants because God is Omnipotent.

And, as I understand [his] billing, omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent and perfect. The only one of those that is not an imaginary quality is 'benevolent', and as you know, the argument attributed to Epicurus deals with that. (As you'll recall, it has the form:

Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is god both able and willing? Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?)​

Did I not already send you the Baha’i conception of God? God in the Bahá'í Faith

You did, but as I pointed out, it doesn't describe a real God, only the same conceptual / imaginary model.

Read that and you will know why you can never prove that God exists, and why nobody can ever prove that God exists.

It's because God isn't real, exists only as a set of ideas. As it stands, there is not only no such thing as a real God, there isn't even a coherent concept of what a real God would be like.

It does not show that at all, because there is no reason to think that a omnipotent and benevolent God would prevent all suffering, since suffering is for our own benefit, particularly because it prepares us for the afterlife.

The world behaves exactly as it would if God existed nowhere but as a variety of concepts / things imagined in individual brains.

God never says or does, sits on [his] hands when being omnipotent [he] could effortlessly prevent injustice, accidents &c. In my set of values, that's unforgiveable. If you're present and you can help, you help. Nor is there anything fine or ennobling about dying in a famine or a plague or a fire, a tsunami or volcanic eruption, on and on. You are not better prepared for the afterlife by being killed. The just and the unjust, I dare say, die at about the same rate once they're involved in such incidents.

If there was no afterlife, suffering in THIS life would make no sense, but since this life is a very small part of our total existence some suffering here makes sense because it is good for our character.

The world is arbitrary and unjust, qualities said not to exist in the afterlife; so how can arbitrariness and injustice in this life be helpful? (As you know, I think 'the afterlife' is as imaginary as gods are.) Suffering may (or may not) make you wiser in this life, but that's simply adapting to reality. If there's an afterwards, it would be a completely irrelevant afterwards.

All great mean and women have suffered and benefited thereby, that is the proof of what I am saying.

I suspect you'll find great humans suffer greatly at about the same rate as ordinary humans. There are countless great humans who suffered nothing much out of the ordinary ─ and countless people you've never heard of who underwent scarcely believable privation. Where was God in the Holocaust? Was [his] purpose to create the modern variety of atheist Jew? Should we applaud [his] brilliant success, then?

“Those who suffer most, attain to the greatest perfection....

There used to be a fine old exclamation spelt Pshaw!

I am going for my second cup of coffee now, I earned it.

Allow me!

 

[nPeace]

I like this translation:

11 Now faith is the assurance (the confirmation, the title deed) of the things [we] hope for, being the proof of things [we] do not see and the conviction of their reality [faith perceiving as real fact what is not revealed to the senses].

I'm not sure what you mean that there is no "good evidence for them". Is it perhaps you don't understand how it works?

If you have a title deed to a piece of property that has been signed and sealed, you don't have to see the evidence of the property... the deed declares it.

Matthew 9:21
For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole.

Jesus said to her "your faith has made you whole".

Everybody actually uses faith every day to some extent.

It is true that people believe all sorts of things. It isn't necessarily all faith. Sometime it is mental assent and other times it just plain foolishness or presumption.

Is that the Amplified Bible?

Hebrews 11:1 AMP
Now faith is the assurance (title deed, confirmation) of things hoped for (divinely guaranteed), and the evidence of things not seen [the conviction of their reality—faith comprehends as fact what cannot be experienced by the physical senses].

Sounds good.
I was thinking though, wouldn't the title deed be considered as evidence of the reality... though not beheld.
One does not behold the actual property.

 

[Left Coast]

In my view, the expressions made in Hebrews 11, are not understood by many, in light of how it ought to be.
Hebrews 11, is describing faith as the evidence of things not seen. So when one says a person has faith, it is the same as saying, one has evidence of what is not seen. hence to say one has faith in God, is simply to say, one has evidence of God's ability to fulfill his promises.... Rather than, I have faith that God "exists". See verse 6 of Hebrews 11.

Spoiler: Example

Would you walk a tight rope without prior knowledge, and evidence that you can do it successfully? Is faith not involved there?

Take for example, Jesus said, "have faith". He also said, "Have faith in God. Have faith also in me". What was he asking?

1) Have faith - What you are hoping for, see the reality based on the evidence you have.
So the person having faith needs to focus on the evidence. Once they see that evidence, they have the evidence of what is not seen - what they hope for.

2) Have faith in God. Have faith also in me - See the evidence that what they promise will be a reality.
So long as the person sees that evidence, they can have that faith.
Can? Yes, because faith is not automatic. Many are faithless, despite seeing the evidence, because faith is something that is exercised. It is not as though we are describing an object, like a boat, or a pair of glasses. It is a quality.
It is a quality that is gained, or acquired, and no, one does not acquire it at a university, or higher education facility.
One can acquire it there, but how, is a different story.

I hope this is clear and understandable to you, and it helps.
Feel free to question anything you would like further clarity on.
There are scriptural references I can refer to, which might lend more clarity, if needed.

Fascinating interpretation, but I want to make sure I'm understanding your position on the thread's central question: you do not believe that having faith in something is itself evidence that it's true, right?

 

[Trailblazer]

I can locate God easily enough. Since you can't tell me what real thing you intend to denote when you say God, I locate God as a concept / thing imagined, in your brain.

I did tell you want God is: God in the Bahá'í Faith

Sounds real to me.

That's true, but it confines God to being a concept / thing imagined in an individual brain, with no real counterpart.

Not having objective existence does not mean God has no existence, it just means you cannot see or locate God. Also, many things we imagine actually exist.

This is because, being a thing imagined in your brain, you can imagine God with whatever powers, knowledge and wisdom you wish. But neither the God nor the powers, knowledge and wisdom will be real. Unlike your own powers, knowledge and wisdom.

I can imagine many things in my mind, things that can be proven to exist. I can imagine a cruise around the world for example and that is a real possibility.

And, as I understand [his] billing, omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent and perfect. The only one of those that is not an imaginary quality is 'benevolent', and as you know, the argument attributed to Epicurus deals with that. (As you'll recall, it has the form:
Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is god both able and willing? Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?)

Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

God is able but chooses not to because it is not God’s responsibility to remove the evil humans cause. If God did that God would not be doing anyone any favors.

Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

God is able but not willing to because taking on what is not His responsibility is not benevolent. God is benevolent because he forces humans to take responsibility for their own actions, which is for their own benefit.

Is god both able and willing? Then where does evil come from?

The evil comes from human free will decisions and actions. It comes from failure to adhere to the laws of God.

“God hath in that Book, and by His behest, decreed as lawful whatsoever He hath pleased to decree, and hath, through the power of His sovereign might, forbidden whatsoever He elected to forbid. To this testifieth the text of that Book. Will ye not bear witness? Men, however, have wittingly broken His law. Is such a behavior to be attributed to God, or to their proper selves? Be fair in your judgment. Every good thing is of God, and every evil thing is from yourselves. Will ye not comprehend? This same truth hath been revealed in all the Scriptures, if ye be of them that understand.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 149-150

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?)

He is able but not willing, because it is not His responsibility.

You did, but as I pointed out, it doesn't describe a real God, only the same conceptual / imaginary model.

That was the description of the real God.

It's because God isn't real, exists only as a set of ideas. As it stands, there is not only no such thing as a real God, there isn't even a coherent concept of what a real God would be like.

Can you prove that God isn’t real? If not it is a bald assertion.
What would you expect a real God to be like, if not as I described Him?

God never says or does, sits on [his] hands when being omnipotent [he] could effortlessly prevent injustice, accidents &c. In my set of values, that's unforgiveable.

That is so illogical. If God prevented injustice then man could continue to be unjust. Try again.

If you're present and you can help, you help. Nor is there anything fine or ennobling about dying in a famine or a plague or a fire, a tsunami or volcanic eruption, on and on. You are not better prepared for the afterlife by being killed. The just and the unjust, I dare say, die at about the same rate once they're involved in such incidents.

If God did everything for humans, then what would humans do, just sit around doing nothing. This is not beneficial for anyone. That's why God does not do it.

The world is arbitrary and unjust, qualities said not to exist in the afterlife; so how can arbitrariness and injustice in this life be helpful? (As you know, I think 'the afterlife' is as imaginary as gods are.) Suffering may (or may not) make you wiser in this life, but that's simply adapting to reality. If there's an afterwards, it would be a completely irrelevant afterwards.

I did not say injustice is helpful, but it is caused by man, not by God, so it is man’s job to eliminate injustice.
Suffering in this life is not irrelevant to the afterwards because it prepares us for the afterwards.

I suspect you'll find great humans suffer greatly at about the same rate as ordinary humans. There are countless great humans who suffered nothing much out of the ordinary ─ and countless people you've never heard of who underwent scarcely believable privation. Where was God in the Holocaust? Was [his] purpose to create the modern variety of atheist Jew? Should we applaud [his] brilliant success, then?

God did not cause the Holocaust; men did, thus men were responsible. That’s how it works in the real world. Humans have free will thus are responsible for their own actions. That is why no court of law ever put God on trial and convicted Him of crimes, only atheists do that.