Is Faith Evidence of Things Not Seen?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Pfui. You aren't paying attention to your own claims. There is nothing that one can do everything with. Including one's own thoughts. If that is your actual standard, then there is nothing that is you. Nothing.

Well, yes. In some analysis of the "I" it is an illusion, which appears to work if you believe in it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then we cannot proceed. Your #3 is not a rational foundation.

Evidence, proof or a reasoned argument please.

 

[ppp]

Evidence, proof or a reasoned argument please.

No, we can't proceed before you accept unknown and without evidence as valid.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[ppp]

Well, yes. In some analysis of the "I" it is an illusion, which appears to work if you believe in it.

You just said that things that don't exist believe that they don't exist. :-D :-D :-D

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You can't have it both ways.

If you test human mobility, there is a limit to human mobility. You know, you can't fly in earth gravity solely by the use of your body. So you accept a limit to mobility. Now I am simply saying that the is a limit to rationality just like mobility. They are both human behaviors and they both have limits.
Now if you don't accept that as possible, then I can't explain it to you, because you won't accept it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You just said that things that don't exist believe that they don't exist. :-D :-D :-D

Well, existence is a philosophy word, that have no objective referent just like God. It is an idea and nothing else.

 

[ppp]

If you test human mobility, there is a limit to human mobility. You know, you can't fly in earth gravity solely by the use of your body. So you accept a limit to mobility. Now I am simply saying that the is a limit to rationality just like mobility. They are both human behaviors and they both have limits.
Now if you don't accept that as possible, then I can't explain it to you, because you won't accept it.

If all you are saying is that there is a limit to what we do can understand at the moment, and possibly ever, then sure. That is obvious. You did not have to go through an analogy to convince me of that.

However, it does not address the post to which you were ostensibly responding. You demanded evidence and reasoned argument after denying the need for evidence and reasoned argument. You cannot have it both ways. Or more to the point, you cannot have it both ways and converse with me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If all you are saying is that there is a limit to what we do can understand at the moment, and possibly ever, then sure. That is obvious. You did not have to go through an analogy to convince me of that.

However, it does not address the post to which you were ostensibly responding. You demanded evidence and reasoned argument after denying the need for evidence and reasoned argument. You cannot have it both ways. Or more to the point, you cannot have it both ways and converse with me.

You would like evidence of what? Physical processes generate effects. Fire. Color. Wetness. Thoughts. Do you think that all of those are non-physical? I would need evidence that the non-physical is a candidate explanation.

You forced a binary choice upon everything, either psychical or non-physical. I chose the 3rd option. It is unknown what reality really is in the metaphysical sense. Or in the practical everyday world there is no physical theory of everything, so in practice everything is not physical, only some things are physical.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Well, it is pretty arrogant for you to claim that you know someone else's thoughts. Even a dullard like me.

I am thinking of a number between e and a googolplex...

It just seemed like you were thinking morality is relative. What were you thinking?

 

[ppp]

It just seemed like you were thinking morality is relative. What were you thinking?

What I said was, "But faith is not even vaguely scientific. So you don't have that. As for satisfying, I will give you that. But you have no way to determine whether your faith produces morality, immorality or amorality. Faith is no better than rolling dice."

Einstein had to suspend belief in metric space to come up with relativity. He gave up what he didn't need and that took 12 years but he came up relativity, same as my definition.

Einstein didn't start with faith. He started with a set of claims from Newton and Newton's successors. Claims that had observable flaws - even when Newton first constructed them. What Einstein did was to examine the demonstrable evidence and to follow that evidence to its logical and demonstrable conclusion. And today, we don't take Einstein's work based on faith. We accept it in proportion to its evidentiary warrant. BTW, Einstein's work has observable flaws, of which he was aware and acknowledged while he was alive.

Christians claims about the existence of their god-variations do not have evidentiary warrant. They often make claims that are in direct contradiction of the demonstrable evidence.

 

[ppp]

You forced a binary choice upon everything, either psychical or non-physical. I chose the 3rd option. It is unknown what reality really is in the metaphysical sense. Or in the practical everyday world there is no physical theory of everything, so in practice everything is not physical, only some things are physical.

That is just a bald assertion. Come back when you can demonstrate that there is a third option.

EDIT: Or (epistemically) a second.

 

[robocop (actually)]

What I said was, "But faith is not even vaguely scientific. So you don't have that. As for satisfying, I will give you that. But you have no way to determine whether your faith produces morality, immorality or amorality. Faith is no better than rolling dice."



Einstein didn't start with faith. He started with a set of claims from Newton and Newton's successors. Claims that had observable flaws - even when Newton first constructed them. What Einstein did was to examine the demonstrable evidence and to follow that evidence to its logical and demonstrable conclusion. And today, we don't take Einstein's work based on faith. We accept it in proportion to its evidentiary warrant. BTW, Einstein's work has observable flaws, of which he was aware and acknowledged while he was alive.

Christians claims about the existence of their god-variations do not have evidentiary warrant. They often make claims that are in direct contradiction of the demonstrable evidence.

You know, I'm sick and tired of all this secularism.

 

[ppp]

You know, I'm sick and tired of all this secularism.

No one is obligating you to engage in any conversations that you do not wish. Perhaps things would be easier on you in the future if you address what the secular position actually is, rather than what you might wish it to be.

 

[Trailblazer]

First, a little technical point: you can indeed prove (satisfactorily demonstrate) a negative. You can demonstrate, for example, that there's nothing in the box; that I'm not POTUS; that you're not on Mars at the moment; and so on.

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

Second, a big technical point: there is no concept of a real god ─ a god with objective existence, a God found in nature / reality / the realm of the physical sciences. God instead is immaterial, supernatural, spiritual, divine &c; but no test can distinguish those from the imaginary / purely conceptual.

Second, a big technical point: There is no reason what God would have to have “objective existence” in order to have existence. 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, and God always gets what he wants because God is Omnipotent.

So if believers don't know what real thing they intend to denote when they say 'God', what is it I'm supposed to show doesn't exist? If the expression 'real God' is meaningless, there's nothing for me to do except nod, no?

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

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

Trailblazer said: you could say you do not believe in God because you see suffering in the world.

That doesn't show there's no God. It only shows that if there's a God, God is either not omnipotent, or not benevolent, or both.

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. 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. All great mean and women have suffered and benefited thereby, that is the proof of what I am saying. Just like suffering through college prepares a person for a good career, it can be seen that suffering is just part of life and it is for our benefit, so God is benevolent.

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

While a man is happy he may forget his God; but when grief comes and sorrows overwhelm him, then will he remember his Father who is in Heaven, and who is able to deliver him from his humiliations.

Men who suffer not, attain no perfection. The plant most pruned by the gardeners is that one which, when the summer comes, will have the most beautiful blossoms and the most abundant fruit.” Paris Talks, pp. 50-51

Well put! That appears to mean that you agree with my definition of truth, yes?

So when you've told me what a real god is, we can move onto that mountain of evidence I mentioned.

Or we can just have a cup of coffee and work out who should be Biden's veep.

You see a mountain of evidence against God's existence, and I see is a mountain of evidence for God's existence... I do not see your mountain anywhere, and you do not see my mountain anywhere but then it is all a matter of perspective, isn’t it?

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

 

[Trailblazer]

When God writes a promise on paper (a check so to speak) and you believe the check is good, you have faith that they backing is there. When it manifests, you know that it was good.

And even if it does not manifest, you know it was for your own good, because God knows more than we know what is for our own good, since God is All-Knowing and All-Wise and we are not.

“Know thou, O fruit of My Tree, that the decrees of the Sovereign Ordainer, as related to fate and predestination, are of two kinds. Both are to be obeyed and accepted. The one is irrevocable, the other is, as termed by men, impending. To the former all must unreservedly submit, inasmuch as it is fixed and settled. God, however, is able to alter or repeal it. As the harm that must result from such a change will be greater than if the decree had remained unaltered, all, therefore, should willingly acquiesce in what God hath willed and confidently abide by the same.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 133

 

[ppp]

There is no reason what God would have to have “objective existence” in order to have existence.

When you say that God exists, what do you mean by exists? When I say "exist" I mean that the given thing has duration and locality. If that is not your definition, can you provide one of your own?

 

[Trailblazer]

When you say that God exists, what do you mean by exists? When I say "exist" I mean that the given thing has duration and locality. If that is not your definition, can you provide one of your own?

God has duration because God has always existed and will continue to exist for all of eternity.
God has locality but we cannot get to where God is located, because it is above and beyond, and God is forever unapproachable. The only way we can ever know anything about God is through His Messengers..

You might say that God is a confirmed bachelor who lives alone, although that is an understatement...
Here is one description of God:

“He is, and hath from everlasting been, one and alone, without peer or equal, eternal in the past, eternal in the future, detached from all things, ever-abiding, unchangeable, and self-subsisting. He hath assigned no associate unto Himself in His Kingdom, no counsellor to counsel Him, none to compare unto Him, none to rival His glory.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 192

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No. That's poetic gibberish.

Ask someone not familiar with the passage what "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." means and you'll get a blank stare.

Faith is unfounded belief -- period/full stop.

That was very well said!

 

[Kenny]

Evidence of what? All it's evidence of is that something we don't understand happened. That happens all the time. You can't jump from "I don't know what happened" to "my God must have done it." You've got work to do in the middle there.

...

...
First, all those explanations are possible and would have to be ruled out if you wanted to demonstrate some religious miracle. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as they say. The body does heal itself; testing sometimes can be erroneous; and I've dealt with enough patients to know that their recollection of their condition and care is often not accurate...which one verifies by looking at their records.

But doesn't that validate what i just said.. no matter what one says, one can always counter with "that isn't enough proof" if one is of the opinion that "I don't believe in faith"?

Yet, that viewpoint doesn't invalided that "well, it could actually have been faith that did it".

I view it this way, like when we played basketball and someone made a three pointer.

We would throw it back to him and say "Just luck"

If he made it again, we roll it back to him where he had to move and say "Even a clock that doesn't work is right two times a day"

If he made it again, we knew that there was something behind the ball and say "you're good"

So when faith produces the evidence of those thing that were first unseen... well, we just begin to realize there is someone good behind it.

If by "faith" you mean "confidence," yes when I'm given a check I do have a proportional degree of confidence that that money is in the bank, because again we understand how checks work and have millions of verifiable example of it working. However, even that's not absolute...checks can and do bounce. Again, the "faith" here is proportional to the evidence and based on independently verifiable, empirical evidence.

Good analogy, perhaps, if one is trying to grasp the understanding. Indeed there are different measures of faith including no faith (scripturally).

God hasn't ever verifiably written a promise on paper. What has happened is that humans have written promises on paper and claimed they speak for God. So again, the bank analogy breaks down because that's exactly the kind of evidence we don't have.

Now, if someone claiming to speak for a deity writes on paper, "you should wash your hands to prevent illness," does the fact they're right about that mean God gave them that information?

I don't agree. The promise of Israel being formed again is verified now. Never in all the history of human kind has a group of people that has been dispersed maintain their identity and language--they are absorbed into their new surrounding and adapt to their new culture.. Let alone come back 1900 years later and get their land back.

For us the promise of the Messiah is now verified. And there is a litany of other examples.

But every person, for himself/herself, has to come to a decision of "when is enough example is enough examples.

The problem here is you're ignoring the countless people whose needs weren't supplied despite their faith. .

Great question. But as I mentioned before, there is mental assent which isn't faith. As with any situation, one must study "why".

An example:

Matt 13: 54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? 57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. 58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Jesus could of, but the people stopped his capacity because of their unbelief.

 

[ppp]

because it is above and beyond,

Is that poetic?

God has duration because God has always existed and will continue to exist for all of eternity.
God has locality but we cannot get to where God is located, because it is above and beyond, and God is forever unapproachable. The only way we can ever know anything about God is through His Messengers..

A messenger being what?