There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Sundance]

Hindu pantheism is deistic. I have a sense of awe towards the cosmos. I don't think it's any type of deity. I don't feel human senses are a marker of truth when it comes to such matters. But I see nature and probabilities at work but I don't see why that would be a deity?

What makes a deity to you, if I may inquire?

 

[Sundance]

I know of none. I don't attempt to make that argument, nor do most atheists, who, like me, are agnostic atheists. What would such an argument look like?

I wouldn’t know. I’m not an atheist or an agnostic.

I'm agnostic there as well. I have no way to rule any of those in or out. I have no use for the concept of god. It lacks sufficient supporting evidence to believe that such a thing exists, it explains nothing, and for many, a god belief is a distraction from reality.

Hm, indeed.

What does pantheism add to an understanding of reality? How is that idea different from belief in a godless, unconscious universe, by which I mean, what manifestation of one is not present in the other the testing for which would help us decide which idea has more explanatory or predictive power? None that I can discern, which is also the case with deism and polytheism.

In other words, If the pantheistic, polytheistic, or deistic deities exist, then what tangible manifestation can one discover that reveal that fact, and how can that knowledge be used to predict outcomes better, the sole value of ideas about reality? If there aren't any to speak of, then there is no value in knowing that a deity exists, and such a belief simply doesn't matter.

Notice that this is not an argument against the existence of deities, which I told you that like most other atheists, I don't make. It's an argument against belief that they exist that says that there is no reason to believe as much and there would be no value in knowing that such things are the case if they are.

I suppose that if you examine these things empirically, it doesn’t matter. But — as I previously stated — conceptually, it makes all the difference in the world. Though, you could say that regarding everything, could you not? Take human beings, for example. What difference does it make if you have a person who believes that human beings are nothing more than a collection of tissue, organs, blood, and bones – which we are – compared to a person who views human beings not merely as that collection (valuable unto itself), but as more, as having worth or dignity?

No, nothing about what composes the human being would change, but would it not change how human societies function? The nature of our laws, or of human relationships?

 

[ppp]

Could you, please, give an example of people who claim that.

If I were going to do some research probably. But unless you deny the fact that people (even the mentally healthy) have delusions, then you get my point.

Your attacks are too personal. That is not debating, it is aggression.

Perhaps. Though I suspect that you are interpreting candor as aggression.
BTW, as you may or may not have noticed, @ElishaElijah does not debate. He merely asserts and testifies.

 

[ElishaElijah]

BTW, as you may or may not have noticed, @ElishaElijah does not debate. He merely asserts and testifies.

What? You didn’t like my answers to the OP
So, theists, why do you believe? Is it mainly because of your environment and geographical location? There is no proof for god (right?), so what logically keeps you believing? Or is logic not supposed to be a factor when it comes to faith? Is it too jarring, the idea of leaving the comfort that religion and belief in a god brings?
Or my citations to the questions:
A List Of Conservative And Liberal Bible Scholars
The Ruse Of Atheist New Testament Scholars
The Errors Of Modern New Testament Criticism

These men saw and heard Jesus, and knowing HIm and what He said. changed everything about their lives.

Procedures formerly used to prove the New Testament, are now used by modern atheist New Testament scholars, to try and impeach the miracles of Jesus and refute the testimony of these men who wrote their testimony, of any credibility.

Even more stunning, people accept the opinions of men and women who never saw these events 2,000 years ago, but reject the men who were there when they took place. All of the evidence to prove any event of antiquity resides in the people who were there and recorded these events for us. No serious historian would ever place greater weight upon the opinions of someone today, over those who wrote the testimony when it took place during the first century.

One of the weaknesses of atheist scholars is their disregard of the Old Testament Hebrew scriptures, which predict a Messiah with supernatural abilities to heal every sickness and disease.[7] This support from the Hebrew scriptures, predicting a Messiah exactly like Jesus, is a crucial supporting evidence for Form Criticism. The proven accuracy of the Jewish scribes in writing their texts, predicting everything that Jesus said and did—recorded in the narrative of the New Testament—is virtually identical to what the disciples of Jesus said that Jesus did. [8]

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I wouldn’t know [what a standard atheist argument looks like]. I’m not an atheist or an agnostic.

You wrote, "it’s impossible to criticize using standard atheist arguments, because of the fact that they simply don’t apply." That suggested to me that you thought you did.

I suppose that if you examine these things empirically, it doesn’t matter. But — as I previously stated — conceptually, it makes all the difference in the world. Though, you could say that regarding everything, could you not? Take human beings, for example. What difference does it make if you have a person who believes that human beings are nothing more than a collection of tissue, organs, blood, and bones – which we are – compared to a person who views human beings not merely as that collection (valuable unto itself), but as more, as having worth or dignity?

That would be a belief with tragic consequences like genocide. The same is not the case believing that the universe may be godless, or being indifferent to gods (apatheism - "the attitude of apathy towards the existence or non-existence of God(s). It is more of an attitude rather than a belief, claim, or belief system.") I think you're implying that if I had a god belief, I would have a healthier respect for the cosmos. I don't see why that would be the case, especially when we see how many theists have the opposite opinion, like these Christians:

• "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan (note his position ad responsibilities)

• "My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." - Sen. Inhofe, R-Okla

• "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood. . . . I do believe God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect." - Rep John Shimkus, R-Ill

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What? You didn’t like my answers to the OP

He's telling you what I've told you: you don't debate, but then again, how many believers do? Debate is more than exchanging different opinions. It's an explanation of why you think that your idea is right and the other guy's is wrong. You don't do that. You just keep expressing your opinion even after it is rebutted, not attempting to rebut the rebuttal. Rebuttal is the sine qua non of debate and dialectic.

Recall our discussion, in which you said that faith was a firmer foundation than empiricism. What would a rebuttal look like? Not, "no, it's not." It's a statement that if correct, makes yours wrong. I answered that faith isn't a foundation at all, much less a firm one, since literally anything can be believed by faith no matter how incorrect. If that statement is correct, yours is wrong. That's what makes it rebuttal and the process debate. If you don't offer a rebuttal to that, the debate is over. If you don't write a comment that if true, reestablishes faith as a firmer foundation for navigating reality than reason applied to evidence, then you're not debating. And you never did or tired. Your responses were noteworthy for not addressing empiricism at all. It simply was impossible to make further progress in debate without your cooperation, and we never did because you never cooperated with me.

Do you recall the ping-pong analogy? Rebuttal was represented by returning a shot, and debate by a volley, or a series of attempted rebuttals. I explained that these discussions of ours were like playing with somebody who just let the returns to him go by him ending the "volley" at one serve and one return.

Debate requires rebuttal. Consider a courtroom trial. The prosecution makes a plausible case for guilt. The defense needs to find a counterargument that makes the prosecutions case wrong if the counterargument is correct, or the trial over and ready for the jury to convict. Perhaps the defense offers an alibi as a counterargument. If this isn't successfully rebutted, the trial ends here ready for the jury to acquit.

But perhaps the prosecution can rebut the alibi rebuttal, perhaps with cell phone ping data that if correct, could lead to a conviction again if not rebutted. Then the defense comes along and shows that the defendant was not with his phone that day, which if correct, invalidates the defense's last rebuttal. And we can imagine this going back and forth for a while until one side makes an argument that cannot be successfully rebutted, and the jury votes based on the last plausible argument. That's what a volley look like - the back and forth of mutually exclusive claims, in which at most only one can be correct. That's what debate looks like.

But you don't do that. You have never once attempted to show me that I am wrong about faith being no foundation at all. You merely repeated the claim that was rebutted, thus ending the debate (volley) with you never having debated, never once returning a shot.

But as I said, you're far from alone in that. My experience on RF is that that never happens except between two experienced critical thinkers, and how often do we see that when one is a faith-based thinker?

I mentioned dialectic, by which I mean the cooperative effort of two critical thinkers with different opinions trying to resolve that difference, generally by going back to their point of departure and examining the validity of each of the two different choices. Because the two share a common method for deciding what is true about the world, they will discover why they parted ways and one will modify his position. Like I said, this is a cooperative effort unlike a courtroom debate, where the opposing counsel aren't trying to help one another any more than the law requires, but they both involve volleys of rebuttal.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Recall our discussion, in which you said that faith was a firmer foundation than empiricism.

I do recall that discussion and explained what faith is according to God and what I mean when people say “faith”, how it comes, how I hear God say something and faith is believing what He said and acting on that, the result is that God shows He is faithful because He does fulfill His promises and His Word. This is proof and evidence for the person who is trusting God.
I also explained what presumption is and a lot of people say they have faith for this or that, I ask them did God say that He would do that, did you hear? If not it’s presumption and not faith.
You made your own response, you trust in something else, you have faith in something other than God. You also make assumptions that a believer gets their faith from what they’re taught or something along those lines and that’s also false, actually what I was taught growing up about God I found to be false and not biblical.
I’ve been taught by the Holy Spirit, He confirms the Scriptures and shows me how to apply that to everyday life.

 

[Redwing]

“Strawman, strawman, strawman, strawman, strawman, strawman!” Is that all some non-believers know what to say when they are unable to respond to debate about spiritual matters?

There is no such thing as evidence of God for the self-proclaimed non-believer. Faith is the evidence of God. It takes spiritual understanding to have faith in God. Spiritual understanding is not in the mind. Non-believers seem to think God is in the mind, a made up figment of imagination. He isn’t. If you don’t exercise spiritual understanding, you will never have evidence of God. Take God out of the mind and put Him into the spirit and you may have evidence. Until then, you’re just passing time by attempting to debate spiritual matters with only the mind.

 

[samtonga43]

I don't go to the Bible for matters such as what faith is, nor to believers. Why would I? I don't need scripture to tell me what faith is. I can see how people acquire faith-based ideas. I can see the process. I can see what people believe by faith and the lack of sufficient evidentiary support they have for those beliefs, yet they believe anyway.

So you know what faith is and have no need of Scripture. Fair enough. Can I ask what you believe faith is?

Scripture considers it a virtue, encourages it, and discourages critical thought, which is the only other path to belief, and the only one that generates demonstrably correct beliefs.

I believe you are mistaken about Scripture discouraging critical thought; I wonder where you got this idea…

Faith is not a virtue. It's an abdication of the self and the gifts we are born with, the reasoning faculty and the moral faculty (conscience), each of which is an enemy of received wisdom that is unreasonable or feels immoral. Much of Christian doctrine, believed by faith, fits either or both of those categories.

You are correct when you say that faith is not a virtue. But, can you explain what you mean by faith being an abdication of the self, the reasoning faculty and the conscience? I really do not understand what you mean by this. Thanks.

Faith is guessing, not a virtue. Anybody can do it. I could guess that you are wrong if I had no other way to decide the matter, and that guess would be on the same foundation as yours: none at all.

I have faith in my belief that my husband loves me. Is this just a guess? Is my faith without foundation?

 

[samtonga43]

There is no such thing as evidence of God for the self-proclaimed non-believer. Faith is the evidence of God. It takes spiritual understanding to have faith in God.

I agree, and I would add that the spiritual understanding comes from God, not from our own logicity (is this a word? )

 

[Redwing]

I agree, and I would add that the spiritual understanding comes from God, not from our own logicity (is this a word? )

“logicality” would be the word you’re looking for, logicity is kind of a word- it’s the name of a computer software program of sorts.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Can I ask what you believe faith is?

Faith is the willingness to believe without sufficient evidentiary support. A mind is full of beliefs. Some are the result of properly interpreting evidence, some skip that step. The former are demonstrably correct ideas, the latter faith.

I have faith in my belief that my husband loves me. Is this just a guess? Is my faith without foundation?

That's a different word, or, if you prefer, a different definition. Faith means a variety of things, including a religion (the Christian faith), an attitude (good faith or bad faith act), and a girl's name. Two others are justified and unjustified belief. I'm discussing the latter, religious-type faith. You're describing the former - a justified belief based in experience. Here's the problem with using different words that are spelled and pronounced the same - equivocation, or the substitution of one for another as if they meant the same thing. If you're not familiar with equivocation fallacies, one would be, Banks are a safe place to keep money, rivers have banks, therefore the riverbank is a good place to keep money.

I believe you are mistaken about Scripture discouraging critical thought; I wonder where you got this idea…

I got it as a Christian.

Perhaps you don't mean what I do by the phrase critical thought. I'm referring to the process of deriving sound conclusions from evidence through the application of valid reasoning, a process which doesn't support a god belief. Scripture praises belief by faith, which is antithetical to critical analysis.

can you explain what you mean by faith being an abdication of the self, the reasoning faculty and the conscience? I really do not understand what you mean by this.

I was a Christian once. I agreed to suspend disbelief at about age 18 to give the religion a chance to reveal its deity and to begin to make sense, but I never lost the ability to reason critically. I just decided t ignore it for a season. Eventually I could see that the religion did not deliver on its promises, that it never made sense, and that the deity that it promises wants to know those who seek it was a no-show, so I left Christianity. To continue down that path would have required permanently silencing my reasoning and moral faculties - now the source of cognitive dissonance. I would consider that an abdication of the self, a sacrificing of the duty to seek truth and moral rectitude, which is what those faculties do for one, and in my opinion, do a better job of it than turning one's mind over to an external source as a substitute.

I like to point this out to people bringing up Pascal's Wager. If there is an intelligence waiting for us in an afterlife, why would it reward defying the faculties it endowed man with to seek truth and right behavior? I ask, "Why are you so sure that you will be rewarded for abdicating that responsibility? Because the book that you believed said you would? Aren't you gambling?"

 

[ElishaElijah]

I was a Christian once.

No you were never a Christian if you are saying there is no God. In order to become a Christian you had be born again of Gods Spirit.
Now if you say you do know there is a God, repented, believed the Gospel, was born again, tasted the Lord but found that unsatisfactory so you will no longer have Him as your Lord then yes you can say you were a Christian and an apostate now.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Faith is the willingness to believe without sufficient evidentiary support.

What you’re describing is “blind faith”, that’s not the faith I have.
Is God pleased by blind faith?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No you were never a Christian if you are saying there is no God.

Not your call. You don't define Christian except for yourself. You meet my definition of a Christian, as did I once.

Nor do you get to disqualify good faith efforts to find this absentee deity because it resulted in leaving the religion. You see that as a failure on the individual's part. I see it as a failure of the religion to keep its promises or meet any need. Christianity was like a pair of ill-fitting shoes that I cast off and exchanged for something that fit well - humanism, which did meet the needs of somebody still searching for the true and the good. Blame the shoes, not the feet. The religion failed, not me. It's deity was a no-show.

It's a very unflattering aspect of your religion that you feel the need to diminish others to explain the failure of Christianity and its deity. That you had a different experience doesn't make you correct.

And your comment would be incorrect even if I were saying that there are no gods, which by now you should have discerned is not my position. I am an agnostic atheist. When I say that I don't declare that there are no gods, I mean in general. Perhaps the pantheist god or the deist god exist. Who knows? There would be no way to tell.

However, specific deities can be ruled out and have been, such as deities that claim to be honest, that want to be known and believed, and claimed to have created life on earth as an act of will. That deity has been ruled out by the mountains of data supporting evolutionary theory, which don't go away even if the theory is wrong and is eventually falsified. Why? Because that data would need to be reinterpreted in the light of the falsifying find.

Only one possible explanation would be left if the theory were upended: a deceptive intelligent designer or designers. That's not the Christian god, and likely not a god at all. Even then, we would have no reason to believe that that would be a supernatural deity (supernatural). Naturalistic explanations are always preferred to supernatural ones (principle of parsimony).

Would you say that I am a humanist? My worldview is humanist. My metaphysics is godless, my ethics derive from the application of reason to empathy and not a holy book, and my epistemology is strictly empirical, meaning that faith is not considered a path to knowledge. How about if I returned to Christianity? Would you say then that I was never a humanist? Probably not. You would likely see it as a rescue from humanism. Would other humanists say that? Of course not. They wouldn't feel threatened or disapprovingly call it apostasy. They're not that insecure. Wouldn't they have to be to criticize my former experience like you did?

What you’re describing is “blind faith”, that’s not the faith I have.

Religious faith is blind by definition. To not be blind, a belief has to be supported by sufficient evidence. Lacking that, it is blind faith.

There's another word spelled and pronounced the same - also faith - that is evidence-based, i.e., not blind. This is not religious-type faith, but rather, justified belief, such as the belief that one's car will start the next time it's tested based on the experience that it usually does. This leads to knowledge - demonstrably true ideas that successfully predict outcomes.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Not your call. You don't define Christian except for yourself. You meet my definition of a Christian, as did I once.

God and the Bible define who is or is not a Christian. It’s God’s definition. I’m merely pointing out that you may have gone to a church and participated but never had any personal encounter with God for yourself. If you did you wouldn’t have your faulty views of Jesus Christ and faith.
You didn’t have sufficient evidence but people who have been born again do have that evidence. Also I
posted an easy to read article explaining the difference, did you read it or no?

 

[rational experiences]

If any man asked himself why did I self idolise.

As he did.

As human thinker storyteller theist scientist life sacrificed self idoliser.

He him his man god a man brother a holy special man. By human terms expressed.

Yet said don't self idolise.

I know our origin father came direct out of the eternal spirit. A pre living being who changed form into human. So did our holy mother.

We've been a long time body mind human sacrificed. Our memories are theirs ...
holy beings.

So our brother proves he talks to father's memories and all men since.

Same for mother and all women. Life recorded.

We no longer live a whole bio genetic perfection.

Part of it went into forming a heavenly holy water image. That some of us have had returned. Owning a higher oxygenation function. Living microbes.

The term I was assisted or healed. As it's real. Proven by too many humans in experience to be argued.

We speak human language. By nation we own national human DNA. We can get assisted as it's real.

We knew. We learnt. We taught as just humans.

 

[ElishaElijah]

And your comment would be incorrect even if I were saying that there are no gods, which by now you should have discerned is not my position. I am an agnostic atheist. When I say that I don't declare that there are no gods, I mean in general. Perhaps the pantheist god or the deist god exist. Who knows? There would be no way to tell.

You communicate you were a Christian and the point is that you thought you were a Christian but according to God you were not. Aren’t you glad someone is telling you now? I thought I was in good standing with God while I was drinking and drugging, living that life until I actually got saved and was born again. At that point I realized how foolish I was and if I died like that I would have gone straight to hell. I wasn’t a Christian or a believer although I thought I was.
Can the existence of God be proven?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Religious faith is blind by definition. To not be blind, a belief has to be supported by sufficient evidence. Lacking that, it is blind faith.

Sounds like the church you were part of was led by some of the false teachers that crept into the church described in Jude 1. Read that and see, but if you weren’t ever born again then you were never a Christian. Sorry if you’re offended, but hope not, that’s just the truth and maybe be angry at the previous false teachers instead.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do, because if there are many sects, God doesn’t recognize, authorize or agree with division in the Body of Christ. So if you don’t care not sure why you commented. When God looks at the Church He sees 1 Body not many sects. Although He did address believers in certain cities or areas.

That would completely avoids the point under discussion so I can see why you'd want to do that.