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

[Sheldon]

Well it is faith and belief. That should be enough for spiritual and religious people.

Why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well it is faith and belief. That should be enough for spiritual and religious people.

No, faith is a weak excuse that people give when they have no evidence.

 

[ppp]

Well it is faith and belief. That should be enough for spiritual and religious people.

It is not enough for those whose priority is as many true, and as few false beliefs as is possible.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Why?

Because the evidence comes with the practice of the scriptures, when a pe4son usees the scriptures to better their own life, and to do l3es wrong doings.

Faith in God gives strenght in the practice.

 

[Spirit of Light]

No, faith is a weak excuse that people give when they have no evidence.

Its a personal quest for truth through faith in God. No need to prove to others when one have a form of relationship to God.
The truth is between the believer and God.

 

[Spirit of Light]

It is not enough for those whose priority is as many true, and as few false beliefs as is possible.

I only speak for my own faith and belief, others may have different answers.
I dont give a crap if a non believer think my faith is false or wrong.

 

[ppp]

I only speak for my own faith and belief, others may have different answers.
I dont give a crap if a non believer think my faith is false or wrong.

That's what I just said.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well I can't claim this to be true, but there is no objective evidence for any miracle, and since miracles are defined as as appeal to mystery I must remain dubious.



Hardly, religious and superstitious beliefs are still ubiquitous.

I will add that 'objectively natural explanations are ubiquitous.'

 

[ppp]

I will add that 'objectively natural explanations are ubiquitous.'

I will also add that objectively natural explanations are both verifiable and falsifiable. Religious and superstitious beliefs are neither.

 

[Sheldon]

Well it is faith and belief. That should be enough for spiritual and religious people.

Why?

Because the evidence comes with the practice of the scriptures, when a pe4son usees the scriptures to better their own life, and to do l3es wrong doings.

Faith in God gives strenght in the practice.

That's not what you said though, you said faith and belief should be enough for spiritual and religious people, now you're claiming there is evidence?

Can this evidence be demonstrated, or is it really just a subjective belief?

 

[Sheldon]

I will add that 'objectively natural explanations are ubiquitous.'

Well they're objectively verifiable, testable, and falsifiable, unlike the religious claims for miracles, which are not.

 

[Spirit of Light]

That's not what you said though, you said faith and belief should be enough for spiritual and religious people, now you're claiming there is evidence?

Can this evidence be demonstrated, or is it really just a subjective belief?

The evidence happens to the person who practice the teaching, so it is on the personal level. Meaning even one tries to explain it, its not a physical evidence like you would call evidence.

 

[F1fan]

The evidence happens to the person who practice the teaching, so it is on the personal level. Meaning even one tries to explain it, its not a physical evidence like you would call evidence.

So even the imaginary falls into your definition of "evidence". That is fine for you, but completely useless beyond you. Each of us guys is the world's greatest lover.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evidence for God? My simple suggestion would be to "look around", but that would never suffice.

The world is not evidence for a god having created it. It's not even the likeliest explanation for why the world exists as it does.

Evidence for Allah, Yahweh, Vishnu, and the many, many other gods in the pantheon exist in texts

Texts are not useful evidence that the things they refer to exist. All that those texts are is evidence that such things were written down, possibly because they were believed but not necessarily, and nothing else.

What's the probability of Jesus not existing, given the number of followers? How about, Allah or Vishna based and gauged by probability in accordance to number of people following? The likelihood of them to have been nonexistent seems small in contrast to likelihood of being real.

It doesn't matter if any of those people wrote the words attributed to them exist or not unless one or more are deities. If Jesus wasn't God, what difference does it make who actually said the words attributed to him?

These stories have enough merit and a large enough following to be considered valid

What does valid mean in this context? Apparently not correct or factual or historical. The stories have no merit for me, nor any use except perhaps as a snapshot of the past. One reads the Old Testament and gets a better sense for the kind of world those people lived in. The description of the deity is horrific by today's standards, but suggests life in a brutal world characterized by invasions and fighting for survival, where a god had to be a strongman. Several centuries later, this god has morphed into something gentler reflecting the evolution of morality between the two testaments. But these text aren't an adequate source of knowledge or moral theory, so I wonder what you mean by valid. Relevant or meaningful?

To put it simply - I see God as life, experienced by all living things daily. If terms like deity, divine, God, gods, angels, Lords, etc. offend you or throw you off, it might be beneficial to acknowledge that not all view these terms as super-natural entities, or anything like some religiously bent people seem to.

You experience here on RF is evidence of what happens when one uses the language of religion. If you don't mean what the typical Christian means by those words, you will be misunderstood. You will be engaging in discussions like this one and the last thread where this happened to you earlier this week. You spend the entire tie trying to explain that you mean what they mean, but like the language of religion. I don't see where you've expressed any beliefs different from a humanist's. You must enjoy discussions like these. I just wonder what's in it for you - what need is met. I would consider it very undesirable if I used a religious word in a metaphorical sense and was confused for a theist.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

it can't really be a coincidence that so called miracles declined in direct proportion to the advancement of our understanding of the natural world, and the prevalence of technology that enables just about anyone to record an event and thus explain the natural phenomenon behind it.

Good point. Do you know what else dropped off sharply with that technology? UFO (until recently) and Bigfoot sightings

Has it ever crossed your mind, joelr, even for a second or two, that what A. considers to be reasonable evidence to warrant belief may be different from what B.considers to be reasonable evidence to warrant belief?

That's definitely the case. Did you mean to imply that the critical thinker should respect that kind of thinking. If two thinkers come to mutually exclusive conclusions and cite the same evidence, those opinions aren't equal unless they're both wrong. They're definitely not both correct. If one is, the other is incorrect, not merely an equally relevant opinion. Maybe you didn't mean to imply that with your comment.

2000 years ago the faith in spiritual practice and wisdom was much more common than now

What are you calling spiritual wisdom? Animal sacrifice and crucifixion were also more common then than now. So were superstition and magical thinking.

Unfortunately many do fall away due to they don't get the physical evidence they want so they have something solid to believe in.

That's the crowning achievement of empiricism - no evidence, no belief. Did you see the comment to Sheldon above? With just about everybody in Western society carrying a phone with a video camera, people expect evidence today. UFO claims without photographic evidence are not given the credence they once were before these cameras were prevalent. To simply claim that you saw a space ship and were taken aboard to be colonoscoped and then returned to earth doesn't fly like it did in the past.

They say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is when evidence can expected in support factual claims.

 

[Spirit of Light]

So even the imaginary falls into your definition of "evidence". That is fine for you, but completely useless beyond you. Each of us guys is the world's greatest lover.

That is not what I say
What a religious person experiences in his or her practice are only meant for them to develope more as a spiritual being. That is why one can not give evidence others would understand

 

[ppp]

That is not what I say
What a religious person experiences in his or her practice are only meant for them to develope more as a spiritual being.

All practices of all religious persons? I suspect you only mean the ones that do not repulse you.

 

[Spirit of Light]

All practices of all religious persons? I suspect you only mean the ones that do not repulse you.

Do i get repulsed by other believers? Who would that be?

 

[ppp]

Do i get repulsed by other believers? Who would that be?

I was assuming that you would be repulsed by the practice of beliefs that harmed others. Witch burning. Women as chattel. Blood sacrifice. Racial purity. Kidnapping. Slavery. Involuntary mutilation. Involuntary cannibalism. Auto de fe. Etcetera.

Was my assumption incorrect?

Btw, I didn't say repulsed by persons. I said practices.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I was assuming that you would be repulsed by the practice of beliefs that harmed others. Witch burning. Women as chattel. Blood sacrifice. Racial purity. Kidnapping. Slavery. Involuntary mutilation. Involuntary cannibalism. Auto de fe. Etcetera.

Was my assumption incorrect?

My personal belief are to never harm others. I see it as wrong action to harm others.
But each person has to answer for themselves to their action.