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

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I would say that the evidence of nature points to a designer.

I would say that you have chosen to believe that nature has a designer. The evidence the believer can offer is the same evidence that is apparent to the atheist, which is essentially physical reality and scripture. Neither of those require a god to exist.

What has burden of proof got to do with if a person shows faith or not?

There is no burden of proof with a person who believes by faith. He would need to be able to evaluate an argument for soundness and be willing to be convinced by a compelling argument. If not, he isn't prepared for "proof."

Many people make claims but when asked they say that does not show faith because it is based on the evidence (as if faith is never based on evidence).

Faith is not based in the proper evaluation of evidence. When one has that, he has knowledge. Without such knowledge, belief is held by faith. That's the definition of faith and of irrational (not derived from valid reason) belief.

are you saying that if there is evidence for my faith then that means that it is not faith?

Yes, but only if the evidence justifies the belief.

I haven't seen evidence for other Gods except that people used to believe in them.

They use the same evidence you do.

The genetic code is evidence and Antony Flew's belief because of the genetic code, which it seems he thought too complex to have happened by chance, shows that you do not have to have a pre existing belief in God to see the genetic code as evidence for God. He was senile, that is why he only went to a deistic god, but at least he had the nouse to realise that the genetic code needed a designer.

But it does imply that one needs his senses and cognitive faculties to be intact to avoid such a belief. His cognitive competence declined and his metaphysics changed. That's not an endorsement of his transformation from atheist to deist.

 

[Audie]

Mr Flew's belief shows that you don't have to already have faith or belief to view the genetic code as evidence for God.

Pretty weird thing to say considering how his dad
a minister.

Your flew guy shows the opposite of what you claim.

Its like an alcoholic relapses after 50 years and you
find no connection to his prior condition.

Young people revolt, then relapse into religionism,
common as dirt.

 

[ppp]

Actually I do dispute that:

Antony Flew - did he really change his mind? • Skeptical Science

Antony Flew, was a rather famous British philosopher who was also a strong advocate for atheism. His arguments included these ideas … One should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces He also criticised the idea of life after death and also criticised the free will defence...

www.skeptical-science.com

I just didn't care about @Brian2 's spurious citations enough to correct him. The part that I didn't dispute is, "you don't have to already have faith or belief to view the genetic code as evidence for God." Because it's a meaningless statement. You dont already have to have faith or belief to view genetic code as evidence for a god or an alien or fate or lava.

 

[Audie]

I just didn't care about his spurious citations enough to correct him. The part that I didn't dispute is, "you don't have to already have faith or belief to view the genetic code as evidence for God." Because it's a meaningless statement. You dont already have to have faith or belief to view toast as evidence for a god.

Extra meaningless coz with Flew its baloney

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Technically, "Earth" would be a demigod. Not a (meta) God. As it cannot be the source, sustenance, and purpose of itself. Many religions employ demigods to represent the various ways that the singular source God manifests in our experience of the world. Typically; there have been demigods of the Earth, the ocean, the sun, of the weather/seasons, of fertility, of travel, and so on.

But many pantheons have earth and sky as the creators of their respective deities.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The human, or his genetic code?

Neither. It’s weird how we are the pinnacle of God’s creation skills and also fatally flawed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK so someone in your science education background has told you that evidence needs to be verifiable or it is not evidence. And he/she was speaking about science but you have extrapolated it to cover all areas of life.

That is only one of the qualifications. And so what if he was talking about science?

Anthony Flew was not a geneticist. He had very little knowledge in that area so his opinion about the current state of it is rather meaningless Experts in the field do not seem to have any problem with DNA arising naturally and in fact forming naturally.

When you try to use authorities they need to be authorities in the fields that you are discussing. A geologist is worthless if one is trying to refute a physicist. A physicist is worthless if you are trying to refute biology. Flew was worthless for two clear resigns. The most important is that he was not an expert in the fields that you try to use him in. Secondly he was senile and did not even appear to have written the book under his name.

 

[Unfettered]

If you are not addressing the post to which you are replying then it doesn't matter what you said.

Tangential or not, mine was related, and a valid point. In questions of faith and religion, faith, belief and knowledge are not the same thing and bear on how religion benefits, or not, a person. You or anyone else needn't address this point, but it is as valid as anything anyone else here has posted. I'm good either way. It's just a contribution to the thread. Seriously, if you don't want to address it, don't quote my post?

 

[ppp]

In questions of faith and religion, faith, belief and knowledge are not the same thing

And no one thinks those are the same thing.

 

[Kenny]

Critical thinkers reject their claims of having truth or knowledge through faith. Of course, they use a different definition for both of those than the faith-based thinker.

Interesting how you only see bias in others. Yes, demonstration does equal truth. An idea doesn't deserve to be called truth, knowledge, correct, or fact if it can't be demonstrated to accurately describe and predict some aspect of reality.

Science is possible because nature is evident to the senses and exhibits regular patterns which are discernable, and knowledge of which can be used navigate life more successfully by accurately anticipating outcomes under various circumstances.

Easy peasy. Faith is insufficiently justified belief, a belief is any idea considered true by the believer, and knowledge is the collection of demonstrably correct ideas.

And for good reason. I don't call an idea religious unless it's unfalsifiable. There are other beliefs in religion, such as that one should tithe, but they're not religious beliefs, just beliefs about what's good for the religion. And the religions have discovered the value of discouraging theft, murder and lying, but that's known empirically, and why atheists know that as well.

nothing you mentioned actually contradicts my position

 

[Audie]

Neither. It’s weird how we are the pinnacle of God’s creation skills and also fatally flawed.

Can't blame God. Blame the victims.

 

[PureX]

But many pantheons have earth and sky as the creators of their respective deities.

The pantheistic traditions that I am aware of (limited as they are) view the gods/demigods as individualized aspects or 'specters' of an otherwise incomprehensible divine whole (a kind of 'meta-God'). Our interactions with everything around us are our interacting with "meta-God". But that's too complex and confusing for us to navigate mentally. So we choose to interact with "God" in more specific and individualized forms (via more localized gods and demigods) as the circumstances present themselves.

That's my understanding, anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't think scientists have any idea how it could have evolved except as one of those chance thing.
And there are certainly a lot of those.

That's the way it seems to me. Furthermore and I haven't posted the report yet, science says they find more evidence showing the earth once was completely covered over with water. A looong time ago but... science is once again changing its viewpoint. Later for this...

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's the way it seems to me. Furthermore and I haven't posted the report yet, science says they find more evidence showing the earth once was completely covered over with water. A looong time ago but... science is once again changing its viewpoint. Later for this...

That is only because both of you choose to keep yourselves ignorant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can't blame God. Blame the victims.

The theists favorite game is "Heads God wins, tails people lose."

 

[Unfettered]

And no one thinks those are the same thing.

I know people who confuse and use the terms interchangeably. But since you and I both understand them to refer to different things, there is no need to discuss that point.

 

[Trailblazer]

Unfortunately, God could hover in the air right in front of me in a blinding blaze of glory, right now, and I still would have no possible way of verifying that what I am witnessing is God as opposed to some clever magician's trick. Or some advanced space alien's form of visitation, or even a trick of my own mind, or perhaps even a demon. So all the messengers God could send me still could never be verified.

You are doubling down on one word -- know. Of course nobody can know that God exists or sent messengers as a fact, since that can never be proven, but there there is more than one way a person can know something.

Definition of know

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself (3): to recognize the nature of : discern

b(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

b: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

And lacking that verification, we are lying to ourselves and others if we claim we can "know" whatever they say is a message from God. Or that they even are messengers from God. I don't even see how THEY could know.

Quite the contrary to what you said. If we sincerely believe that we know, by whatever means that knowledge was acquired, then we would be lying to ourselves and others if we claimed we do not know what we sincerely believe we know.

Personally, I see choosing faith to be the only honest and reasonably effective option.

Faith and knowledge are not mutually exclusive. I cannot speak for anyone except myself, but my faith in God and Baha'u'llah is so strong that I know. This strong faith did not develop overnight. It developed over the course of 50 years.

 

[osgart]

Definition of know

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself (3): to recognize the nature of : discern

b(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

b: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

Our five senses are our only path to perceive directly what we know in our memory and understanding.

A person can convince themselves of tons of things and still not know for certain.

Unless we have a spiritual sense in addition to the five senses, which I believe we do; then that is how we know the nature and quality of people and things around us.

Things like words, languages, math, give us maps that represent reality in a truthful way.

Meanings often represent reality in a factual way.

God can only be inferred from the meanings we have already. It's a leap of faith to associate any meaning to the existence of God. Just as atheists make a leap of faith in disbelief of God.

So if there is special revelation it has to comport with the reality we know.

 

[ppp]

I cannot speak for anyone except myself, but my faith in God and Baha'u'llah is so strong that I know.

Maybe this is what you mean @Unfettered. It is certainly a common conceit. But I would argue that the conflation is between certainty and knowledge, rather than faith and knowledge. She feels her faith so strongly that she is certain, and mistakes conviction for knowing.

 

[Unfettered]

Maybe this is what you mean @Unfettered. It is certainly a common conceit. But I would argue that the conflation is between certainty and knowledge, rather than faith and knowledge. She feels her faith so strongly that she is certain, and mistakes conviction for knowing.

This is a good example, yes. Do I believe, or do I have faith? Do I have faith or do I know? Is my knowledge certain, or yet founded on faith? Etc. For some, the terms are like moving targets.