• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
ppp said:
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.
Click to expand...
Conceit is excessive pride in oneself. I have no pride in myself since I do not believe my certainty comes from me.
My certainty came from God and I am thankful to God every day for having bestowed upon me such a blessing.

“Be thankful to God for having enabled you to recognise His Cause. Whoever has received this blessing must, prior to his acceptance, have performed some deed which, though he himself was unaware of its character, was ordained by God as a means whereby he has been guided to find and embrace the Truth. As to those who have remained deprived of such a blessing, their acts alone have hindered them from recognising the truth of this Revelation. We cherish the hope that you, who have attained to this light, will exert your utmost to banish the darkness of superstition and unbelief from the midst of the people. May your deeds proclaim your faith and enable you to lead the erring into the paths of eternal salvation. The memory of this night will never be forgotten. May it never be effaced by the passage of time, and may its mention linger for ever on the lips of men.”

(Baha'u'llah, quoted by Shoghi Effendi in The Dawn-Breakers, p. 586)

The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation, p. 586
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
Unfettered said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's simple. If you believe something that cannot be
demonstrated, OR DISPROVED, it's faith.
 
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
ppp said:

conceit - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org en.wiktionary.org

Like many words in English, conceit has multiple usages. When confronted with a sentence structure that does not fit the usage one knows, one might look up the word and see what other usages fit. Or one might swallow one's excessive pride, and simply ask.
Click to expand...
One might want to look at their own pride, rather than calling others prideful, for no reason other than that they have a strong faith in God.
There is no connection between strong faith in God or a messenger of God and pride. The faith is in God and the messenger, not in self.

I firmly believe what Baha'u'llah taught about fault-finding and try to live by what He taught.

26: O SON OF BEING! How couldst thou forget thine own faults and busy thyself with the faults of others? Whoso doeth this is accursed of Me.​
​
66: O EMIGRANTS! The tongue I have designed for the mention of Me, defile it not with detraction. If the fire of self overcome you, remember your own faults and not the faults of My creatures, inasmuch as every one of you knoweth his own self better than he knoweth others.​

I have many faults, things I would like to change about my character, but I focus on my own faults, not on the faults of others. I am well aware of my faults and it is because of that that I am able to work on them. A primary reason I read and post on this forum is to try to improve my character by interaction with other people, which leads to learning and self-awareness.
 
Tinkerpeach

Tinkerpeach

Active Member
an anarchist said:
I’ve been reading through a couple of threads, and I see that it is said that there is no evidence for a god, it’s an unfalsifiable idea. We all agree on this? If you don’t, care to explain the evidence there is for god?
I’m in agreement. I used to believe my personal experiences to be subjective evidence for god, but I know now that’s not the case. I am not a theist anymore because I recognize I was a Christian thanks almost completely to my environment. That’s why I believed. I was brought up in it. Wasn’t because of any proof or anything,
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?
I am curious about personal evaluations on why you believe. It can’t be because of logic, as there is no proof of god, right?
Click to expand...
There is enough proof for me but not for someone who chooses to deny God.

If there were actual proof why would we need faith.

Once you acceuGod and build your relationship with the proof becomes easier to see
 
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
ppp said:
You cared enough to object to being called prideful. Again. Why do you care?
Click to expand...
When people say things about me on a public forum that I know are not true I am going to correct what they say about me.
Do you have a problem with that?
 
Brian2

Brian2

Veteran Member
It Aint Necessarily So said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are saying that physical reality does not require a God to exist. But that is a statement of faith since nobody has shown that to be the case.
Scriptures can exist without a God however but imo not scriptures which have prophecies and promises that have been and still are being fulfilled.

It Aint Necessarily So said:
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."
Click to expand...

What you just said means that you don't have a burden of proof for your faith statement about physical reality and scripture not needing a God to exist.
OK so you just believe it and don't need to show me or anyone else that it is true.

It Aint Necessarily So said:
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.
Click to expand...

So if I evaluate the evidence of prophecy and the genetic code correctly that means that I have knowledge. OK, if you insist, I have knowledge.

It Aint Necessarily So said:
Yes, but only if the evidence justifies the belief.
Click to expand...

Let's see. Prophecies and promises that are fulfilled hundreds of years later and are still being fulfilled. Sounds like the one who gave the prophecies and promises is real and has the power to do what he promises and the knowledge of the future.

It Aint Necessarily So said:
They use the same evidence you do.
Click to expand...

Such as.

It Aint Necessarily So said:
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.
Click to expand...

OK, if you say so. Analysis of the genetic code certainly does not lead everyone to the same conclusions.
 
Brian2

Brian2

Veteran Member
Audie said:
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.
Click to expand...

That must be it.
But what you say does not mean that the genetic code is not evidence for God.
 
Brian2

Brian2

Veteran Member
ppp said:
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.
Click to expand...

If it is meaningless then why did you even want evidence for God that you don't have to be a believer to view as evidence?
The real question is whether the genetic code is evidence for an intelligence behind it.
It could reasonably be evidence of that.
Maybe you think that it is evidence for chance more than evidence for a designer.
Well imo that would not be reasonable reasoning.
I would say that to believe that would show a pre existing belief in chance.
But no, why do I mention chance? It has nothing to do with chance, it is just about atoms and molecules obeying the laws of physics and that leading to the genetic code.
Hmmm, if that is what you believe, that is what you believe.
I'll continue to believe in a designer however and that the genetic code is evidence for one.
 
Brian2

Brian2

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
That is only one of the qualifications. And so what if he was talking about science?
Click to expand...

Science is not history or theology or flower arranging. Different disciplines, different rules of evidence.

Subduction Zone said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you want an expert listen to the first half of this video. Dr James Tour is an expert.

Metaxis and origins scientist - Google Search

www.google.com
 
Brian2

Brian2

Veteran Member
YoursTrue said:
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...
Click to expand...

Yes that water thing is part of what I found which started me on the road to thinking that science was actually proving Genesis without realising it.
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
Brian2 said:
That must be it.
But what you say does not mean that the genetic code is not evidence for God.
Click to expand...
The ignorance, argument from. Neither idea is falsifiable.

But I wasn't even talking about that.
 
Last edited:
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
Brian2 said:
Yes that water thing is part of what I found which started me on the road to thinking that science was actually proving Genesis without realising it.
Click to expand...
Please oh please quit talking about science
proving things.
It really kills your argument.

That said tho, what in genesis is not shown false
by science?

Six day poof is out, flood is out.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Brian2 said:
Yes that water thing is part of what I found which started me on the road to thinking that science was actually proving Genesis without realising it.
Click to expand...
I doubt hat. You probably do not even understand the basics of science. No one that did would call James Tour an expert.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top