• 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?

It Aint Necessarily So

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It Aint Necessarily So said:
The idea can neither be ruled in nor out. Likewise with naturalistic explanation, which seem more likely, but once again, to be logically rigorous, we must not commit ourselves to either possibility until we can rule it in or the alternative out.
Click to expand...

Wildswanderer said:
There isn't one. Only "you don't know."
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're telling me here. There is a naturalistic explanation for why we're here (the causal why, not the intentional why), and "I don't know" was my answer. Naturalistic explanations exclude intent because there is none. That's what happened to thunder when it went from a supernatural event, perhaps gods at war or throwing lightning bolts for some purpose, to a naturalistic one. The intentional why (the wrath of Thor) was replaced with the causal why, the physical explanation. Likewise with cosmology. If there was no god involved in cosmogenesis, there was no intent or purpose, either.

It Aint Necessarily So said:
They're questions most ask, but nobody gets an answer - not from examining nature (not yet, anyway), and not by faith. Some recognize and accept this fact, and say that these questions are unanswered and unanswerable at this time. Some invent comforting answers. It's a normal human proclivity, but one we can outgrow.
Click to expand...

Wildswanderer said:
Most people are theists and have an answer. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it untrue. It's just your opinion.
Click to expand...

What you are calling answers are what I call faith-based guesses, which I told you I don't consider answers. When I say answers, I mean knowledge, which means demonstrably true ideas.
 
W

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Direct evidence is not exactly how most people orientate themselves to reality. How many people have ever asked NASA to give them the bulk data, so they can prove to themselves what the noise on the printout means.

What most people do is wait for the experts to interpret the raw data for you and then tell you what it means and how you should interpret it. The layman has no direct proof, but only faith in the prestige of the bottoms lines of others it respects.

Science is always improving and what the laymen gets in school, is not the state of the art compared to the experts. The layman gets yesterday's donuts. But that is sufficient for many to call it a done deal. A little knowledge can make you think you know more than you do, while lots of knowledge, like an expert, makes you realize how little you know.

Religion works the same way in that not everyone has the original data, but we depend on others who are experts to interpret the data for us. But since religion is often about the needs of the inner man or inner woman, the faithful will have some direct hard data based on their unique experiences of faith and karma. This may not be easy for all to interpret, so they seek the help of others who they respect and knows more.

When I first entered engineering college, I tried to be cynical about everything I was being taught. I wanted to prove it to myself rather than accept with faith. This approach was very time consuming and it was not needed to get good grades. It was faster and easier to remember bottom lines without getting too deep in cynical doubt, due to conflicting data.

I tried to have faith that the professors were trying to help me. This made it easier to adapt, but it detached me from the front line of evidence, where the professors play.

Today many colleges do not even teach critical thinking skills; healthy skepticism, but have conditioned the students to memorize bottom lines for grades and life long ideas. This can be useful, but only if politics is not allowed to put it's thumb on the scales. Young people can benefit by asking for the raw data every now so they can say I saw the proof.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Subduction Zone said:
Then I would change my beliefs. My goal is to know as many correct things possible.
Click to expand...

My goal was to check, if what my culture told me, what correct is, was cultural or really objectively correct with evidence, truth, proof and all those other words just like God.
So as a Westerner I learned to doubt both God and correct things. So I changed my beliefs.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Subduction Zone said:
I am not sure that I get your meaning here. We may have a l language issue.
Click to expand...

No, we are having an issue over 2 versions of doubt. You use one and I use another. To learn that and you don't have to.
It is not a case that you ought to, should or have to, but then you will learn that evidence is a belief system, that only appears to works if you believe in it. And as a belief system, there are other possible belief systems.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
No, we are having an issue over 2 versions of doubt. You use one and I use another. To learn that and you don't have to.
It is not a case that you ought to, should or have to, but then you will learn that evidence is a belief system, that only appears to works if you believe in it. And as a belief system, there are other possible belief systems.
Click to expand...
I would say that an evidence based belief system seems to out perform all others. What else do you you have?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Yes, seems, but that is not objective. That is a thought/feeling in your mind. You are expressing a singular 1st person type of confidence, but that confidence is in you.
Click to expand...

No, it depends upon the metric that one chooses. I can give very good reasons for my metric. Once one chooses a metric it is easy to argue for an objective "best". I am waiting for the supposed something else.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Subduction Zone said:
No, it depends upon the metric that one chooses. I can give very good reasons for my metric. Once one chooses a metric it is easy to argue for an objective "best". I am waiting for the supposed something else.
Click to expand...

All of the words as for how you do it, are in your mind as how you in effect believe. So as long as you don't realize that your reasoning is singular 1st person as how it makes sense to you, we will remain there. You will continue to take your thoughts as the basis for evaluate other people thoughts. First when you can treat your thoughts as your thoughts and then doubt what they have to do objective reality, I will answer the rest.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
All of the words as for how you do it, are in your mind as how you in effect believe. So as long as you don't realize that your reasoning is singular 1st person as how it makes sense to you, we will remain there. You will continue to take your thoughts as the basis for evaluate other people thoughts. First when you can treat your thoughts as your thoughts and then doubt what they have to do objective reality, I will answer the rest.
Click to expand...
Sorry, it appears that I have to categorize this as an unsupported claim on your part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top