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

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Your faith is that faith is not a pathway to truth.

Faith can't be a path to truth. Either of two mutually exclusive claims can be believed by faith, and at least one is wrong. By faith, one can believe the Bible is or is not the word of a deity. One of those is incorrect, yet faith allows you to believe the wrong one, and even if you guess correctly, you have no way to know you did short of empiric confirmation, which changes that belief from faith to empirically justified belief.

your definition of faith is belief that has no evidence

Her and my definition of (religious-type) faith is insufficiently justified belief according to academic standards for deciding what conclusions any offered evidence supports. That includes beliefs where the evidence offered doesn't adequately support the belief. Simply pointing to something and saying "this is my evidence" doesn't make it evidence supporting that belief by academic standards for interpreting evidence.

wanting to use verifiable evidence for spirits and God is never going to be right if there are spirits and God.

Nothing can be said to exist absent evidence that it does and nothing should be believed that isn't a sound conclusion derived from evidence.

And yes, that sort of faith is not a reliable pathway to truth

"That sort of faith"? There aren't types of faith. Many different kinds of ideas from delusions to correct ideas can be believed by faith, but they're all believed by the same method - accepting insufficiently justified claims as truth.

at least it has a chance of being right when it comes to spiritual matters.

Being possible isn't nearly enough for belief.

So what do skeptics do, decide to have their own definition of evidence and say that not verifiable evidence is not evidence.

Critical thinkers evaluate evidence according to academic standards and the laws of reason. That's a proscribed standard. It is YOU who has his own definition of what evidence is and what constitutes supporting evidence.

Faith is when we have gone as far as evidence can take us and decide from there that something is true or not even though the evidence is not decisive.

Elsewhere, you wrote, "unless it is blind faith, there is evidence." Here, you're agreeing that if that evidence doesn't justify that belief, just go ahead and believe it anyway. That's "blind faith," which is a redundant term. Blind belief is faith and faith is blind belief

We don't all say that only verifiable answers can lead to the truth about spiritual things however.

I don't call any claim that can't be confirmed empirically truth, correct, or knowledge.

Falsifiable evidence

This is an incoherent term. Evidence can't be falsified. Claims can be false, falsified, or falsifiable, but not evidence.

Why can't skeptics understand what evidence means?

I understand what the word means to YOU, and also that you use a rogue "logic" connecting it to beliefs that you then incorrectly claim supports the belief. That seems to be fine for you, but others decide such matters differently. Evidence is anything evident to the senses. What it is evidence of is a different matter.

The evidence is not that people believe the claims, but the people believing the claims shows it is evidence

People believing claims is only evidence that they believe the claim, not that the claim is correct. The critical thinker isn't interested in what others believe if they can't give him a good reason to believe it, too.

I know what a claim is and know that witness claims are evidence in a law court.

Evidence, yes, but evidence of what? Do you understand that juries often don't believe such claims? Trump has claimed that he didn't steal or disseminate state secrets. Nobody considers that sufficient evidence to believe him even absent the evidence found on his property, because he isn't credible about anything.

the presumption that the supernatural is not true.

You keep making this same error. What presumption that the supernatural doesn't exist? You presume that it does, but the critical thinker remains agnostic on the matter until it can be confirmed or disconfirmed. If it manifests, I'll accept the fact of its existence. You and most other believers continually morph "I'll believe it when I see it" to "it doesn't exist."

 

[ppp]

Well I suppose skeptic apologists have been busy for years trying to show that the Bible is a work of fiction

That is poor thinking on your part. There is no need to show that the Bible is a work of fiction. Or even make that supposition. No one has to assume that you are telling porky pies. The simple fact of the matter is that no one, including you, has demonstrated that they know or are capable of knowing that there is a god. Until that occurs, neither you, nor the authors of the Bible are credible.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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?

Of course there is proof for God which is why many believe. But what is proof? To say there is no higher intelligence in all the universes would be a very illogical an inaccurate assumption because no one knows all there is to know to be able to make such a conclusion. So to maintain there is no God is a false statement not based on any facts or known knowledge.

The main clue there is a God to many are the Educators Who appear on earth from time to time and are unique. But those who reject Them of course do not accept Them as proof but I do. Christ, Moses, Muhammad, Buddha, Krishna and Baha’u’llah I believe prove that there is a greater Intelligence than us humans.

 

[Bthoth]

Of course there is proof for God which is why many believe. But what is proof? To say there is no higher intelligence in all the universes would be a very illogical an inaccurate assumption because no one knows all there is to know to be able to make such a conclusion.

what does higher intelligence have to do with a god?
Have you observed the books and messes that they have created?

So to maintain there is no God is a false statement not based on any facts or known knowledge.

Agree But only mankind has created so many gods.

The main clue there is a God to many are the Educators Who appear on earth from time to time and are unique.

Yoda, The hairy christna, Steven Spielberg, Rob Zombie and of course Charles Darwin.

But those who reject Them of course do not accept Them as proof but I do. Christ, Moses, Muhammad, Buddha, Krishna and Baha’u’llah I believe prove that there is a greater Intelligence than us humans.

You forgot Albert Einstein and Steven Jobs

 

[loverofhumanity]

what does higher intelligence have to do with a god?
Have you observed the books and messes that they have created?

Agree But only mankind has created so many gods.

Yoda, The hairy christna, Steven Spielberg, Rob Zombie and of course Charles Darwin.

You forgot Albert Einstein and Steven Jobs

One of the attributes of God is Ultimate Intelligence. There is no fault in the Holy Books which teach love and harmony only peoples choice to act contrary to their counsels. There is no equal to the Great Educators.

 

[Audie]

Of course there is proof for God which is why many believe. But what is proof? To say there is no higher intelligence in all the universes would be a very illogical an inaccurate assumption because no one knows all there is to know to be able to make such a conclusion. So to maintain there is no God is a false statement not based on any facts or known knowledge.

The main clue there is a God to many are the Educators Who appear on earth from time to time and are unique. But those who reject Them of course do not accept Them as proof but I do. Christ, Moses, Muhammad, Buddha, Krishna and Baha’u’llah I believe prove that there is a greater Intelligence than us humans.

An actual physical letter in a woman's
handwriting, mailed from Nigeria is
Proof that a Nigerian princess doth
adjure thee to succor her for she
is sore beset and has billion dollars
for you just give her your accountt number.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course there is proof for God which is why many believe.

If there was proof everyone would believe in God.
There is no proof of God, only evidence. Evidence is not proof.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

There are many kinds of evidence, and not all evidence is verifiable. Verifiable evidence is proof because it establishes something as a fact.

Fact: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

There is no proof that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, since this can never be proven as a fact.
All we have is the evidence that indicates to 'some of us' that this was the case and causes 'some of us to' believe, but evidence is not the same as proof.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is no fault in the Holy Books which teach love and harmony only peoples choice to act contrary to their counsels. There is no equal to the Great Educators.

True, but the problem for most people is knowing who those Great Educators are. Why should they believe those who are on the Baha'i list?

 

[loverofhumanity]

An actual physical letter in a woman's
handwriting, mailed from Nigeria is
Proof that a Nigerian princess doth
adjure thee to succor her for she
is sore beset and has billion dollars
for you just give her your accountt number.

None of These Educators were anything but self effacing and disinterested in acquiring worldly wealth. They taught us to live a virtuous life and for that were persecuted. They never asked for money. But the religious leaders many are corrupt and seek personal fortunes abusing religion. Religious leaders have been responsible for wars and hatred throughout the centuries acting against the spirit of their religion.

 

[Audie]

None of These Educators were anything but self effacing and disinterested in acquiring worldly wealth. They taught us to live a virtuous life and for that were persecuted. They never asked for money. But the religious leaders many are corrupt and seek personal fortunes abusing religion. Religious leaders have been responsible for wars and hatred throughout the centuries acting against the spirit of their religion.

Countless people get "messages"
of all different sorts.
Some try to start religions,
thousands have succeeded. more
have failed.
Religions vary wildly in how destructive
or benign they are, how wide they
spread and how long they last.

Like all other human cultural developments.

Out of the huge range of persons and ideas
some are better than others.

If you choose to think that of those originators
some were " chosen of god", go for it.

Ive seen nothing special in any. " teachings" I've
looked at.
Nothing remotely special enough to suggest any
" god" got in the act.

But that's me, I don't like putting conclusion first
then assuming everything proves I'm right.

The "persecuted for teaching virtue" bit...spare me.

 

[John D. Brey]

Countless people get "messages"
of all different sorts.
Some try to start religions,
thousands have succeeded. more
have failed.
Religions vary wildly in how destructive
or benign they are, how wide they
spread and how long they last.

Like all other human cultural developments.

Out of the huge range of persons and ideas
some are better than others.

If you choose to think that of those originators
some were " chosen of god", go for it.

Ive seen nothing special in any. " teachings" I've
looked at.
Nothing remotely special enough to suggest any
" god" got in the act.

But that's me, I don't like putting conclusion first
then assuming everything proves I'm right.

The "persecuted for teaching virtue" bit...spare me.

Go thy way Daniel for the word are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.​

​

Daniel 12:10.​

Daniel

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes I'm talking about faith. That is what I have been pointing out umpteen times now. BUT your definition of faith is belief that has no evidence and mine is that unless it is blind faith, there is evidence.

You've demonstrated in this thread that it isn't.

And you didn't answer my question:
What good is evidence if it's not verifiable????

So what do skeptics do, decide to have their own definition of evidence and say that not verifiable evidence is not evidence.

Skeptics don't tend to lean on faith. I lean on evidence. Faith is not evidence of anything, except one's willingness to believe something.

Faith is when we have gone as far as evidence can take us and decide from there that something is true or not even though the evidence is not decisive.
It's like people saying that life came from just chemicals when the evidence is not decisive. That is faith.

Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence. Otherwise, they'd just give the evidence.

You've perfectly demonstrated this numerous times. including right above.

And yes, that sort of faith is not a reliable pathway to truth,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but at least it has a chance of being right when it comes to spiritual matters.

The faith you're describing is not a reliable pathway to truth. I can use it to believe in alien abductions. Or Bigfoot sightings. Whatever. Sure, they may all have a chance of being true. But faith isn't going to do a single thing to help us verify or demonstrate anything.

There is no verifiable evidence for spirits and God and so wanting to use verifiable evidence for spirits and God is never going to be right if there are spirits and God.

Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence. Otherwise, they'd just give the evidence.

But this is known by skeptics, or should be, but of course it is ignored. Verifiable evidence is treated by them as something that is a legitimate way to find out whether there are spirits or gods.

Verifiable evidence is treated by most everyone as something that is a legitimate way to find out whether anything exists or not. You use it every single day in every single way. It's only when it comes to your religious beliefs that you apparently have to suspend the idea of verifiable evidence. Maybe ask yourself why that is.

But maybe skeptics, or some of them, really do think that verifiable evidence is a way to find out if there are spirits of gods.
However they are fooling themselves or have been fooled and have an unjustified faith in verifiable evidence for that purpose.

I'd say the people who are fooling themselves are those who believe unverifiable things. Those who claim to have detected the undetectable but can't explain why or how or even what the undetectable things are.

So if verifiable evidence is not good for finding out about spirits of gods, why do skeptics condemn evidence that is not verifiable for that purpose?

See above.

God can reveal things to anyone who is willing to listen.
Yes it is faith.

Oh cool, magic!

I'm sorry you don't believe me.

This was in response to, "No need for apologies. I just need you to realize how reason and logic work and that you don't get to shirk your burden of proof onto others because you can't show how you're detecting undetectable things."

Can you explain how your response addresses this?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well I suppose skeptic apologists have been busy for years trying to show that the Bible is a work of fiction, so if you have faith in what they say then the Bible is a work of fiction for you and spirits and God have not been experienced by people of the Bible in history.
But if you just don't know whether the Bible is a work of fiction or not, or whether people mentioned there actually experienced spirits of God then I suppose you are at least open to belief in spirits and God.

And once again instead of explaining yourself, you try to shift your burden off onto someone else.

 

[Audie]

And once again instead of explaining yourself, you try to shift your burden off onto someone else.

I got tired of it.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Countless people get "messages"
of all different sorts.
Some try to start religions,
thousands have succeeded. more
have failed.
Religions vary wildly in how destructive
or benign they are, how wide they
spread and how long they last.

Like all other human cultural developments.

Out of the huge range of persons and ideas
some are better than others.

If you choose to think that of those originators
some were " chosen of god", go for it.

Ive seen nothing special in any. " teachings" I've
looked at.
Nothing remotely special enough to suggest any
" god" got in the act.

But that's me, I don't like putting conclusion first
then assuming everything proves I'm right.

The "persecuted for teaching virtue" bit...spare me.

I enjoyed reading your post and I think I understand some of what you say. My understanding is that most of todays religions are irrelevant for our age and therefore offer no solution for todays problems as their mission was for different ages and times. So they couldn’t prevent or stop WW1 & WW2 and the possible upcoming one.

But the solution put forward by Baha’u’llah has not yet been tried. Baha’u’llah‘s call is for the nations and religions to unite and for the oneness and equality of all people to become international binding law and re education to eliminate prejudices and foster reconciliation. People who acknowledge the equality of all humanity of whatever belief have no problem getting long with anyone. It doesn't matter who promotes it but the oneness of humanity needs to take root I believe, or we will have a war far worse than the last two. This is what the times demand of each and every one of us - to put aside our differences and get along with one another. The ‘us vs them’ mentality and mindset is incompatible with a nuclear age. Unity and reconciliation is really the only choice we will either voluntarily choose or be forced into after unimaginable violence which is gathering momentum daily.

 

[ppp]

If there was proof everyone would believe in God.
There is no proof of God, only evidence. Evidence is not proof.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

There are many kinds of evidence, and not all evidence is verifiable. Verifiable evidence is proof because it establishes something as a fact.

Fact: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

There is no proof that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, since this can never be proven as a fact.
All we have is the evidence that indicates to 'some of us' that this was the case and causes 'some of us to' believe, but evidence is not the same as proof.

What is your methodology for establishing that a claim is evidence? Or are you still trying to pretend that any given statement is a claim?

 

[Trailblazer]

What is your methodology for establishing that a claim is evidence? Or are you still trying to pretend that any given statement is a claim?

I never said that a claim is evidence. A claim is not evidence at all. Evidence is what supports a claim.

 

[ppp]

I never said that a claim is evidence. A claim is not evidence at all. Evidence is what supports a claim.

All (declarative) statements of which the stater is convinced are claims.

Edit: Added declarative

 

[loverofhumanity]

As long as the criteria for establishing proof of God based upon human reasoning it can be faulty or challenged. We just go around in circles ad infinitum chasing our tails so to speak. Even some, despairing hopelessly claim that God can never be proven and materialists which claim to be rationalists want to see a physical God otherwise will not believe notwithstanding that the laws of physics and gravity are very much alive yet invisible. Qualities of human beings just as love, justice compassion too are invisible powers that we readily accept because they leave ‘effects’ just like the physical laws.

I believe from the types of arguments presented here that most are not sincerely seeking but just come here for entertainment purposes to mock those who do believe.

Of course there’s proof God exists and there is plenty of supporting evidence but just as the blind can deny the existence of the sun so too the spiritually blind will deny the existence of God. Nothing can be done about this as we are all on our own journey and are discovering new truths each day. “Just as the sun bright hath He shined but alas He hath come to the town of the blind” (Rumi)

Just as we know the sun exists through its rays which reach us and give light and growth so too we can see how those Suns of Truth have nourished billions of souls through Their teachings. Deniers have not developed spiritually sufficiently the qualities necessary to see and know God therefore remain deprived and entrapped by a mindset of skepticism. But to those who are spiritually mature arguments are not needed as it is crystal clear God exists.

“when man feels the indwelling spirit, he is in no need of arguments for its
existence; but for those who are deprived of the grace of the spirit, it is
necessary to set forth external arguments.” (Some Answered Question)

The evidence which proves God exists are the Suns of Truth. Their own Persons. Their Lives. Their Revelations. Their Words. There is none to equal Them. Buddha, Krishna, Christ, Muhammad, Moses, Baha’u’llah. None can compare to These exalted Beings. But those who are presently immature spiritually will argue back and forth. It requires spiritual perception and insight to recognise the truth and until people fulfil this condition they cannot see that God exists.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. (Baha’u’lla)

And these are the conditions the true seeker must meet to find the ultimate truth.

Account Suspended

 

[ppp]

Their own Persons.

That is so lazy. There is no world where someone's mere existence is evidence of the things that they claim are true. At best, actions are evidence of their sincerity. It is not evidence that they had the least clue.