What is Faith?

[Trailblazer]

Only maths and distilling involve proof, all else is just evidence. I maintain that sufficient evidence justifies a claim of fact. Example: round Earth and heliocentric theory: facts, despite being unproven.

I maintain that sufficient evidence justifies a belief in God, but God can never be considered a fact, because God can never be proven to exist.

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

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
what is a fact - Google Search

 

[Trailblazer]

Thanks for proving my point.

Thanks for proving mine.

No you don't, and that is explained by numerous members. You really, really, really want to believe you do, but you don't.

Numerous members? No, only two that I know of.
I do not have to 'believe' what I know about myself and my capabilities because I know myself better than anyone else.

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.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 45

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh, so you're a mind reader now.

No, he is the judge and jury and judges everyone who disagrees with him as guilty of poor reasoning.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, I have extensive experience with her. My experiences with her are there for all to witness for themslves.

I have extensive experience with you. My experiences with you are there for all to witness for themselves.

 

[CG Didymus]

I think it's more than just what works for them. I don't think "But it works for me!" would make much headway against The Inquisition.

Yes, making laws that allowed religious freedom has created a situation where the dominant religions can't torture and kill off people that have opposing religious beliefs and won't convert. But some religious people do still try to kill off opposing beliefs.

But there's something else going on here. A religion like Christianity or the Baha'i Faith have people that will say that it works for them, but is the religion really working? I think that there's is probably a majority of believers that do very little and are believers in name only.

 

[Trailblazer]

But are atheists being unfair in asking or putting forward these objections?

Let's imagine some unspecified idea/claim that we want to examine and we just call this X. Then the first step must be that we have some sort of way to actually verify that X is even possible. What would we expect to see if X is true? and what would falsify X?

If we can't even agree on what we would expect to see if X is true, then we don't really have any way to even approach the claim. Because equally, it would also mean that we have no way to falsify X either then. And by falsifying X I mean, what result of our examination would make X untrue.

So the only logical conclusion is not one of the two options you suggested but (3) We don't know. (1) and (2) are possible conclusions, given the complete lack of a method/agreement on how to even approach the claim in the first place.

I think I need to reexplain why I said (1) or (2) are the only logical possibilities.

X = The physical reality, what we see in the real world as we know it.
If God exists the we see X.
If God does not exist we see X.

There is nothing other than X because X is physical reality as we observe it.
That is why there cannot be a third option (3) we don't know, because we do know what exists in the physical reality. It is what we can see and measure by empirical methods.

So we cannot say that if God existed God would do Y because Y does not exist in the physical reality.
When atheists say something would be different if God existed that makes no sense because they are assuming God does not exist, and if God existed something would be different (Y). But (Y) is impossible. because X is what actually exists, and X exists whether God exists or not. That means that if God exists God is doing exactly what God would do if God exists, and if God does not exist then X exists without a God.

So do you understand why we cannot set criteria for determining if God exists?

Let me give you an example. I posted to this atheist on another forum for about eight years almost daily before I came here and he always insisted that if God existed God would communicate directly to everyone in the world. He never budged from this position until I finally boxed him into a corner by asking specific questions and insisting that he answer them.

The upshot is that we know that God does not communicate directly to everyone so that means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone. My atheist friend still insisted that if God existed God would communicate directly to everyone (with no basis for this belief except that he thinks God should do this) so I told him the only logical position for him to hold is that God does not exist, and he conceded to me that is what he has determined.

When a lot of atheists explain their position of why they are atheists, it is not one of the two conclusions that you presented, but rather the one I did. If we don't know how to even approach the question of whether God exist or not, then there is no logical reason to assume that he does, said in another way, "We see no evidence for God(s) or the supernatural, that would convince us that it is true".

That in itself is a legitimate statement. There is no logical reason for atheists to assume that God exists if you see no evidence for God(s) or the supernatural, that would convince you them it is true. So the way to go about it is to look for evidence of God's existence and if you cannot find any then you should not believe in God.

If as you say, we have no way of knowing that God would do any of these things if he existed, then we are not left with a lot of reasons to assume that God exists, because we can't tell the difference between whether God does things or doesn't do things. Said in another way, even if God existed, he might as well not, to us as humans it is the same.

But as I just explained above, you cannot go about determining if God exists according to what you think God would do if God existed because if God exists what we see is what we get.

So when atheists say that if God is an intervening one, at least we would have the option to somehow measure/experience some effect if it is something supernatural. That God so far hasn't done this, is not really the fault of the atheists or them being unfair. What other options are there, if we want to examine this?

But how would you know if God was doing something supernatural? To be fair to the believers, the Bible records all kinds of supernatural things God did and Baha'u'llah also performed miracles. However, a miracle is only proof to the person who witnesses it firsthand. Thousands of people witnessed the execution of the Bab which was a miracle in contemporary history.

The Execution of the Báb

I know atheists won't consider Messengers of God as evidence but that is all God offers as evidence so I cannot tell you that there are other options.

Because God is outside time and space and per definition divine/supernatural. Then it would defy what we consider natural. Meaning that something would happen that we simply couldn't explain as being a natural thing. This is obviously extremely difficult because there are a lot of things we do not know. But science is obviously the biggest none aggressive opponent to religious claims, meaning that science's intention is not to disprove God, but to explain the natural world and as it does that, it leaves less and less room for God.

Yes, anything that would defy what is considered natural would be evidence that God was involved. I believe that the execution of the Bab is a good example.

There can be many reasons why people believe in God, I have no single answer to it. But I think this is an interesting video that is worth seeing if you want to approach an answer, and the fact is that we as humans are "dumb as hell", will probably make more sense after you have watched the video

Thanks. I did watch that and I got his main points. People really have very little information stored in their brains so they rely upon other people and the internet to get information. Also, people are capable of believing anything as the flat earth society example demonstrates. That is why we need to do our best to thoroughly research whatever we are considering believing before believing it. That is why I am always suggesting people research Baha'u'llah before they would consider believing in Him, and it is not as if there is no information on Him and His life out there, as it is readily available on the internet. Unlike trying to research the life and character of Jesus, we can know the person and life of Baha'u'llah, and exactly what He did on His earthly mission, much of which was chronicled by people who lived during His lifetime.

Again I think the video will somewhat address this issue as well. But you see the issue, with drawing the conclusion that some Gods are fake when just above, you admit that there is no way to know what God do and doesn't do? It doesn't seem to be a logical conclusion

I do not see a connection between what God does or doesn't do and whether God exists or not, because if God exists God is doing what God does, and other than sending Messengers, we cannot know what God does. It is a Baha'i belief that God rules and maintains all of existence, but that is not something we can understand, see or verify. I'm not sure if God has any spare time given that is a big job. (Just kidding, since God is not subject to time as we know it and God has no limitations).

 

[Valjean]

No, not exactly. There is evidence for God but there is no evidence for leprechauns and pink unicorns. The only thing God has in common wiith leprechauns and pink unicorns is that God had never been observed, but there is no reason to think that if God existed God could be observed.

What is this evidence for God? Is it more personal, subjective evidence?

Most people in the world believe in God. How many people believe in leprechauns and pink unicorns?
I am not saying that God exists is true because many or most people believe in God as that is the fallacy of ad populum. I am saying that it makes no sense that so many people would believe in God in the absence of evidence

This does sound strangely like an ad pop....
People, for various reasons, are prone to magical thinking. Their god beliefs aren't homogenous, and widespread beliefs are usually an accident of politics. None of the beliefs is objectively supported.

There is evidence and that is why 93% of people in the world believe in God, but there is no testable or observable evidence for God.
Why do you think that if God exists there would be testable or observable evidence for God?

I don't agree. What is this evidence?

The answer to that is easy-peasy. Humans exist in the material world. Science can measure and test for anything that exists in the material world.
God does not exist in the material world so there is no way to observe God or test for God.

So why do you believe in him?

 

[Valjean]

The evidence for the existence of God is Messengers of God. I am not saying that you should have faith in them. You would not want to have faith in them unless a Messenger was determined by you to BE a Messenger of God. You determine that by looking at the evidence the Messenger offered to back up His claims.

But there are thousands of "messengers of God out there, all with different messages. Stop by a psychiatric hospital and you might find a dozen of them.
How does one determine which, and if, any of these is reporting the truth, if there's no objective, testable evidence backing the claims?

It sounds like the 'evidence' needed to justify your faith in God is based on equally unjustified faith in messengers.

 

[Nimos]

So do you understand why we cannot set criteria for determining if God exists?

No, because the claim made about God is that he is outside time and space and is not a physical being. Assuming that is true, it doesn't automatically follow that God couldn't interact with the physical reality, it is after all what he does according to the bible.

I think the idea is the same as if we imagine that the multiverse theory is true as well, our universe and an infinite amount of other universes are created constantly, but whatever these universes are created from or in depending on how you look at it, doesn't necessarily have to be physical, we obviously don't know. So far the multiverse idea ends up in more or less in the same place as God does, no one can explain where or how all these universes would come from, merely that if it is the case, then in theory eventually a universe like ours would arise. Also given that we are contained to the best of our knowledge to this reality, we have no clue if any outside force natural or unnatural is affecting our universe, but we wouldn't be able to tell the difference, as we can't go outside our reality.

Let me give you an example. I posted to this atheist on another forum for about eight years almost daily before I came here and he always insisted that if God existed God would communicate directly to everyone in the world. He never budged from this position until I finally boxed him into a corner by asking specific questions and insisting that he answer them.

Agree with you, that it is not a sound argument. God could exist and not communicate with anyone. Also, I don't think any of the religious texts claim that God directly communicate with all people and it is after all what foundation we have to talk from, everything else would be wild speculation without any rules really, so anything would go.

The upshot is that we know that God does not communicate directly to everyone so that means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

We don't know that, the claim is that he communicates with some people, yet we have no proof of that being the case. There are lots of people that claim that they can do this or that God answered their prayers which is also a form of communication.

But as I just explained above, you cannot go about determining if God exists according to what you think God would do if God existed because if God exists what we see is what we get.

Agree, but in order to examine the question in the first place, we can come up with scenarios that would indicate that it could be possible. But as you say it doesn't mean that God actually does it.

It's much like when SETI look for intelligent life in the Universe, we assume that they communicate in given ways and if we can pick up such signals then that could indicate that there is life out there. But these aliens might use completely different ways of communicating than we do, maybe they are telepathic or have simply found another way to do it that we can't detect. That doesn't mean that there is no life out there simply because we don't find anything.

But how would you know if God was doing something supernatural?

As I said it is not easy, because we don't know everything. But if something occurs that we simply can't explain through any natural means, that would be a good start. That doesn't mean that it isn't natural, because clearly, the God of gap is an option, but I think that is our best option, given that we have no method of detecting or examining the supernatural.

I do not see a connection between what God does or doesn't do and whether God exists or not, because if God exists God is doing what God does, and other than sending Messengers, we cannot know what God does.

This is the issue because we have no way of verifying this, we have the people's claim that they are messengers, but no hard evidence that they actually are. Therefore it is not a valid way of examining if God is real or not, we can't rule out that these people simply made it up or somehow got convinced that God spoke to them. There are countless examples of people claiming this to be the case.

 

[PureX]

What is sufficient evidence to one person is not necessarily sufficient evidence to someone else.
We all determine what is sufficient for our own beliefs, or insufficient to believe if we are nonbelievers.

I don't care about belief. I don't need to believe something to act on it. All I need is to choose to hope that it will manifest if acted upon. Then I will find out. (And have my "evidence".)

That said, there will never be 'information' about God because information is based upon facts and God can never be established 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

That's why God is so useful to us in terms of faith (as opposed to "belief").

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What more productive investigative modality do we have? We've done trial-and-error, mythology and imagination for millennia, without even getting off the ground.

Okay, you get the long one.
Notice how in debates we always end up in variants of X is Y and yet it also involves what matters as humans.
In the variants of science for at least one culture that doesn't limit understanding of what it means to live as a human according to natural science and don't do metaphysics and ontology in any positive sense for any variant you in effect get the following methodologies:
#1: How do we understand and work with anything in common for all humans for all times for which we can't control what goes on, based on how we think/feel. That belongs to natural science.
#2: How do we understand and work with anything in common for all humans for all times for which that which goes on, depends at least in some sense on how we in general think/feel. That comes under social science and philosophy.
#3: How do we understand and work with different human ways of coping with the human situation that accounts for individual cases of a given situation down to how biology, upbringing, culture, psychology and technology influences a given human including how other humans claim what amounts to the fundamental basis of the human situation. That in the continental European tradition can be called human science.

Now for real and true the standards become different for those concepts for these 3 different variants of science because what counts as real and true differs for dependent, independent, combinations of those and induvial and/or common as for humans and other aspects.

So now we include 3 factors: You as a product of nature and nurture, a believer in a dogmatic theistic culture and me.
Your methodology only works in a limited sense for the world as such and only relevant for some humans: Your group and the theists.

The moment you run into a different culture for which your model doesn't work, because of in effect the following joke:
Nobody in recorded history in the strong sense has shown as true and real the metaphysical and ontological status of the world.
For X is Y and not Z, X is Z and not Y and all other variants the same problem for God is, applies to the world is.
Just as I can live differently in some sense than a theists, I can live different than you, because I do the world different than the world or God is.

I don't fit into to your black and white of your science versus religion because I do it as a third way.
So if you want to understand this you have to forget your strong dichotomy of science versus religion. Or your in effect absolute, universal and beyond doubt versions of true and real.
The world functions for knowledge as a different models for which what results you get, differ for whether you include the model in the world or not.
Or if you like for the words be and exist. Humans for their being and existence are in the world, only some other parts are around them, because they are also parts in the world and thus a strong dichotomy of subjective/objective breaks down or any other words to that effect.

Hi Valjean
That is not just me talking here. That is my culture as a lot of humans for which we all have tried to look beyond the simple version of in effect:
I am right and you are wrong or so in reverse for all of these variants of positives and negatives including true, real, rational and what not.
So here is the falsification of your we for the best model.
I can do it different for some aspects of your cognition as for best model and the evidence is right in front of you. I am not dead, I understand the world as such and live in it. I am just for some variations different that your we. I am one of them. Your problem is that I am not a theist, so your model doesn't work on me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is a truth and you know what that is. I wouldn't assume laziness. I'd seek a doctor's approval of the diagnosis. Science only deals with tangible evidence. I'm approaching knowledge from inner experience coupled with objectivity about it. Inner experience reveals knowledge that can't be tangibly evidenced. I know my motivations though others don't.

A third person person perspective is only good for tangible evidence, and behaviour.

There are other paths to knowledge that are earned that rely on honesty, trustworthiness, and understanding.

I guess I don't see it as the same path to knowledge as science.

Yeah and the answer is that you and I use Satan's science for what I am and do and we will burn in Hell. See, you have a noble idea. The problem is that no human has to live exactly the same as any other human to have a live. But your model requires that.

 

[PureX]

But different Christians can have slightly different beliefs, like Catholics vs. Pentecostals vs. Fundamentalists vs JW's, and having faith in what they believe works for them. Now add the Baha'is... they have very different beliefs than most Christians, but it works for them. To me, it's kind of like self-fulfilling prophecies. If the person believes that their religion is true, things will happen in their lives that, to them, verifies it.

It's not the "beliefs" that are working for them. It's their faith. That's why different beliefs are being claimed to work. As example: believing that God is male or believing that God is female makes no difference to our choosing to place our faith in our God. And when acting on and that faith gains a positive result, it made no difference what gender we believed our God to be.

I don't care about belief. Belief is just the presumption that what we think is true, is actually true. And people think all sorts of things are true that they can't actually know to be so. Most belief us just ignorant hubris. Faith is different. Faith is based on our hope that something is true. Not that our blind presumptions that it is. Faith is honest. And that's why it's often much more effective.

 

[PureX]

So belief in God is a psychotherapeutic modality.

I don't care about what anyone 'believes'. This is not a discussion about belief.

One wouldn't. Just make it clear that this is make-believe, like rebirthing therapy, and not a claim of actual reality.

This discussion has nothing to do with "make-believing" anything. It has nothing to do with believing anything. It's about our choosing to act on our hopes. And about how a great many people use their idea of God to help them do that.

But this is to counter religion's insistence on -- and often enforcement of -- its own correctness.

I don't care about religion. This is not a discussion about religion.

If you were to build a whole movement around a flat Earth doctrine or holocaust denial, would it be obsessive for someone to point out your error?
It seems to me that it's the religious who are obsessive.

I guess you're just not interested in the discussion at hand.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is not and never will be any verifiable evidence for God because verifiable evidence is proof

No, it's not. Evidence and proof are not the same thing. And being verifiable doesn't turn evidence into proof. Instead, it just makes the evidence reliable and solid.

, and there will ever be any proof of God.

Nore any verifiable evidence.
That's the thing with unfalsifiable entities... They are indistinguishable from things that don't exist.

There is evidence, just no proof.

What you call "evidence", are in fact just claims.

IMO, it is perfectly justified to believe in God on evidence and faith, because we have faith in the evidence that God provides.

Anyone who thinks that God could ever be independently verified knows nothing about the nature of God.

I'm very much aware that unfalsifiable things could never be independently verified.
It's exactly the reason why all people, including you, always ignores unfalsifiable things because they simply do not matter, having no impact on anything or manifestation anywhere.

Because they are indistinguishable from things that don't exist.

You just make an exception for certain such things and then call it "faith".

On faith, you can believe anything, including the gazillions of unfalsifiable things you ignore every single day.
Like the undetectable dragon standing behind you right now.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't care about what anyone 'believes'. This is not a discussion about belief.

This discussion has nothing to do with "make-believing" anything. It has nothing to do with believing anything. It's about our choosing to act on our hopes. And about how a great many people use their idea of God to help them do that.

I don't care about religion. This is not a discussion about religion.

I guess you're just not interested in the discussion at hand.

Yeah, actual objective reality for some people are not different that the God of some religions.
But the moment you try to go beyond both, these 2 groups act in a in effect "co-dependent manner". They can only see the other kind and not that there are at least a third way.

 

[osgart]

Yeah and the answer is that you and I use Satan's science for what I am and do and we will burn in Hell. See, you have a noble idea. The problem is that no human has to live exactly the same as any other human to have a live. But your model requires that.

I don't believe in hell, nor do I want to live exactly like others. I just see common general elements in all of humanity. Why would general universality stifle creativity and uniqueness? Once morality is solved then people can live however they desire. I never claimed everything was binary, with morality you certainly have right and wrong but beyond that there are no restrictions on the good side. I can't deny I see a bad side to humanity though.

If there were no common elements than empathy wouldn't be possible. Humanity already has many political, religious, and social divisions. Ignorance and blind falsehoods cause war just as much as evil. Humanity needs to self discover the common elements of our humanity. And what I think we'll find is that there are peaceful people, and then there is arrogance, and hatred. I don't really think that utopia nor peace for all will ever happen. I just want to mitigate the effects of bad things with wiser people.

I can't help but find common themes and patterns that everyone must grapple with over and over again, generation after generation.

 

[PureX]

Yeah, actual objective reality for some people are not different that the God of some religions.
But the moment you try to go beyond both, these 2 groups act in a in effect "co-dependent manner". They can only see the other kind and not that there are at least a third way.

I can't blame atheists for thinking and claiming that faith is belief when so many religious theists preach that confusion constantly. All I can do is try to keep pointing out the difference. But the bias on both sides is entrenched. And many will not listen.

 

[PureX]

The demand for "verifiable evidence" is completely subjective. It amounts to little more than saying "convince me, as I fight not to be convinced". Because "verification" is a subjectively chosen criteria. Just as "proof" is. Meaning, "I decide what constitutes verification, and I decide what constitutes proof, and I can move the goalposts I use to determine these any way and any time I like". "I am in charge, and it's your job to bang your head against my intractable bias."

 

[1213]

OK, you disagree. Do you have a reason, or is your reason "Just because"? What did I write that you consider incorrect, and what in your opinion makes it incorrect to you? If you have no such answer, what makes you think it's incorrect?

I disagree with that, because it can't be supported well with the Bible. But, as you has shown, you rather use other definitions of words than what the Bible has, which is why it is no wonder, if you have such ideas. I don't think your claims has really much to do what Bible actually says.