Why don't Theist's admit that there's no evidence for God?

[Enai de a lukal]

That is precisely what determines what faith is. Faith is a conclusion not proven to a certainty by the evidence. We only have a few choices.

1. Certainty.
2. Faith.
3. Speculation without evidence.

No. I have every reason to believe that my cell phone is in my pocket- my belief is not held on faith- and yet, I can't be completely 100 % certain because because there's always the possibility, however slim, that I am mistaken. Heck, perhaps I'm in the matrix and there is no cell phone.

Here's a better schema-

1. Certainty (logically certain, cannot possibly be otherwise- e.g. logical/mathematical truths)
2. Rational Belief (not logically certain, but supported by a sufficient amount of evidence-e.g. the claims of science, most of our everyday beliefs)
3. Faith/Irrational Belief (not at all certain, not supported by a sufficient amount of evidence- e.g. wishful thinking, beliefs about God/the afterlife/etc.)

 

[1robin]

No. I have every reason to believe that my cell phone is in my pocket- my belief is not held on faith- and yet, I can't be completely 100 % certain because because there's always the possibility, however slim, that I am mistaken. Heck, perhaps I'm in the matrix and there is no cell phone.

That is very funny. A belief in something based on evidence is the very definition of faith. However you have no way of knowing one way or the other that you are not just a brain in a vat (like the matrix) and are not being fed information about phones and pockets that is not true for some bizarre reason. Actually the matrix reference indicates that what you believe about everything is speculation because no evidence exists that reality is true. We intuitively believe it is but that is not certainty it is speculation.

Here's a better schema-

1. Certainty (logically certain, cannot possibly be otherwise- e.g. logical/mathematical truths)

See the above.

2. Rational Belief (not logically certain, but supported by a sufficient amount of evidence-e.g. the claims of science, most of our everyday beliefs)

Add theology to that one and I will be happy and my point carried.

3. Faith/Irrational Belief (not at all certain, not supported by a sufficient amount of evidence- e.g. wishful thinking, beliefs about God/the afterlife/etc.)

Irrational belief is belief in propositions that are contradicted by evidence which have an insufficiency of their own evidence to justify faith. That is not what Christianity is. Christianity is reasoned faith given mountains of evidence. That is why a huge proportion of the greatest and most rigorous minds in history have been theists.

You may think I am irrational (and you would be wrong) but thinking Da Vinci, Newton, Pascal, Faraday, Maxwell etc... x ten thousand are all irrational, is irrational. Many of histories greatest experts in every field including evidence and testimony have been Christians. Many of hem got that way by attempting to originally prove the Bible wrong and eventually giving it up as impossible.

 

[1robin]

Not true.

examples please

Everything is an example. How do you know we are all not brains in a vat being fed false information about reality? How do you know reality was not created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age? You don't and you can't. That makes anything beyond the fact you think a matter of faith to some degree.

 

[outhouse]

Everything is an example. How do you know we are all not brains in a vat being fed false information about reality? How do you know reality was not created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age? You don't and you can't. That makes anything beyond the fact you think a matter of faith to some degree.

Your post is senseless. You have no real methodology.

There is a complete lack of credible evidence here and faith, is not evidence.

 

[1robin]

Your post is senseless. You have no real methodology.

There is a complete lack of credible evidence here and faith, is not evidence.

Yeah, my post is so senseless it is the exact same argument as the world famous senseless Descartes (the father of modern philosophy) made. What I said is an inescapable fact acknowledged by pretty much everyone in academia.

Is evidence and reasons why I was wrong coming anytime soon is assertion and speculations that defy thousands of years of philosophy all you have? It is hard to debate with "oh yeah, nu uh".


In Principia Philosophiae (1644)[edit]

In 1644, Descartes published (in Latin), Principia Philosophiae (English: Principles of Philosophy) where the phrase cogito ergo sum appears in Part 1, article 7:
Latin: "Sic autem rejicientes illa omnia, de quibus aliquo modo possumus dubitare, ac etiam, falsa esse fingentes, facilè quidem, supponimus nullum esse Deum, nullum coelum, nulla corpora; nosque etiam ipsos, non habere manus, nec pedes, nec denique ullum corpus, non autem ideò nos qui talia cogitamus nihil esse: repugnat enim ut putemus id quod cogitat eo ipso tempore quo cogitat non existere. Ac proinde haec cognitio, ego cogito, ergo sum [italics in original], est omnium prima & certissima, quae cuilibet ordine philosophanti occurrat."English: "While we thus reject all of which we can entertain the smallest doubt, and even imagine that it is false, we easily indeed suppose that there is neither God, nor sky, nor bodies, and that we ourselves even have neither hands nor feet, nor, finally, a body; but we cannot in the same way suppose that we are not while we doubt of the truth of these things; for there is a repugnance in conceiving that what thinks does not exist at the very time when it thinks. Accordingly, the knowledge, I think, therefore I am, is the first and most certain that occurs to one who philosophizes orderly."[f]Cogito ergo sum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That is very funny. A belief in something based on evidence is the very definition of faith.

Nope. Open a dictionary, or any work in theology you care to pick. The opposite of what you just said is the case.

Add theology to that one and I will be happy and my point carried.

Theology is in its rightful place- irrational/unsupported/speculative belief.

Irrational belief is belief in propositions that are contradicted by evidence

Ok, change "irrational" to "unjustified", and maybe add a fourth category, of irrational beliefs which are not only NOT supported by sufficient evidence (the 3rd category; faith claims in general) but is actually CONTRADICTED by evidence- claims like young-earth creationism and the existence of an immaterial soul.

 

[1robin]

Nope. Open a dictionary, or any work in theology you care to pick. The opposite of what you just said is the case.

I will use the very first one that popped up.

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Well number one sure did not indicate a belief gained without evidence. Lets see if no. 2 can help you.



2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.




No 2 only eliminated proof, not evidence. In fact it included a whole category of evidence. Experiential.



It seems secular sources were not much help to you and were not applicable to what we are talking about anyway. So lets look at my type of faith, specifically. I have Biblical faith, so the Bible and it's authors must provide the definition for Biblical faith.



Let's start with Peter:




Peter's primary appeal here was threefold:

1. He appealed to the evidence of the wonders and signs performed by Jesus;
2. he appealed to the empty tomb,
3. and he appealed to fulfillment of OT prophecy.

In short, his appeals were evidentiary. One of course might wish to dispute the validity of the evidence, but in context this is beside the point. The point is that Peter grounded belief in Christianity on evidence -- or, as the definition of pistis in Acts 17:31 would put it, proofs.



http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html



How about Christ's words when talking about others.



We see the definition of "faith" in terms of loyalty to, or trust in, a deserving patron, exhibited quite clearly here. The centurion knew of Jesus' miraculous abilities (v. 8). His faith was not "blind" but based on the evidence of Jesus' past works. He considered Jesus worthy therefore of his trust and came to him for help.
This is the sort of "faith" also exhibited by other people who come to, or are brought to, Jesus for healing. The man with palsy, the woman with the issue of blood, Jairus, the blind man (Matt. 9), the Syrophoenician woman (Matt. 15) -- all came knowing of Jesus' abilities to heal. Their actions were based on evidence and proof.


http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html

So far there is more reliance on evidence for Biblical faith than for entire types of science but lets look a little deeper and more recent.

The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."

Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said:

"The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.htmlhttp://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.htmlhttp://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.htmlhttp://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.html

Add in Greenleaf and Lyndhurst: Two of the greatest experts on testimony and evidence in history and your claim is just about dead, and I have not even scratched the surface. Those links contain a hundred times more and there exists thousands of times more in all.

Theology is in its rightful place- irrational/unsupported/speculative belief.

That is completely wrong. See the above.

Ok, change "irrational" to "unjustified", and maybe add a fourth category, of irrational beliefs which are not only NOT supported by sufficient evidence (the 3rd category; faith claims in general) but is actually CONTRADICTED by evidence- claims like young-earth creationism and the existence of an immaterial soul.

This argument has left the building apparently.


I have no idea why this thread makes rational people become irrational in it, or why it even scrambles entire arguments about unrelated things, incoherent and unjustifiable by being in it, but I am just about to call it quits in here. I hope you will keep this argument up, as I have not even warmed up yet but it will have to take place in a more relevant thread. This one can apparently render 2 + 2 = pizza instead of four and cause reasonable (if not right) people to loose it quick in here for some reason. It is like the twilight zone here, only it does not end after an hour, it never does. You interested in transferring the smoking wreckage of your argument to another thread?

 

[Cardboard]

I forget in which book, but C.S.. Lewis said that a society devoid of any outside influences and given only un to itself for guidance, will ultimately form a god or gods to worship.

There does seem to be an innate need for humans to need, want or seek a god or gods. At least for the majority of our worlds population.

Which begs the question, why? What is evolutionary necessity that drives us to seek out a creator or creator beings? What purpose does it serve?

I wonder though, if a child, was raised, and was never taught, about god, or the idea of god, or ever exposed to such teachings, would they on there own form a deity solely on the possible innate necessity? And if they did I wonder would it resemble anything like any of ours today?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I have no idea why this thread makes rational people become irrational in it, or why it even scrambles entire arguments about unrelated things, incoherent and unjustifiable by being in it, but I am just about to call it quits in here. I hope you will keep this argument up, as I have not even warmed up yet but it will have to take place in a more relevant thread. This one can apparently render 2 + 2 = pizza instead of four and cause reasonable (if not right) people to loose it quick in here for some reason. It is like the twilight zone here, only it does not end after an hour, it never does. You interested in transferring the smoking wreckage of your argument to another thread?

Once again, not only your inability, but your unwillingness to try to comprehend the counter-arguments urged against is discouraging; if you aren't even going to try, perhaps you should just give it up.

 

[adi2d]

Once again, not only your inability, but your unwillingness to try to comprehend the counter-arguments urged against is discouraging; if you aren't even going to try, perhaps you should just give it up.

You know he won't ever give up. He's a baffle them with bs guy. Instead of discussing with his own words he will keep quoting pages of other peoples ideas until you give up then he can mark another 'win'.


Well he will until someone disconnects him from the (ala Matrix)

 

[1robin]

Once again, not only your inability, but your unwillingness to try to comprehend the counter-arguments urged against is discouraging; if you aren't even going to try, perhaps you should just give it up.

Well, personal commentaries are surely not conducive to debate. I did make a mistake here. This is not the thread where every suddenly has amnesia. I mistakenly though I was in another thread. If you get around to actually telling me why your objections are true I might have something that promotes debate.

 

[1robin]

You know he won't ever give up. He's a baffle them with bs guy. Instead of discussing with his own words he will keep quoting pages of other peoples ideas until you give up then he can mark another 'win'.


Well he will until someone disconnects him from the (ala Matrix)

This is certainly evidence that you are not burdened by an inconvenient adherence to honor. Instead of talking about people to other people (apparently your side needs all the mutual support it can muster) maybe you can eventually show how wrong I am. God luck.

 

[Mycroft]

This is certainly evidence that you are not burdened by an inconvenient adherence to honor. Instead of talking about people to other people (apparently your side needs all the mutual support it can muster) maybe you can eventually show how wrong I am. God luck.

I've read through your posts and I have to ask: do you have a single idea in your head that is your own?

 

[1robin]

I've read through your posts and I have to ask: do you have a single idea in your head that is your own?

Why put kindness down as your religion and then post this stuff? Why betray even a false religion? Why not put sarcasm as your religion and rise above it, on occasion. I have over 7000 posts, I doubt you have read more than 1% of them.

I use argumentation that has been around a while in many cases for two reasons.

1. If it has been around for a few thousand years it has triumphed over scrutiny.
2. It has a wealth of information in it's defense and includes the counters to the weak arguments against it in detail.


Since pretty much everything any one knows was discovered and taught to them by other people I find it hard to understand why you hypocritically object to the obvious truth as it applies to over 90% of humanity and human history. Unless you have jumped in a black hole, been to the bottom of the Mariana's trench, or mastered Boolean differential calculus I doubt there is much that is original in your head. Your debate techniques sure aren't.

I also notice that I could not even force you to post a single attempt at any evidence that what you said was actually true. Surprise surprise.

 

[Mycroft]

Double post, sorry!

 

[Mycroft]

Why put kindness down as your religion and then post this stuff? Why betray even a false religion? Why not put sarcasm as your religion and rise above it, on occasion. I have over 7000 posts, I doubt you have read more than 1% of them.

Why attempt to contest my 'false religion' with a petty 'who has posted more' competition? The quantity of posts does not determine the quality of them.

I also notice that I could not even force you to post a single attempt at any evidence that what you said was actually true. Surprise surprise.

That is because the burden of proof is on you. You are the one with the extraordinary claim and so you are the one who must provide the evidence. Nobody else.

 

[1robin]

Why attempt to contest my 'false religion' with a petty 'who has posted more' competition? The quantity of posts does not determine the quality of them.

I mentioned no competition. I mentioned the fact that at best you have read 1% or 2% of my total posts so what you said is irrelevant. But maybe you read the first page of a 100 page book and gave your report on it in school. It would sure explain a lot.

That is because the burden of proof is on you. You are the one with the extraordinary claim and so you are the one who must provide the evidence. Nobody else.

No, the antedated claim in a line of discussion has the burden of proof. What you said is a perverted version of truth anyway. All claims have the burden of evidence. Extraordinary claims have the burden of extraordinary evidence.

You are new to me but so far it has been mistake after mistake and sarcasm to glue them together.

I have just about given up on your providing a reasoned debate.

Last chance give me something of substance, or I will leave you to discussing me with garbage evidence or none at all when I am not around again.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes my false equivalent was meant to indicate yours. Why should God have the same kind of evidence if you rightly pointed out I was drawing false equalities.

1. Faith has no burden for proof.
2. It has the burden of a reasonable conclusion from what evidence is available. It does no even have to be the best (however the Bible is the best), it must only not contradict certainties.

That is the burden of faith and Christianity meets it in all respects.

Faith has no burden of proof because it is belief in the absence of evidence. And as for number 2 that may be your opinion but it is far from fact and you have far from provided a sufficent case for this to be considered true.

I do not think you are unintelligent but I do think your not getting this burden stuff.

No. I got a good grasp on it.

I have the most scrutinized book in human history containing the most profound 750,000 words ever written. They make thousands and thousands of claims that have been verified. 25,000 historical corroborations alone. Not to mention 2500 predictions of he future. I could go on like this for thousands of examples. In what way does God lack evidence? Not proof, evidence. Did you know that most of the NT scholars from all sides agree to three crucial historical acts?

1. Jesus was a historical figure who appeared on the scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. He was crucified by Rome.
3. His tomb was found empty.

Now the job of faith is to evaluate the possible explanations for these facts and see if the Bible's claims are at least reasonable but in this case is by far the best explanation for those historical concessions.

Meh. There may have been more profound books written. The tora was pretty awesome. Most of the new testemant has kinda paled in terms of "profoundness". Also the Koran should also be considered.

Though you also have to note that all of the miraculous things in the bible do not have historical evidence backing them. Also the bible is not a single book. Hundreds of writing were put forth and only some of them have any historical basis. Many of not most of them do not have historical backing.
None of the predictions are in any way convincing. They are all either long reaching justfications of certian things that have happened over 2000 years OR have not come to pass.

Also there is zero historical evidence aside from the bible that proves any of those three. The only one that is even CLOSE to being "fact" would be the one about Yeshua. There are some very very very very very vague historical refrences (two in fact) that may have been Jesus but was not definitly Jesus. There is also the famous forgery that was found to be a forgery in the 1800's that is still toted by some as "evidence".

Most of the historians have agreed that it is "possible" and perhaps even "likely" that there was an outspoken Rabbi preaching new messagse in rome but absolutly nothing about his crucifixion or empty tomb aside from the bible.
It does if we can rule out natural explanations. There are many facts that have no natural explanations. Now if not natural, and you for no reason what so ever rule out the supernatural, then what other type of reality exists.

I know more about what evolutionists say about morality than most. I don't need links. They are full of crap, which is why most atheists, naturalists, evolutionists, and non-theists in general that must face theists in public debate concede morality is an illusion without God. Since you disagree I will supply a couple of the biggest names there is in these fields and their claims.

I asked an obvious question: “As we speak of this shifting zeitgeist, how are we to determine who’s right? If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?”
“Yes, absolutely fascinating.” His response was immediate. “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.
Richard Dawkins: The Atheist Evangelist | byFaith

IS MORALITY 'NO MORE THAN A COLLECTIVE ILLUSION FOBBED OFF ON US BY OUR GENES FOR REPRODUCTIVE ENDS?[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]'[/SIZE] [1][SIZE=+1] (Ruse1986)
[/SIZE][/SIZE]MORALITY AS AN ILLUSION JUD EVANS - ATHENAEUM LIBRARY OF PHILOSOPHY
That is the philosopher of science.

Evolution would contribute behavior traits for cold and indifferent purposes. It has absolutely no capacity whatever to make them moral or immoral.

Well then. Since you simply refute all of the evidence as "crap" and then quote quacks I guess we have nothing more to discuss.

But to correct you. Morality is an illusion. But its a genetically created illusion that has provided a powerful function in our societies and even earlier group constructs. There is no "eternal" morality in the sense that right and wrong are deemed so at the begining of time. However what we have as "morality" is a baseline created by evolution and spans across our entire species. Its not specific but lays the basis of what we call "morals".

That is not even close to being true. Actually no one has ever been forced to become a Christian, it can't be done. It certainly happened that some have been forced to claim they believe but no one can make a person believe, but even this was a extreme minority. The most often used claim about forced conversion is the inquisitions. Over a 400 year history at most 3000 people were killed. Islam killed more than that in one attack but if you want the truly diabolical killings in the name of a philosophy then the modern atheistic utopians has all religions beat combined and totaled over the entire course of history. No, conversion was not routinely a forced issue in Christianity. Another example, when Cortez was attempting to force conversion of the Aztecs who had been cutting hearts out of their neighbors by the tens of thousands a year, his Catholic priest said it was not God's desire to force faith. He stopped it from that moment. A later Catholic conquest is the only known conquest in history that was abandoned for moral reasons. The Church ordered it's knights to stop attempting to convert any natives.

Really? I am flabbergasted at your denial. This is paramount of saying the holocaust didn't happen.

I guess I imagined the killing of pagans, Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades then?

The monotheistic religions account for 4 billion of the 6 billon people on earth. Hinduism has been dealt with, Buddhism has been dealt with. That leaves at best a few hundred million pagans. If every single one of them claimed to have experienced God that is less than 20% of Christians. However there are far fewer than that who claim the experience. So we are exactly where I said we began.

I used doctrine to demonstrate what I claim. I do not need exact numbers.

You just told me yourself that monotheistic religions have by far the most people. This skews any statistic away from your argument. You sir have refuted yourself

I have never once claimed to be a scientist. I do work in military science. My science must work. My education must produce truth or I do not get paid and people die. I do not have the luxury of theoretical scientists who never have to produce a single truth, ever. I have a degree in math, and work in cutting edge science. That is all I have ever claimed. If you find any science (I do not remember us discussing much, if any) you think I was wrong about then I will provide the scholarship for it. BTW Christian scientists (the denomination) have little to do with science.

Much of the idea that evolution is false is the most glaring one. Are you an engineer? How do you work in science without being a scientist? do you mean you are simply not a researcher?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The New Testament as "profound"? Hah!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I doubt your some kind of unique species that has never wondered what I claimed. If you look on almost any top most profound or important questions in man kinds history. You will find, purpose and meaning in them. In fact I do not remember any of the top ten that can ever be answered by science. Almost all of mankind's great questions are in the domain of theology.

The reason we find meaning in those questions is because we created those questions. Purpose is a concept created by humans. Specifically to designate the relationship of the intent between action and result. For example. I threw an apple. Why? What was the purpose? It was to hit someone. What was the purpose of me hitting someone? Because they were making me angry. Ect ect ect.

But what was the purpose of the gravity that arced the apple's path? There is none. It is simply an innate force (actually not a force but beside the point) of the universe.

It is exactly what I said it was, and for the exact reasons I supplied (which I noticed you did not respond to).

Um. You didn't give me reasons till your most recent post. I still find them full of bullcrap. They have the most spiritual experiences because they have the most people. If there are 100 christians in a room and 20% have on red shirts and then there are 5 pagans in the room and 3 are wearing red shirts then its a 20:3 ratio of how many have red shirts. However when we look at the percentages we see only 20% of christians have red shirts while 60% of pagans have red shirts.

Though this is still contengent on the idea that "spiritual experiences from god" are even real. Your claim is devoid of actual support of this while at the same time failing to provide any hard evidence to claims and then even on top of that its a statistical error even if you were correct on both of the previous accounts. Surely as a mathmatician you have realized this.

I do not have to discount them. They do so themselves. I gave the doctrines of Islam and I believe even Judaism. That is at least 75% of the theists on Earth or very close to it. I imagine the rest would be the same but at some point I must stop posting doctrines.

Then you should see how this statistical anomoly that isn't even supported still fails in this reguard?

I thought I had shown that using doctrine. Do you not remember what I posted, do you disagree with it, or Is this a simple assertion that tries to equalize inequalities that are only equal n your mind. I tell you what lets do it this way. Find me a universal core doctrinal statement from any of the top 5 faiths in the world that claim to offer every adherent experience with God at the doorstep of faith. I will supply Christianity's doctrines that do. If the doctrines do not guarantee it then claims to it are in contradiction to the faith.

You have stopped making sense to me. Please re-word this from scratch. I've been lost somehwere and I'm not sure where.

I get how christianity "says" christian experiences are more valid than non-christian experiences but I don't see any external evidence provided for that. For example Islam states that islamic experiences with god are better than Christian experiences.

No, Buddhists do not claim this experience daily. Buddhism is not even a strict theology, it is far more of a philosophy.

Then you need to stop beliving who is telling you stuff on Buddhism. Its very much a religion. Just because it is different than monotheistic religions such as Christianity and Islam doesn't discout its significance. Taoism is very much a philosphy with very little "religion" mixed in. But Buddhism is not. If you don't believe me I suggest you go have an informative discussion with an actual Buddhist as they would be able to delve deeper into this than I.

You can find my experiences in many threads and I will supply it again. However before I do, if you cannot supply the doctrines I mentioned then he game is up. If a faith does not offer direct access to God for every believer at the moment of faith then claims to it are irrelevant. I will supply my experience either way but lets do the other first.

What do you mean by Doctrines specifically? What does that have to do with your spiritual experiences with god? what if one has a spiritual experience with god in the absence of doctorin?