Define Evidence

[minkymurph]

Just the same as it doesn’t matter to me in the slightest if Jesus actually did everything that is written about Him. But we can take what was reported and treat it on its own merits. But then you need the resurrection to have actually taken place so you are hardly going to treat these stories with any degree of scepticism.

Is it not fair to say the average atheist possesses a high degree of scepticism concerning God, gods and religion - and arguably a higher degree of scepticism than they possess in regard to anything else, and thus equally as lacking in terms of objectivity as those who believe the Gospels?

 

[Bradski]

I don’t think it can legitimately be said if a writer reads an account of an event and then writes another account the latter is ‘worthless.’

If we apply this rule of thumb to the Gospels, then surely we would have to apply it to other writings? If the rule of thumb is applied to the Gospels and only the Gospels, would this not suggest bias? Bias towards anything written about God, gods or religion?

No, we don’t have to treat all stories exactly the same.

The point about the two gospels is that I am continually being told that we have two independent eye witness accounts of the resurrection. When that is plainly and obviously not the truth. The accounts are not independent by any means. The writer of one of the gospels had read the other before writing his account.

If you are trying to decide if something happened in a particular way, then independently written corroborating evidence is one method you could use. But if one person has read what someone else has written before writing their own account, there is no way you can be assured that he was actually there let alone saw exactly what was described.

It certainly doesn’t mean that the second guy definitely did not attend or is simply plagiarising the first account, but you cannot treat it as independent for the purpose of trying to corroborate the evidence. It is worthless in that respect.

Is it not fair to say the average atheist possesses a high degree of scepticism concerning God, gods and religion - and arguably a higher degree of scepticism than they possess in regard to anything else, and thus equally as lacking in terms of objectivity as those who believe the Gospels?

The degree of scepticism I exhibit varies in relationship to the initial credibility of the subject matter, its importance and the intentions of the source of the information.

If you tell me that you have a cat called Tiddles, then I’m fine with that. It’s quite believable, it’s not the slightest bit important to me if it’s true or not and I wouldn’t have any reason to think you would want me to believe it if it was untrue. But if you said your cat was run over by a car and you sprinkled some fairy dust over it and it came back to life, then I’m going to exhibit a lot of scepticism about that.

If I read a story about Jesus and how he urged us to treat others as we would treat ourselves, then it would be quite believable in essence and it really wouldn’t matter if He existed or actually said what He was reported to have said. It would be the message that was important. It could be Socrates or Gandalf or King Arthur who was meant to have said it. It’s worth taking on board whoever said it or indeed if anyone actually said it.

If we have a story about a dead body coming back to life and that person was meant to be the same god who made the whole enchilada, then the scepticism meter goes into the red. It defies literally everything I understand about the natural world. In fact, if I heard that someone who knew nothing about Christianity was told the story and accepted it without any problem, then I would be seriously concerned for the state of their mental health.

 

[minkymurph]

The point about the two gospels is that I am continually being told that we have two independent eye witness accounts of the resurrection. When that is plainly and obviously not the truth.

That’s a valid point. Such assertions should not be made.

The accounts are not independent by any means. The writer of one of the gospels had read the other before writing his account. If you are trying to decide if something happened in a particular way, then independently written corroborating evidence is one method you could use. But if one person has read what someone else has written before writing their own account, there is no way you can be assured that he was actually there let alone saw exactly what was described.

In terms of evidence this again is a valid point. They are not independent of each other.

The authors Gospels did not write them for the purpose of provision of ‘evidence’ in the sense we are discussing ‘evidence’ here. Thus, they cannot be treated as ‘evidence’ in this context. Attempting to use them as such in my view only serves to discredit them.

When we consider ‘evidence,’ we do not merely consider what is written, but who wrote it, why and when - among other things. The Gospels were written as testimony to beliefs that surrounded the person of Jesus Christ at the time they were written in terms of he was the Messiah - God. That is the message of the Gospel in a nutshell. We can conclude this in fact what they believed. If we conclude they did not, then one would then one would have to wonder why they wrote the Gospels at all and what they believed they had to gain.

The fact that the Gospel writers believed Jesus was the Messiah - God, does not of course in itself make it true. That said, we could not rationally conclude the message of Gospel sprang from pure imagination - few things do. My English tutor once said fictitious writers all draw people they know and the world around them for inspiration, and that only true story- one that sprang from pure imagination, is Jack and Beanstalk. The Gospel accounts shed light on how and why the respective authors came to form that belief. We can say many things about the Gospel accounts, but something served not only as a catalyst to their composition but the birth of Christianity. The question then is what?

 

[minkymurph]

The degree of scepticism I exhibit varies in relationship to the initial credibility of the subject matter, its importance and the intentions of the source of the information.

I always say a healthy dose of scepticism keeps one’s feet on the ground and stops one from becoming too wacky. :whacky:

Think I covered the intentions of the source of information in previous post.

If you tell me that you have a cat called Tiddles, then I’m fine with that. It’s quite believable, it’s not the slightest bit important to me if it’s true or not and I wouldn’t have any reason to think you would want me to believe it if it was untrue. But if you said your cat was run over by a car and you sprinkled some fairy dust over it and it came back to life, then I’m going to exhibit a lot of scepticism about that.

This in view is most valid argument atheists have. Forget the ‘evidence’ - it is just too fantastic to believe.

If I read a story about Jesus and how he urged us to treat others as we would treat ourselves, then it would be quite believable in essence and it really wouldn’t matter if He existed or actually said what He was reported to have said. It would be the message that was important. It could be Socrates or Gandalf or King Arthur who was meant to have said it. It’s worth taking on board whoever said it or indeed if anyone actually said it.

Fair point. In fact Jesus said many things that had in fact previously been said by someone else - all be it he put a different interpretation on it. If my memory serves me correctly his parable of the wheat and the weeds (or was it the sower ) and he adapted it and gave it a different interpretation. Drawing of everyday life is common characteristic of his parables.

If we have a story about a dead body coming back to life and that person was meant to be the same god who made the whole enchilada, then the scepticism meter goes into the red. It defies literally everything I understand about the natural world. In fact, if I heard that someone who knew nothing about Christianity was told the story and accepted it without any problem, then I would be seriously concerned for the state of their mental health.

Ah no, you just had to go and spoil a good critique with last comment. :banghead:

There is any amount of evidence people who that knew nothing of Christianity, were told the story and accepted it without any problem did not have mental health issues. The people of Anuta readily accepted Christianity when it was brought to them by Anglican missionaries. I don’t know if you’ve heard of Bruce Parry but he filmed a series of amazing documentaries and in one of them he visits Anuta. The people of Anuta readily accepted Christianity as many Christian teachings fitted right in with their culture and way of life. The only thing that had to change was one God and this didn’t present any difficulty for them. They continue to live the same way today and many of them have gone to universities on the mainland. They just see no need to change.

A similar situation existed in Ireland in the monastic period. Now we’re talking about the Irish - OK you may have a point about the state of their mental health.

 

[Bradski]

The authors Gospels did not write them for the purpose of provision of ‘evidence’ in the sense we are discussing ‘evidence’ here. Thus, they cannot be treated as ‘evidence’ in this context. Attempting to use them as such in my view only serves to discredit them.

When we consider ‘evidence,’ we do not merely consider what is written, but who wrote it, why and when - among other things. The Gospels were written as testimony to beliefs that surrounded the person of Jesus Christ at the time they were written in terms of he was the Messiah - God. That is the message of the Gospel in a nutshell. We can conclude this in fact what they believed. If we conclude they did not, then one would then one would have to wonder why they wrote the Gospels at all and what they believed they had to gain.

Bear in mind that it’s others who are claiming the gospels as evidence. I’m simply saying that if you treat them as such, then they must be discounted for any number of reasons. But I agree with you, they weren’t written as evidential tracts to be used as ‘proof of the resurrection’ sometime down the track. They are simply stories that represent the beliefs of certain people. Which obviously doesn’t make the stories true.

Notwithstanding the usual cry: ‘But why would they lie?’ As if that were the only two option: The resurrection happened or the gospels are deliberate lies.

The fact that the Gospel writers believed Jesus was the Messiah - God, does not of course in itself make it true. That said, we could not rationally conclude the message of Gospel sprang from pure imagination - few things do. My English tutor once said fictitious writers all draw people they know and the world around them for inspiration, and that only true story- one that sprang from pure imagination, is Jack and Beanstalk. The Gospel accounts shed light on how and why the respective authors came to form that belief. We can say many things about the Gospel accounts, but something served not only as a catalyst to their composition but the birth of Christianity. The question then is what?

I think one would need more than a quick post to answer that.

In fact Jesus said many things that had in fact previously been said by someone else - all be it he put a different interpretation on it. If my memory serves me correctly his parable of the wheat and the weeds (or was it the sower ) and he adapted it and gave it a different interpretation. Drawing of everyday life is common characteristic of his parables.

It’s not as if Jesus started making speeches about how to live one’s life and everyone thought: ‘Hang on, I hadn’t thought of that before’. Love and peace man! He would have fitted in well at Haight-Ashbury. Jesus was a baby boomer.

There is any amount of evidence people who that knew nothing of Christianity, were told the story and accepted it without any problem did not have mental health issues. The people of Anuta readily accepted Christianity when it was brought to them by Anglican missionaries. I don’t know if you’ve heard of Bruce Parry but he filmed a series of amazing documentaries and in one of them he visits Anuta. The people of Anuta readily accepted Christianity as many Christian teachings fitted right in with their culture and way of life. The only thing that had to change was one God and this didn’t present any difficulty for them. They continue to live the same way today and many of them have gone to universities on the mainland. They just see no need to change.

A similar situation existed in Ireland in the monastic period. Now we’re talking about the Irish - OK you may have a point about the state of their mental health.

I’m not sure I’d be surprised if people who already believed in sprits and gods accepted the story. As you said, the concept already fitted in with their culture. But let’s say that you got a bang on the head and forgot everything associated with Christianity and all other religions. Then someone tells you that he believes that a guy was tortured to death and then came back to life. And he was one third of a triune. And was the son of the creator of the universe but was actually the creator himself in human form. And if you ask him nicely he’ll grant your wishes. And if you are good, he’ll let you live forever. But if you are bad there’s a place you go to suffer for eternity.

You’d think he might need to increase his medication. But if all this happened two thousand years ago…hey, no problem. Why wouldn’t you believe it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

LOL. Multiverse theory is not my invention.
And I’m told it is supported by tested modelling and apparent evidence.

Somebody lied to you.

Multiverse is a philosophical hypothesis, not a scientific theory. It is not provable since it requires an infinity of universes and an eternity of them, neither of which for obvious reasons can ever be demonstrated using scientific evidence.

It is a desperate attempt to find a universe-of-the gaps instead of a god-of-the-gaps.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Somebody lied to you.

Multiverse is a philosophical hypothesis, not a scientific theory.

Indeed

It is not provable since it requires an infinity of universes and an eternity of them, neither of which for obvious reasons can ever be demonstrated using scientific evidence.

Yep. And yet, for some reason the idea holds sway with people who object to theistic cosmology because… ???

It is a desperate attempt to find a universe-of-the gaps instead of a god-of-the-gaps.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

But I still find it strange that big bangs are OK as long as you don’t suggest they were deliberately caused. And parallel universes are OK so long as you don’t give them names like heaven or hell.

 

[minkymurph]

But I still find it strange that big bangs are OK as long as you don’t suggest they were deliberately caused. And parallel universes are OK so long as you don’t give them names like heaven or hell.

All manner of things are accepted as at least possible so long as there is no link between God and religion, and in the absence of the same threshold of evidence imposed on anything that relates to God and religion - which is why I posed the question I did.

My conclusions are that a certain bias exists in regard to evidence that could be presented for the existence of God or gods. A higher standard of proof appears to be required, and what would be accepted as evidence in regard to other matters is not accepted in regard to God and religion. It is also the case more than one atheist has said to me they would not believe in God unless they actually saw God for themselves, and even if they did they would probably still not believe it. Thus, it in fact appears irrelevant whether there evidence or not. In this regard I think I’ve pretty much got what I wanted from this thread, but for establishing why this should be the case. The latter of course would be difficult to establish as bias is rarely acknowledged or even recognized by one who holds the bias.

 

[Bradski]

A higher standard of proof appears to be required, and what would be accepted as evidence in regard to other matters is not accepted in regard to God and religion.

But the standard of proof doesn’t simply relate to the existence or not of a god.

If I was to say that I don’t know how the universe was created and you suggested that whatever it was we could call ‘God’ (we could actually use any name at all as we are simply using it as a placeholder for whatever it was), then I would probably shrug my shoulders and agree.

I would also probably suggest that we are no closer to ascertaining exactly how it was done simply by giving the process a name. And it’s at that point that we find that it’s not just a creator in which you would like me to believe. Leading on from a few assumptions that you would make there is a vast amount of what you would describe as facts associated with ‘God’ that you will say I also need to believe.

The assumptions are omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence etc. none of which are necessary for whatever it was started the process of creation. For example, the ‘God’ may not have any idea how its creation would turn out. It may not have any control as to how it unfolds. It may simply cease to exist once the blue touch paper has been lit.

In any case, the existence of ‘God’ then comes with a plethora of ancillary requirements for belief. Otherwise we are just using the term as a placeholder. Those requirements are that ‘God’ has created everything specifically for us, even though we can’t access almost all of it. He also grants us specific favours if we ask nicely, though there is no evidence for this. He also will appear to a few people in human form and be killed, rise from the dead and return to wherever he came from. Though there is no credible evidence for this either.

He is also one, but three, a concept which defies any logic whatsoever. He has also determined that people who do wrong will be punished for eternity and others will live forever. The concept of justice appears to be missing there. He has also imbued each of us with a soul, which is undetectable. The human race is meant to have started with a single couple but we know this cannot have happened. He apparently is quite concerned about our sex lives.

The list goes on and on. And to believe in ‘God’, which was originally agreed could be used as a term for the process which started everything, you have to believe all of it. Literally all of it. You cannot pick and choose. There are no boxes to be ticked: ‘I’ll take this, this, this one and…no, none of the rest’.

So it’s not evidence just for God that you need to supply. It’s evidence that everything else that you claim about Him is true as well.

 

[Vonsalza]

The assumptions are omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence etc. none of which are necessary for whatever it was started the process of creation.

I think those attributes may be ascribed in contexts different from the solely mechanical fabrication of the universe.

Those requirements are that ‘God’ has created everything specifically for us, even though we can’t access almost all of it.

This may be a bit of a straw-man. Whatsoever God does is done, primarily, because it pleases him. God is at the center of creation, not you and me.

He also grants us specific favours if we ask nicely

News to me. I have the understanding that the prime benefit is found after I expire, not before.
Matthew 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you:
45 That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.
Emphasis mine.

He is also one, but three, a concept which defies any logic whatsoever.

Sure, as quantum mechanics largely defy the Newtonian mechanics that preceded them. Point being “I don’t understand how this works” doesn’t mean “It doesn’t exist”.

If sure you’d agree that God, if he’s real, doesn’t have any obligation to “play” by anyone’s understanding of the rules except His own.

He has also determined that people who do wrong will be punished for eternity and others will live forever. The concept of justice appears to be missing there.

Or perhaps God’s concept of justice isn’t the same as yours… See above.

So it’s not evidence just for God that you need to supply. It’s evidence that everything else that you claim about Him is true as well.

The belief in God, just the same as the belief in anything metaphysical, requires faith; as metaphysical ideas cannot be materially proofed.
This can’t be the sole basis of rational objection, as a continuum of faith is required to believe anything not personally verified - like the population of China being 1.5 billion people.
Where we differ is in the location on the continuum of faith where we arbitrarily place our personal flag of “reasonable”.

 

[minkymurph]

But the standard of proof doesn’t simply relate to the existence or not of a god.

Which standard of proof are we talking about?

Criminal? Civil? The reliability test? (Used by judges to determine the reliability of competing scientific evidence and sometimes called the Daubert standard). The Genealogical Standard of Proof? Gödel’s ontological proof based on modal logic that assumptions that cannot be proven can be expressed as mathematical equations and a higher being must exist?

As the objective of this thread was to discuss what we believe constitutes ‘evidence’ and what evidence we are willing to accept as evidence and what we are inclined to reject as opposed to coming to any definitive conclusions on whether or not God or gods actually do exist, an adaptation of the Daubert standard is the most appropriate.

If I was to say that I don’t know how the universe was created and you suggested that whatever it was we could call ‘God’ (we could actually use any name at all as we are simply using it as a placeholder for whatever it was), then I would probably shrug my shoulders and agree.

I probably would say something like this in response.

I would also probably suggest that we are no closer to ascertaining exactly how it was done simply by giving the process a name. And it’s at that point that we find that it’s not just a creator in which you would like me to believe. Leading on from a few assumptions that you would make there is a vast amount of what you would describe as facts associated with ‘God’ that you will say I also need to believe.

I don’t believe I said I wanted you to believe in a creator. In fact, I don’t think I said I wanted you to believe in anything.

I don’t think you could know what assumptions I would make, and I don’t think you could know I would make the assumption there is a vast amount of what I would describe as facts associated with ‘God’ that I would say you also need to believe. Is this evidence of belief in the absence of evidence?

We know nothing about one another other than I’m a Catholic who lives in Ireland and your atheist who lives in Australia and we both post on CAF.

The assumptions are omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence etc. none of which are necessary for whatever it was started the process of creation. For example, the ‘God’ may not have any idea how its creation would turn out. It may not have any control as to how it unfolds. It may simply cease to exist once the blue touch paper has been lit.

I didn’t use any of these terms, nor say you should believe these things.

 

[minkymurph]

The assumptions are omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence etc. none of which are necessary for whatever it was started the process of creation. For example, the ‘God’ may not have any idea how its creation would turn out. It may not have any control as to how it unfolds. It may simply cease to exist once the blue touch paper has been lit.

How do you know this is what I assume?

In any case, the existence of ‘God’ then comes with a plethora of ancillary requirements for belief. Otherwise we are just using the term as a placeholder. Those requirements are that ‘God’ has created everything specifically for us, even though we can’t access almost all of it. He also grants us specific favours if we ask nicely, though there is no evidence for this. He also will appear to a few people in human form and be killed, rise from the dead and return to wherever he came from. Though there is no credible evidence for this either.

He is also one, but three, a concept which defies any logic whatsoever. He has also determined that people who do wrong will be punished for eternity and others will live forever. The concept of justice appears to be missing there. He has also imbued each of us with a soul, which is undetectable. The human race is meant to have started with a single couple but we know this cannot have happened. He apparently is quite concerned about our sex lives.

The list goes on and on. And to believe in ‘God’, which was originally agreed could be used as a term for the process which started everything, you have to believe all of it. Literally all of it. You cannot pick and choose. There are no boxes to be ticked: ‘I’ll take this, this, this one and…no, none of the rest’.

So it’s not evidence just for God that you need to supply. It’s evidence that everything else that you claim about Him is true as well.

Again, I don’t recall saying any of this. I don’t recall claiming anything about God true or false.

I don’t need to supply evidence of anything any more than you do.

You’ve made your views on religion clear, but this thread is not about your view of God and religion - nor mine. It’s not about you, it’s not about me, nor any other individual and what they do or do not believe. In fact a lot of people post on internet forums for no other reason than it passes the time and they have no specific objective. The purpose of this thread from my perspective was to establish if there is a correlation between what we consider constitutes evidence, what evidence we are willing to accept and reject, and our belief - or lack of it, and not to persuade or dissuade of anyone of anything.

In conclusion, in view this thread demonstrates there is a correlation. You are of course free to reject that.

 

[Bradski]

Again, I don’t recall saying any of this. I don’t recall claiming anything about God true or false.

I’ll get back to this later (reasonably busy at the moment), but in brief…when I say ‘you would say’ or ‘you claim’ I am using you as a representative of Christianity. It’s just easier to say ‘you’ rather than ‘any given Christian’.

Perhaps it would be better if I used the passive tense as in ‘evidence needs to be supplied’ as opposed to ‘you (any given Christian) need to supply evidence’.

But notwithstanding that, surely you would agree that everything I have listed would generally be expected to form the whole of any Christian’s belief. The trinity, the resurrection, the power of prayer, miracles etc.

 

[minkymurph]

I’ll get back to this later (reasonably busy at the moment), but in brief…when I say ‘you would say’ or ‘you claim’ I am using you as a representative of Christianity. It’s just easier to say ‘you’ rather than ‘any given Christian’.

Perhaps it would be better if I used the passive tense as in ‘evidence needs to be supplied’ as opposed to ‘you (any given Christian) need to supply evidence’.

But notwithstanding that, surely you would agree that everything I have listed would generally be expected to form the whole of any Christian’s belief. The trinity, the resurrection, the power of prayer, miracles etc.

Given that I identify as Catholic it is fair to assume my beliefs in relation to God are Catholic, but it was not my intention to compel you or anyone else to embrace what I believe. In my personal view ‘conversions’ for want of better phrase don’t happen as result of ‘head’ knowledge, or as we are discussing ‘evidence,’ and arguably should not happen for this reason. The best of arguments can be rebutted with one that is in fact less viable in the right circumstances.

In my experience ‘conversions’ happen as a result of a leaning a certain way in the first instance. There are all sorts of reasons why we experience these ‘leanings.’ I was drawn to Catholicism at a very early age. There is of course the rational explanation as to why this should have been the case as opposed to it was anything to do with God. In my late teens I thought communism was the answer to everything as Thatcher had just come to power, unemployment was at an all time high, the most disadvantaged in society became even worse off, and my idea of communist Russia was everyone had a job, there was no inflation as prices hadn’t risen in 20 years - found out later there was nothing to buy - and no one was rich but no one was poor. There is no one knows better than I do we are compelled to change our position when confronted with hard evidence.

My faith was not easy for me. It was a struggle and continues to be so. Many times I have thought there is no God or one not listening. The Incarnation was a huge struggle for me. I was brought up to believe the doctrine of the Trinity was perpetrated by Satan, and people who prayed to the Trinity were in effect praying to Satan. My mother used to tell me Satan could hear prayers too. I was mad about the Bay City Rollers at the time so I thought I would pray to Satan to meet them which I don’t think was quite what she had in mind. Needless to say I never did get to meet the Bay City Rollers - so much for praying to Satan.

I believe in God because I honestly believe I have encountered God in my life. I believe I was called to be Catholic, and called to be Catholic for reason. I have no idea what the reason is, may never know in this life, so I suppose I have to believe in the after life to have any hope of knowing. If I do find out in this life you will be one of the first to know. You can tell me how deluded I am and who knows, you many be right, I have been deluded before.

I am getting serious deja vu writing this post - side issue.

Have I any evidence for what I have said? Absolutely none. If there is no evidence I can present to myself, I can hardly present any to you. Belief in God is an intrinsic element of who I am so I’m stuck with it, because we can never be truly fulfilled where we deny who we truly are to ourselves - even if it goes against what we perceive to be our better judgement.

 

[Vonsalza]

Have I any evidence for what I have said? Absolutely none. If there is no evidence I can present to myself, I can hardly present any to you. Belief in God is an intrinsic element of who I am so I’m stuck with it, because we can never be truly fulfilled where we deny who we truly are to ourselves - even if it goes against what we perceive to be our better judgement.

Daringly honest. Thank you for this.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

'There is no evidence God (or gods) exist.

Define and discuss ‘evidence.’

Evidence of God is amorphous.

Different people require different kinds of evidence.

The scientist might be looking for evidence in nature.

The philosopher might be looking for evidence in himself.

The theologian might be looking for evidence from above.

All of these ways of looking for evidence might yield results.

But the notion that only one way is going to yield results (for example the scientific way) is to narrow the path to truth in such a way that many discoveries about God will be forbidden or fruitless.

As a theologian, it would be possible to reason that if there is a God, he would somewhere somehow have revealed himself in a very personal way to the world. As a Catholic I am content to believe that only in my faith do I find God claiming to reveal himself both in the Old and New Testaments. I don’t find such a God anywhere else in human history proclaiming himself to be among us and teaching us and suffering and dying for us and assuring us that at the end of all suffering and death absolute joy is in the offing.

There is nothing in science or philosophy that speaks to me in this way.

 

[Bradski]

I think those attributes may be ascribed in contexts different from the solely mechanical fabrication of the universe.

They are the requirements for believing in God. One can hardly have a god that doesn’t know everything, can only do a limited amount and is surprised by what happens (although the Greeks managed it perfectly well). So God is required to have those attributes and if he doesn’t…well, he’s not God. A perfectly circular argument.

This may be a bit of a straw-man. Whatsoever God does is done, primarily, because it pleases him. God is at the center of creation, not you and me.

It’s hardly a straw man. He wants us to love Him. So we were created. We need somewhere to hang out, so he created the world. Oh, hang on, it was a bit more. The planets and the whole solar system. No, actually it was a galaxy. Except…darn it, it’s a lot of galaxies. No, wait. It’s millions, no – billions of galaxies. And so much of it has disappeared from view. Not that there was anything to see it when it disappeared.

So there is a small rock on a little moon of a tiny planet circling a weak star in a nondescript solar system on the outer edges of a tiny galaxy which has been outside the observable universe for billions of years. It’s not there because of us. It doesn’t fills us with awe and wonder. It serves no purpose. Yet it was set up by God to be exactly this way. Let me know when you find out what it’s for.

News to me.

It shouldn’t be. There’s even a section of the forum dedicated to it. You can ask for a headache to be cured, or better exam results, to stop your computer breaking down (nearly 300 hundred people joined in with that one) or to stop the famine in Sudan. There’s lots to see.

Actually, I lied about one. No-one really asked for the famine to end.

Or perhaps God’s concept of justice isn’t the same as yours.

Or yours. Or of anyone who has ever existed.

The belief in God, just the same as the belief in anything metaphysical, requires faith; as metaphysical ideas cannot be materially proofed.

Exactly true. But my point was that there isn’t just one metaphysical matter in which you must have faith. There are very many indeed. Well, unless you don’t have faith in the resurrection, that Jesus was born of a virgin, that miracles occur, that there is a trinity, that you actually eat and drink the flesh and blood of God that…well, you get the idea. It’s all of these and very many more as well.

It’s not the box labelled ‘Belief in God’ you have to tick. It’s the one labelled ‘All of the Above’.

 

[roselily]

'There is no evidence God (or gods) exist.

Define and discuss ‘evidence.’

I was just seeing this thread now. And there is no evidence God exist you can find in this world now that if there is evidence exist then why you need faith? That do you need faith to know apple exist?

 

[minkymurph]

I was just seeing this thread now. And there is no evidence God exist you can find in this world now that if there is evidence exist then why you need faith? That do you need faith to know apple exist?

We don’t need faith to know things that we can see exist - and perhaps many other things.

When such statements are made the 'blind faith’argument often comes up. ‘Blind faith’ is defined as putting faith in something without any evidence, and the ‘blind faith’ argument frequently used in the context of a slur, as it is not the case that there is no evidence at all, but rather evidence that is rejected by another as evidence, or considered unreliable. There are reasons why people believe things. We can disagree with those reasons, but in my view ‘blind faith’ is in fact quite rare.

 

[minkymurph]

Exactly true. But my point was that there isn’t just one metaphysical matter in which you must have faith. There are very many indeed. Well, unless you don’t have faith in the resurrection, that Jesus was born of a virgin, that miracles occur, that there is a trinity, that you actually eat and drink the flesh and blood of God that…well, you get the idea. It’s all of these and very many more as well.

It’s not the box labelled ‘Belief in God’ you have to tick. It’s the one labelled ‘All of the Above’.

These things are required in order to legitimately call oneself Catholic, although those who were baptized Catholic yet don’t believe them continue to be entitled to call themselves Catholic if they wish on the ground the decision was made for them, but they are not required to believe there is a God or that there is evidence there is a God.