If people believe in God on faith, why is this alleged evidence so important to them?

[JRKH]

Correct.
Because you don’t know, you assume and believe.

It’s not evidence.

It’s fine that you believe this…It is of no import to me or to my faith.

My initial comment had to so with the effects of “evidence” existing longer than the evidence itself.

Suppose instead of using God speaking to me, I were to use another - non religious example. Say you are walking along a street and come to an intersection, you aren’t absent minded, but not paying any great attention either when you step off the curb to cross (with the light). Just as you step off, a Car comes flying around the corner narrowly missing you. You jump back shocked and amazed at your good fortune to not have been injured or killed.
The evidence of this event lasts but a few minutes. The car is long gone, you perhaps sit a minute to catch your breath, your pulse returns to normal and within an hour all evidence of the event has vanished - except your memory of it.
For months afterward, when you approach a corner you are more alert, and when you approach THAT particular corner, you are even more alert.
The evidence of the event is long gone but the effect is still with you and the memory may stick with your for the rest of your life.

Thus I can say that the effects of the evidence can far outlast the evidence itself.

Peace
James

 

[StevenFrancis]

I don’t understand the question.

I have faith in God and Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son.

What is the “alleged evidence” you’re speaking of? Evidence about what? What evidence is so important to me?

I know…pretty dense.

Sorry,

Peace,

Steven

 

[sw85]

Please discuss.

Why is what “alleged evidence” important?

 

[Contarini]

Please discuss.

You misunderstand faith.

Faith is indeed rendered unnecessary by demonstrative proof or direct knowledge, but not by evidence. No one should believe something for which they have no evidence whatsoever.

Therefore, your question makes no sense.

Edwin

 

[cho_pilo]

It’s fine that you believe this…

Nope, it’s not belief on my part.

It is of no import to me or to my faith.

Yep, that’s the typical theist approach: If reality is inconvenient, dismiss it.
Nothing to do with MY question though.
I asked about your claim:

Thus I can say that the effects of the evidence can far outlast the evidence itself.

Nothing to do with MY question though.
I asked about your claim:

God spoke to me once very briefly and quietly

That’s all.

 

[sw85]

I agree!

Believing something on the grounds of evidence is only as lasting as the evidence - which may be of very short duration.

Much of the evidence that theists claim to be evidence of God is actually indirect, circumstantial - a matter of interpretation.

Pardon? I gather you don’t really know what theists believe if you think that’s the case.

“Evidence” is a logical proof of a material phenomenon – and God’s existence is necessarily nonmaterial. The proofs of God’s existence are entirely rational and philosophical in nature, not evidential; I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Five Ways.

 

[JRKH]

Nope, it’s not belief on my part.

Yep, that’s the typical theist approach: If reality is inconvenient, dismiss it.
Nothing to do with MY question though.
I asked about your claim:

Nothing to do with MY question though.
I asked about your claim:

That’s all.

cho,
It is not my intention to debate with you. I presented my position and you presented yours. Neither of us will convince the other, so that’s that.

Peace
James

 

[Simpleton]

If it can’t be measured then it doesn’t exist which is why I do not believe in love.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Ha! Read the latest?

God Particle May Be a Mirage
Scientists chasing a particle they believe may have
played a vital role in creation of the universe indicated
on Monday they were coming to accept it might not
exist after all.

Read more: foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/23/god-particle-may-be-mirage-scientists-hint/#ixzz1XTI5IHmi

The same happens with God. The most marvelous proof of God I know, St. Anselm’s, was turned upside down by Jean-Paul Sarte. When we discover that some proofs may have flaws, it’s a new start for a new world of Discovering God, as you article suggests about the bosom of Higgins.

The Marxist define God as the “opium of the people”. The quicker one knocks down that definition, the better … though there is some spot of light in this definition but I will not dwell on it.

No one can catch God in a definition. It can be said that God does not exist. why? Because his existence is so much infinitely different from whatever we think that whatever we thinks is always a bit wrong

 

[tonyrey]

Jesus said “Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father”. The truth of His teaching which is inextricably related to His life, death and Resurrection is sufficient evidence for any unbiased person…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m seeing two definitions of faith in action here.

-Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
-Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Confidence can be based on evidence, which almost makes the second definition seem to be the opposite of the first.

 

[sw85]

If it can’t be measured then it doesn’t exist which is why I do not believe in love.

Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

Bear in mind that by your own standards any evidence you provide must be measurable.

 

[JRKH]

I’m seeing two definitions of faith in action here.

-Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
-Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Confidence can be based on evidence, which almost makes the second definition seem to be the opposite of the first.

Yes, confidence can be based on evidence but it doesn’t necessarily need to be, at least not evidence in the scientific sense. As we often see in conversations here, evidence to the one who believes can be quite different to one who does not believe.
This ties into the first definition where we are not constrained by “logical proof” (who’s logic) or “material evidence”.

Peace
James

 

[Simpleton]

Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

Well it all started like this:

My girlfriend: Honey how much do you love me?
Me: I let you use my car.
My girlfriend: Honey how much do you love me?
Me: I let you go shopping with my credit card?
My girlfriend: Honey how much do you love me?
Me: What do you think I have been telling you?
My girlfriend: wow you’re an a-hole

Now every one of my friends said I deserved that response which leads me to one possible conclusion:

Love does not exist because it cannot be measured by material things.

Bear in mind that by your own standards any evidence you provide must be measurable.

I know but there’s the catch, how do I measure the non-existence of something?

 

[tonyrey]

If it can’t be measured then it doesn’t exist which is why I do not believe in love.

Logical positivism was abandoned because the verifiability principle cannot be verified! It cannot be observed by the senses, let alone measured…

 

[sw85]

Well it all started like this:

My girlfriend: Honey how much do you love me?
Me: I let you use my car.
My girlfriend: Honey how much do you love me?
Me: I let you go shopping with my credit card?
My girlfriend: Honey how much do you love me?
Me: What do you think I have been telling you?
My girlfriend: wow you’re an a-hole

Now every one of my friends said I deserved that response which leads me to one possible conclusion:

Love does not exist because it cannot be measured by material things.

I know but there’s the catch, how do I measure the non-existence of something?

I was referring to your assertion that that which is nonmeasurable is nonexistent.

 

[babylonsfalling]

Please discuss.

It’s a human failing.
Our faith is imperfect and weak.
It’s better to believe in God based solely on faith, but our brain is conditioned to physical evidence. It’s a struggle too overcome, one which brings a person closer to God as they progress.
I think some believers also try using evidence to convince unbelievers which in turn might make themselves over reliant on it. Ultimately God cannot be proven. We see God with our spirit, not our eyes.

 

[jochoa]

Please discuss.

I think - If a single person seeks something they cannot see, there is a question of why.
If many unrelated people seek the same thing, which they cannot see, the question becomes what is this thing? Though they do not Know all about the force, but they have faith it exists.

Examples: Many people perceived a force which held them down to the ground, therefore the question question of what was answered as gravity.
Many people perceived a force of wanting happiness, and the question is what is this force?
Many people perceive a force of wanting energy/power, and the question is what is this force?
Many people perceived a force of wanting to know ‘origins’/something greater than all we know, and the question of what was answered as God.

 

[jochoa]

I think - If a single person seeks something they cannot see, there is a question of why.
If many unrelated people seek the same thing, which they cannot see, the question becomes what is this thing? Though they do not Know all about the force, but they have faith it exists.

Examples: Many people perceived a force which held them down to the ground, therefore the question question of what was answered as gravity.
Many people perceived a force of wanting happiness, and the question is what is this force?
Many people perceive a force of wanting energy/power, and the question is what is this force?
Many people perceived a force of wanting to know ‘origins’/something greater than all we know, and the question of what was answered as God.