Evidence for God

quote:

---

The typical religious person elevates Faith to a level where it occupies the same place as Reason, where it is equally appropriate, if not moreso, to believe something "on faith" than to have good reasons.

---

For many Christians, faith is a word used to describe a particular class of evidence, namely evidence sent (as it were) by God to a person. The person believes x, y, z for a good reason - they have evidence (of that particular class of evidence) which supports the belief. They believe God exists, for example, because God has made himself evident by means of this class of evidence.That the empircist decries such a faith position is to be expected. His philosophy demands he do so. That doesn't diminish the fact that religious belief can be a reasonable thing. It is reasonable to belief what you have evidence for - afterall.

quote:

---

So no, iano, it is not always reasonable to "belief" what you have evidence for, if that evidence is wholly subjective and cannot be independantly verified. In fact, I would very strongly argue that believing in things that cannot be independantly verified is the very definition of delusion.

---

Do you believe that you are in possession of sensory equipment that is able to inform you of an external reality you believe exists.Given that you believe both these things - but cannot independently verify either of them ...

quote:

---

Wouldn't the fact that you have evidence be contrary to faith. When people speak of faith, it is usually belief in a particular subject for that subjects belief alone, dispite evidence for or against. If you believed in something because you have evidence for it, than strictly speaking you do not belive in it by faith. You believe by evidence.

---

According to a Dawkinsian version of faith (on which the premise of his most recent epistle floats) perhaps. Not according to..Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence on things not seen (kjv)

You mean you are going to independently verify the existance and nature of what you believe is the external-to-you-reality by assuming the existance of elements of the reality (these "observers")you are attempting to independently verify exists.Circular? Generally speaking so would I. But we're not talking mundane here. To suppose you could come face to face with a being the "size" of a universe creating God and cling to such patterns of response is to refuse to seriously contemplate the effect such a meeting would have on you. If God cannot do something as mundane as overcome impediements (to your mind) like the philosophy called Empiricism then he's certainly not capable of creating the men who dreamt it up. You used the same argument yourself so I wouldn't knock it. Belief is the pinpoint on which it all balances. Personal, subjective, belief based on the non-independently-verifiable evidence that convinces you as to what the case is.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Hi again Bluejay. This is a little too simple I think.100 people view Saving Private Ryan and recount 100 different effects the film had on their feelings: the horror of war, the tears shed on account of the bravery of men, the joy of experiencing the novel camera work, etcvs.100 people saw how to make a sticky bombApples vs Pears?Night..Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This is news to me! I don't recall seeing anything in the Bible that says faith need be blind. Indeed I have read it and experienced it to be quite the opposite. Hebrews 11: 1 (KJV) for example;

quote:

---

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen

---

- There's a conclusion that should be drawn from the following passage in which Paul addresses Christians in Ephesus. I've bolded one word to give you a handy clue.

quote:

---

15For this reason, ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, 16I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers. 17I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.

---

- Before setting off on your journey and in order to make sure you weren't embarking on a wild goose chase, you'd want to have found out that the God exists - in order to make it plausible that such a commandment was actually issued by him.How does one go about finding out that he does?Or are you suggesting folk just set off on the assumption that God exists and issued this commandment? Which would be act of blind faith on their part.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Precisely. Things that are not optically visible (or detectable via the other senses) are nonetheless evidenced and detectable. Ones "God antennae" rendered open to reception - so to speak. Abraham received evidence of something not seen and acted upon that evidence. This.. ..says precisely the same thing. Blind faith on the other hand, is usually intended to mean believing something without evidence undergirding that belief. A leap in the dark perhaps. Wishful thinking perhaps.- He was talking about the likes of me. I haven't seen yet I believe. But I believe because of faith :the evidence of...- We might agree the faith (in terms of trusting God) is not blind - the person has every reason to trust what God says. But that where they are being sent and what they are being sent into remains unknown as you say. They go where they are sent because they trust God sufficient not to worry about not knowing where anBlind as far a Gods purpose perhaps but that' As pointed out, Christianity doesn't involve blind faith of the unevidenced type. I'm not sure what OM's version of blind faith would be.

quote:

---

Any ideas? Other than internal feelings which you have put forward as a possible line of evidence (with all its associated problems), is there any other evidences that YHWH is the one?

---

I would have more likely said that non-empirical evidence convinced me. I wouldn't have described it as internal feelings - although you can carry on considering it as such if your philosophy regarding evidence demands that you do so. It is but your philosophy Mod, not sticks and stones

A few verses might illuminate.

quote:

---

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

---

quote:

---

Sanctify them through your truth: your word is truth.

---

quote:

---

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

---

Our words can achieve more than the apparent sum of their parts. Words and the tone with which they are issued can cause us to cry, laugh, trust. The word of God is this and much more: his word spoke creation into existance. People are sanctified (have their outlooks transformed, turned 180 degrees around) by Gods word. Martin Luther was converted on reading Romans 3:20.When Jesus himself is described as the word and the light of men it becomes problematic to suppose: Scripturally, Abraham was trusting in the light. Those in darkness (with all due respect, but you included) have not understood that. It would depend upon a semantic throw of the dice. As I and most others around here seem to understand and apply it - and as the wiki article goes on to point out:

quote:

---

Rather, according to the empiricist view, for any knowledge to be properly inferred or deduced, it is to be gained ultimately from one's sense-based experience

---

Fair enough. It's not that I celebrate such things, it's that there is nothing else to be done given the situation I find myself in. If faced with having to dissect a mechanical system there's little value in a recommendation which suggestst I apply the tools of electronics to the task; multimeters don't undo bolts however wishful the thinking.People die and wars are fought irrespective of the epistemology held - it's not so much the knowledge held but the desires and motivations of the people holding it that forms the deciding factor in whether or not folk go to war. True knowledge can be suppressed afterall, just ask Saddam. Edited by iano, : No reason given.