Probability of the existence of God

I would have thought that a thought is an obvious example of non-empirical evidence. That I find my non-empirical thoughts frequently turning to my wife-to-be evidences the empirical and non-empirical impact she has come to have on my life.The above is an example of the application of a simple dictionary definition of evidence: a thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment. There is no demand that the thing or things be empirical. (ps: I checked and 'thing' need not be empirical either )- If someone believes in something material they only do so because of evidence of some description. In that sense the statements are the same - the latter simply not mentioning the basis for the belief in the material thing.So to the case of immaterial belief. I cannot comprehend what kind of belief a person would be talking about were they to say that they believe something for which they have no evidence. I don't mean the evidence need to be direct. But there must be some kind of evidence supporting the belief. Granted. I'm not sure what point you are making here but to recap.I have faith/I believe that my brakes will stop me next time I press them. The reason I have faith/believe is because I have empirical evidence as to the good working order of my brakes.I have faith/I believe that Jesus Christ is lives. The reason I have faith/believe is because I have non-empirical evidence of his existance within me.Material belief on account of material evidence
Immaterial belief on account of immaterial evidence

At the moment I'm working of two meanings of faith. Which is not to say there isn't more. I'm not working off a dictionary definition of faith that would have the belief involved running around blind as a bat. My understanding of the word belief (whether spiritual belief or otherwise) requires that there be evidence available to support that belief. Onto your statement:- Definition #1 (faith = belief) has faith and belief meaning the same thing - clearly that definition can't fit either of your statements.Definition #2 (faith = evidence of a type) see's faith as the evidence underpinning a belief. In order for you to believe you must have faith (evidence) so you're first statement doesn't work. Your second statement doesn't work with this definition either. It is possible that a person can be in possession of evidence but not believe what that evidence points to. For instance, there is plenty of scientific evidence pointing to ToE but I don't believe in ToE.In the spiritual sense the Holy Spirit attempts to convict the world of sin righteousness and judgment. The attempt to convict involves his presentation of evidence to a person - yet many will not believe. They are described as perishing because they "refused to love the truth" revealed to them. That they had evidence sufficient is patent in the fact that they are also described as being without excuse.- How do you read "...by the faith that is in me"? Do you read it as the NIV puts it (which appears to read as per definition #1):

quote:

---

... so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'

---

If you agree that faith = belief in this instance then I read it that my belief in Christ is the entry ticket (as it were) to the process whereby I will be taken in hand and sanctified by God. The entry ticket itself isn't the thing which sanctifies - but without it I wouldn't get exposed to that which actually does the sanctification work.Elsewhere Jesus tells us that we are to be sanctified with the truth - God's word being truth. God's truth moving in to displace the lies and deception with which we are polluted would appear to me to be the pinpoint technical description of what sanctification itself involves. Thus, in the loose sense we are sanctified by our belief as entry ticket. And in the strict application sense, by Gods truth.- Same thing with me. Hallelujah!!It seems that both definitions of faith are employed here. You heard the evidence(=faith) when God arranged it so that you could hear it. That evidence (=faith) led to you belief (=faith) in a need for Christ. That belief(=faith) brought you to your knees. God subsequently gave you evidence(=faith) of his existance sufficient to raise your belief(=faith) to 100% - just as he did me.Perhaps the evidence/belief cycle that would explain this curious verse:

quote:

---

Romans 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith:

---

Re-reading: For therein (in the gospel) is the righteousness of God revealed from evidence (leading) to belief. Interestingly, salvation by faith would more accurately described as salvation by evidence. We are saved by our faith=belief but only because of God first supplying us with faith=evidence. Evidence precedes conviction.- Interesting verse. All them that believe what? From Pauls use of Abraham a couple of chapters on from here we might conclude that it is all who do as Abraham did, ie: believe... God.

You don't seem to have read the example given. Certainly this... ...doesn't deal with it. You seem to be overlooking the fact that if I am to suppose my wife-to-be not to exist I must also suppose everyone else not to exist. Which kind of renders the empirical currency you set so much stall by...worthless.I assume my wife-to-be exists. And deduce what I deduce from my thoughts. ...were it not for the fact that an simple, everyday example torpedos that notion below the waterline. The empiricists, thankfully, don't own the word evidence nor the dictionary in which the word is defined.

Independant? And how would I establish the independance of that which is supposed to be independant of me - other than assume that which I am trying to demonstrate?Which is all off the point anyway. The point didn't concern the existance of my wife-to-be. It concerned the evidence I have for her having had a significant impact on my life. And the fact that some of that evidence is non-empirical.Which of course means that evidence need not be empirical in order to be classed as evidence.

How about starting with the argument itself rather than continue in this diversion regarding my wife-to-be's existance. I would remind you that ... ... or zeus, or thor or apollo. Rather ... If interested by all means refer to the example I gave.

As has your attempt to twist one point being made in order to raise another. I made the claim that not all evidence need be empirical in order that it be considered evidence - in oppostion to someone who claimed this was not the case. I gave an example of where this would be the case. So far so good - I've not heard back from them. I'm not posing it as evidence of her existance. I'm posing it as demonstration of the fact that evidence need not be empirical in order to be evidence. A narrow point spreadeagled by you...Once establishing that evidence need not be empirical in order to be evidence, I report myself satisfied as to Gods existance (on the basis of non-empirical evidence leading me to that conclusion). Is this presented as proof of God's existance. Or presented as increasing the probability of God's existance? Nope. It's a statement made. An assertion. I couldn't give a flying fiddlers that others introduce their (assumed-for-the-sake-of-argument) beliefs in fairies or spagetti monsters. Does the attempt at guilt-by-association so much as scratch the surface of the point made: that I can know God exists and that knowledge was conveyed by non-empirical evidence? Not on your nelly.- I've been peddling this argument for somewhat less time than folk have been peddling the notion that the existance of a.n.other thing is (of necessity) ultimately and supremely established by empirical evidence. Were it only so ...The notion that I should first assume (note) the existance of 10 people who will nod and tell me "Yes, your wife-to-be does indeed exist - an that's empirical" to offset the possibility that I might be incorrectly discerning the existance of my wife-to-be - strikes me as the height of circular dottiness. But that is the essence of what is being proposed by the purveyors of this notion.- "Absolute belief" requires clarification. Is the belief arrived at via evidence (empirical or non-empirical) or is that a blind (unevidenced) belief. Yes in the first case (obviously) and No in the second (obviously).

Now that the demonstration has been transmitted empirically, the recipient is in a position to look to the nature of his own non-empirical thoughts and judge that they do indeed help bring him to conclusions. And he would agree that his non-empirical thoughts are, as per definition, evidence. Non-empirical evidence.Anybody prepared to take a stand and say that their thoughts don't help them form judgements and come to conclusions?No-one?- I implicitly did nothing of the sort (assuming I understand what you mean by 'it'). I did explicitly reject the notion that some arbitrary notion of "solid" could assume the higher ground.Unempirical assumption sit at the root of it all - it can't be helped. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

My definition wasn't based around reasoning. The evidence revolved around frequency of occurance of thought, occasion of occurance of thought, response to occurance of thought - without necessarily reasoning things out. Which is not to say there was no reasoning.That I reasoned such occurances indicative of significant impact on my life doesn't affect the unreasoned aspect of the evidence.- Correction: "thoughts turning towards..."I'd insert "perfectly fine" for "just about ok". A minor and subjective quibble.- Your probably referring to msg 119. I do assume she exists given that assumption is the basis for my supposing anything exists outside me. Given that non-existant things can have an impact as well as existing thing I don't see that it matters much whether she does or doesn't. Exist.- Assuming an imaginary person exists would mean I'm aware she is imaginary but somehow assume she is real. And you tell me I'm appallingly badly written Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The reason for my reticence is the same as it has always been and has been often stated as being, to whit; I have no interest and can see no purpose in getting into the detail.My purpose is to deal with a particular accusation ("belief in God is a result of evidential-less faith"). The goal is not to 'win' a debate against that notion - merely to stalemate it. To kick it into touch. To render it not-at-all-necessarily-the-case. ... I've given you an excellent one which you prefer to duck away from. You don't seem to want to address it head on - supposing that pixies and Zeus and Thor will do your work for you.Accepting that non-empirical evidence is a common as the day is long might cause you to pause should ever you find yourself on the point of supposing someones belief in God to be of the blind, Dawkinsian type.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The detail isn't given so the proper position to take is no position yet.- The same form of evidence which leads me to conclude as I do about my wife-to-be could lead me to conclude the same kind of thing in the case of fairies and unicorns. But I possess none of that same form of evidence regarding them so don't conclude anything about them.Are you suggesting I shouldn't conclude what I conclude about my wife-to-be simply because the evidence which supports that conclusion isn't empirical? You're taking philosophical empiricism to extraordinary lengths Straggler ... and laying unwarranted claim to the word "evidence". As pointed out, my purpose doesn't involve anything other than neutralising the philosophical empiricists position. There is no need to describe anything (and how one would begin to describe the quality red to a blind person is beyond me - if I may draw that parallel). It is sufficient to argue that not all evidence need be empirical in order that it be evidence. I'm not asking you accept non-empirical evidence for God. I'm not even asking you to accept non-empirical evidence for the conclusion I draw regarding my wife-to-be.I'm asking you to accept that the principle that non-empirical evidence exists. Having done so you might remain silent in the face of me saying I have evidence that God exists. You certainly shouldn't suppose that this necessitates your believing God exists, or that tooth fairies exist.

It may help if we wind back to see what I said regarding my wife-to-be and the evidence regarding her. Msg 114: You are right that the claim isn't evidence. The claim is the conclusion I've arrived at on account of the evidence. Non-empirical thoughts formed part of the evidence that had me conclude I should ask her to marry me. It appears her non-empirical thoughts brought her to a similar conclusion. Happily!You might see now that: ... the above conditions are satisfied. In this case, supporting the notion that I should marry her. Whether or not you are convinced regarding me and her is neither here nor there. Certainly you are not dealing with the likes of this: ...but then again we're not talking about empirical evidence. Nor are we talking of something that is empirically demonstrable to all.- Definitively show? There is nothing definitive about circumstantial evidence - other than the definitive decision that it provides sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction. Evidence in the broader sense means;

quote:

---

a thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.

---

- What I hope to have done is point out to you that the word 'evidence' is not the possession of the strict empiricist. It's a wider notion than that.I conclude God exists on the basis of non-empirical evidence. Given that non-empirically evidenced conclusions can be arrived at in principle, I would consider the argument stalemated.

quote:

---

"Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me

---

I suspect much of your post will bark up the wrong tree. It might be helpful then, if I spell out where things are coming from and where they are going to - rather than try and steer you back on track.1) I make the claim that I know God exists.2) I state that I have concluded this based on non-empirical evidence leading me to that conclusion.3) Clearly I cannot present non-empirical evidence - so my aim cannot be to 'prove' God in the empirical sense.4) My point is, in fact, is to counter the claim that Christianity necessarily revolves around an expression of blind faith. 'Blind' in this case being intended to convey the notion "belief without evidence"5) The form the counter takes, is to point out that there is such a thing as non-empirical evidence. If establishing this then Christianity can indeed be an evidenced-by-God faith and the charge of blind will henceforth become 'perhaps blind'. That is to say; my purpose is to stalemate the argument that faith is blind.6) The example I choose to give cannot be God-evidence for the simple reason that such evidence is not available to everyone. Instead, I give the evidence of thoughts. Specifically, the fact that I found my thoughts turning unbidden towards my (soon to be) wife. That evidence (of my thoughts frequently turning in that direction - irrespective of their content)led me to conclude that she had become a significant influence on my life. That realisation would influence subsequent dealings with her (to put it clinically) leading me to conclude that I should ask her to marry me. Happliy, she was concluding the same thing.-

quote:

---

evidence: a thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.

---

Thought direction = non-empirical evidence helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment. I'm at a loss to understand the resistance to such a simple notion. I suspect a dogged adherence to defending a worldview beyond what is reasonable.Your post is well framed Straggler and no doubt took time to compose. My apologies for not responding to it but it appears, by and large, to be rebutting an argument I'm not making. It is not the case that: I'm not expecting anyones position on Gods existance to change one iota merely by me claiming he does. I'm merely pointing out that there is such a thing as non-empirical evidence and that conclusions can be drawn on the basis of it. And that I have concluded (not that you need believe it) that God exists based on that same class of evidence; the non-empirical kind.Perhaps the evidence is a figment of my imagination. Perhaps it is truly God. Perhaps we're all brains in jars. No matter. For the point is to render your application of the phrase "blind faith" blind. Blind, that is, in the empirically evidentialess form.Unless you've some non-empirical evidence you'd like to submit in support of your claim that is

With respect, this last post of yours merely repeats a philosophy regarding evidence which demands, unsurprisingly, that it be empirical in nature. Rather than have me simply state the contrary, could you deal with this specific point Something (the fact that I observed my thoughts turning to her at all times of the day - not the content of those thoughts) led me to conclude that this perhaps, was no run of the mill relationship. I concluded that this might turn out to be the woman for me - based partily on that fact.If not evidence could you tell me what else this something is which led me to a conclusion? ..to me. That is doesn't to others means it's not empirical evidence.

Perhaps you'll take a third look at the example given. What I concluded at that time from the information I had at that time was this:

quote:

---

led me to conclude that this perhaps, was no run of the mill relationship.

---

The issue of luck or not has nothing to do with the conclusion arising from this evidence. Most rational people in similar circumstances would conclude the same kind of thing that I concluded. How things turn out subsequently is not the issue - nor is it being dealt with by the example given.But if you're happy for it to be called information and not evidence then that's fine with me. We can now say that the reason I believe as I do is based on information - not on blindness. Just as we might be agreed that the reason I believed this relationship to be other than-run-of-the-mill was based on information and not on blindness. There is no blindness. Perhaps "blind faith" need be re-defined as "belief based on non-empirical information". With your agreement we can leave it there and I'll use that definition in future.Thanks for the assistance in thrashing it out.

It might be that the post above to Stile will clear things up. The conclusion would be this

quote:

---

There is no blindness. Perhaps "blind faith" need be re-defined as "belief based on non-empirical information". With your agreement we can leave it there and I'll use that definition in future.

---

Contrary to what you say above a belief is a conclusion arrived at. How one arrives at a conclusion can either be through evidence or information.I'm not quite sure how a person could believe something without evidence or information undergirding that belief. It weren't me guv'nor, it were the Bible wot talks about faith = evidence of things not seen. Semantically the word 'evidence' has changed to 'information' but nothing of substance has altered. Belief on account of non-empirical information supporting that belief.It's not so much an argument as a description of the rational behind Christian belief. How could rational, logical people ever be expected "to come to faith" if they thought they had to believe in something for which they had no evid....information. It doesn't matter a whole lot to me to be honest. I've been accused of far worse that being the victim of blind faith.What difference would it make to you - that there is no expectation from God that you believe in his existance without a level information that would satisfy you as to his existance? Leave aside second guessing as to what and how that information could be delivered. Leave aside too demands as to the what and how and suppose for a moment that God is in a position to provide sufficient.