Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

I don't think that most faithful theists categorically state that they adhere to a blind faith, but rather an informed faith; a testable faith. If believing in God was solely by faith, there would be no need for things like prophecy or special revelation.That said, there is still no question that most will, by blind faith, defend something that is thoroughly debunked because now there belief is so deeply engrained that it almost seems reactionary. But even the largest oak tree, as resolute and stubborn as it is, can eventually be whittled down in to a useless stump.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Right, so I am saying that God is not taken solely on faith.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

But it is not true. If the term "absence of evidence, is evidence of absence" then water just formed on the moon inexplicably and recently.We just had no evidence to support that water is on the moon. That statement means, there is no water on the moon. It's a logical fallacy, a false premise, and that is why it is rejected.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

My contention is with the phrasing and the underpinnings of " the absence of evidence is evidence of absence." That means if no evidence exists [in defense of one's proposition], that there is no evidence of that proposition is actually evidence that it is not true.But that is a faulty premise. As Wikipedia says, The Argumentum ad absurdum is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.I see now though that this topic really isn't related to the one we had a few weeks ago. Somehow that topic, which I discovered was closed, has now been assimilated in to this topic on faith and skepticism.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

The issue at hand is dealing with the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam and this argument from personal incredulity. Sure, you say there is no good reason to assume that deities exist based on what you perceive to be scanty evidence or a complete lack of evidence. That is fine. The issue though is that this lack of evidence does not equate to evidence itself.For one thing, the very nature of deities (by the very supernatural order) is obviously said to be beyond nature. That's what the supernatural is! By attempting to use a lack of natural phenomenon as the basis for disproving the supernatural is thereby a preposterous notion.There is no empirical evidence of love, aside from the fact that everyone claims to have felt it. But you could not say, here is love, and hold in your hand to show the world. That is an inner truth and a personal experience for the individual. So people say it is with God.I am not here trying to defend God, or argue why you should believe in a god, or anything of that order. I am simply stating a truism -- that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. All serious luminaries would agree, which is why it is categorically listed as a logical fallacy.What some people are attempting to do with this thread is use ridicule and reductio ad absurdum (another logical fallacy) as way to prove a point. The FSM is fits nicely in to this category.The simple fact that people are still arguing about the (non)/existence of God simply proves the point that people are no better equipped at proving or disproving it as they were when this inquiry first began thousands upon thousands of years ago, hence true agnosticism is the suggested default position until a thoughtful and careful analysis has been examined. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

It's invalid becasue it premises the question on the alleged absurdity of believing in God.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

You claim that you aren't arguing that, but everything I've read thus far seems otherwise. You calling it a straw man is a straw man unto itself. You obviously don't see the dilemma. You showing evidence that a god was invented by man does not debunk the concept of God, it only debunks a preconceived notion of God.You get rid of Zeus and Thor pops up. You get rid of Thor and Artemis pops up. you get rid of YHWH and Allah pops up. All the while the basic concept of God remains intact only because it is untouchable. And why is it untouchable? Because if God does not exist, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest definitively that there isn't.You cannot prove something does not exist if it does not exist.In your mind it may be reasonable to assume that no God exists. That's fine. That doesn't however prove God false, now does it? Then you're right back to square one, which is it why it's a logical fallacy to begin with. That's endemic of the overall problem; people trying to define what God is. I'm not here to defend or deny God (I literally take the agnostic position on the subject), I'm simply pointing out the futile attempt at employing logical fallacies as a means to an end.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

I'm not saying a deity exists or doesn't exist. I'm simply stating that God for many people is a personal experience; something proven to them but cannot be proven to others necessarily. It is the same concept of love. I cannot prove what my thoughts are because they are my own. I could tell you what my thoughts are, but I might be lying, or embellishing, etc.My point is that you can't use science to debunk the entire concept of God because the very concept is either too vague or far too broad.What you can do, like I do, is point out how specific things in, say, the bible are contradictory. That does not get rid of god, so to speak. That only destroys a preconceived notion claiming to be about God. Does that make sense? Then you should have no trouble prove to me what love is. Now you've piqued my curiosity. I know this, which is why I'm not claiming that the atheist or theist side is correct in their assumptions. They're all assumptions, and that is really my only point. I'm only explaining what some claim, and if true, it cannot be proven. It may be complete and utter bullshit, but I can't prove that it is. I see validity in the question, but I don't see a true answer. That is one debate that has been going on since man drew breath it seems. We're no closer at closing that chapter than when it was first opened, and that is because (as I've been saying) they are unprovable positions. I'm not saying god is anything, I'm telling you how the concept of god continues throughout the ages. Ask a theist. But you should also be aware that given there are far more theists in the world than atheists that there seems to be some relevance. If nature is how you choose to answer all questions, then what natural reason causes mankind to be so drawn to the abstract concept of God?I suppose that question is just as valid. Perhaps you see no relevance, but the mere fact that the question has been asked and deeply pondered by all generations of human beings makes the question extremely relevant. The answer to the question is what is so elusive though.I wouldn't at all be surprised to know that in 1,000 years after you and I are dead this question will still be asked and still ultimately remain unanswered.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

I don't think it is contradictory, I just think it is rather convenient that God gets to slip in and out of the natural realm at whim. The way some theists posit the the theme is that in order to begin to understand God you first have to believe, as a child does, without any proof. You're supposed to believe and then proof of his existence will be supplied. I call bullshit, but that's what they say. One could make an argument in either direction. No one really knows with any certainty. The fact that trillions of people throughout human history say that it is valid makes it valid. On some level you have to wonder why it is that the God meme has persisted so thoroughly. There are only two real options: Either there is a perfectly good reason why such a belief was naturally selected or God exists. Perhaps, but why is it do pervasive and independent of other cultures? Sure, the gods may vary but the central theme occurs without collaboration. And yet the God meme still persists; hence this very forum. The First Cause/Prime Mover.To reiterate my position, I am playing a bit of a devil's advocate role here. I'm not a religious man, but I the significance of the role of God on mankind cannot be brushed aside as if inconsequential or irrelevant.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Exactly! The absence of evidence is evidence of absence is precisely attempting to use proof by contradiction. There is no evidence of A, therefore the lack of evidence for A means must mean that it is actually evidence of B. That's an illogical premise. It does assume the premise. That's all it is, an assumption built around a faulty premise.Either way one could assume this as a strawman to draw attention from the real issue at hand, which is that the absence of evidence should not be misconstrued as evidence of absence.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

It doesn't necessarily mean that god would be or wouldn't be "detectable." It is said that God reveals himself to the believer, but not the unbeliever. Is that rather convenient? Certainly sounds to be the case. But the point is that God is detected by the faithful and undetected by the unfaithful. All right, cannot ever is too strong a wording. What I mean then is that is remains to be understood. We know empirically that the universe had a beginning. That cannot be said of God.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams