Argument supporting existence of a God

[Clete]

Sure it is...by conflating the two you're using faith to retro-fit the evidence. Again, if there is sufficient evidence of your belief (onto which you hold faith), you may dispense with faith all together. Conversely, if you hold to a strong faith in your belief then there is insufficient evidence for it.

What you're doing is employing a cognitive (conformation) bias.

Making such an accusation is easy. Backing it up with rationally sound explanation is quite another.

In other words, saying it doesn't make it so.

First of all, faith is not the opposite of accepting evidence. On the contrary, biblical faith is all about willfully accepting the substantive evidence.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.

3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.​

Indeed, Jesus Himself is the very incarnation of reason...

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word [Logos - logic or reason], and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

14 And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

Bottom line is that you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Clete

 

[quip]

Making such an accusation is easy. Backing it up with rationally sound explanation is quite another.

In other words, saying it doesn't make it so.

First of all, faith is not the opposite of accepting evidence. On the contrary, biblical faith is all about willfully accepting the substantive evidence.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.

3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.​

Indeed, Jesus Himself is the very incarnation of reason...

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word [Logos - logic or reason], and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

14 And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

Bottom line is that you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Clete

Seems you're using a narrow, self-serving definition of evidence. Any non-Christian, non-believer wouldn't consider passages from the Bible as evidence.

The faith based evidence assertion has now been reduced to subjective semantics.

 

[Idolater]

Seems you're using a narrow, self-serving definition of evidence. Any non-Christian, non-believer wouldn't consider passages from the Bible as evidence.

The faith based evidence assertion has now been reduced to subjective semantics.

Christians will argue with me about what I'm about to write, but here it is.

Christ's Resurrection is the "central" fact of the Christian faith, which includes the belief that God is real.

Christ's Resurrection is either nonfiction historical fact, or it isn't (and is instead fictional or a hoax).

If the Resurrection is fictional, then you must dig a little deeper than simply imagining that it was a hoax made up by the Apostles. You have to explain all the death. And for me, believing that the Resurrection was just a hoax without any further explanation, does not explain all the death.

What does explain all the death is a suicide pact between Jesus of Nazareth, John the Baptist, the Disciples (including Judas Iscariot), and the Apostle Paul. The only one of these men who were not subjected to killing /violent death, either by their own hand (Judas), or by what was back then essentially what we'd today call 'suicide by cop,' is the Apostle John. He wrote his Gospel after Peter was killed, and instead of writing a letter confessing to the plot, he doubled down on the Resurrection being nonfiction historical fact.

So which makes more sense? Was this a suicide pact, or instead, did Christ rise from the dead?

That's the choice before us, and you've the right to disagree, but I choose to believe that Christ is risen from the dead. Which confirms all the rest of the authentic Christian faith.

 

[quip]

Christians will argue with me about what I'm about to write, but here it is.

Christ's Resurrection is the "central" fact of the Christian faith, which includes the belief that God is real.

Christ's Resurrection is either nonfiction historical fact, or it isn't (and is instead fictional or a hoax).

If the Resurrection is fictional, then you must dig a little deeper than simply imagining that it was a hoax made up by the Apostles. You have to explain all the death. And for me, believing that the Resurrection was just a hoax without any further explanation, does not explain all the death.

What does explain all the death is a suicide pact between Jesus of Nazareth, John the Baptist, the Disciples (including Judas Iscariot), and the Apostle Paul. The only one of these men who were not subjected to killing /violent death, either by their own hand (Judas), or by what was back then essentially what we'd today call 'suicide by cop,' is the Apostle John. He wrote his Gospel after Peter was killed, and instead of writing a letter confessing to the plot, he doubled down on the Resurrection being nonfiction historical fact.

So which makes more sense? Was this a suicide pact, or instead, did Christ rise from the dead?

That's the choice before us, and you've the right to disagree, but I choose to believe that Christ is risen from the dead. Which confirms all the rest of the authentic Christian faith.

That's all fine and well. I'm not trying to besmirch your religion. It's just that "faith based evidence" makes little sense outside of a specific religious context.

 

[Clete]

Seems you're using a narrow, self-serving definition of evidence. Any non-Christian, non-believer wouldn't consider passages from the Bible as evidence.

The evidence is that you're stupid.

Who said anything about bible verses being evidence?

Evidence for what?

The faith based evidence assertion has now been reduced to subjective semantics.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

The context of the passages I quoted is clear. It isn't my fault that you're incapable of following the argument.

The point was simply that your understanding of what faith is, has nothing at all to do with what is taught in the bible. The bible never asks anyone to turn off their mind and to accept something without reason. God Himself is Reason (Logos) and any argument against Christianity that is based on the idea that it teaches blind belief (your idea of faith) is a straw man argument. In fact, and rather ironically, it is atheism that is based on blind belief, not Christianity.

Clete

 

[quip]

The evidence is that you're stupid.

Who said anything about bible verses being evidence?

Evidence for what?


Saying it doesn't make it so.

The context of the passages I quoted is clear. It isn't my fault that you're incapable of following the argument.

The point was simply that your understanding of what faith is, has nothing at all to do with what is taught in the bible. The bible never asks anyone to turn off their mind and to accept something without reason. God Himself is Reason (Logos) and any argument against Christianity that is based on the idea that it teaches blind belief (your idea of faith) is a straw man argument. In fact, and rather ironically, it is atheism that is based on blind belief, not Christianity.

Clete

I never said any thing about blind faith.
Rather, to paraphrase myself, I said that the evidence for faith (RE: the Christian belief) is self-referential i.e. circular logic. Thus, the term 'faith based evidence' is meaningless outside a Christian context. (And IMO redundant within said context)

 

[Idolater]

That's all fine and well. I'm not trying to besmirch your religion. It's just that "faith based evidence" makes little sense outside of a specific religious context.

I don't think it makes sense in any context myself. "Faith based evidence" sounds like whatever it is, wouldn't be evidence at all in the absence of faith, and that conflicts with my understanding of what evidence is.

 

[Clete]

I never said any thing about blind faith.
Rather, to paraphrase myself, I said that the evidence for faith (RE: the Christian belief) is self-referential i.e. circular logic. Thus, the term 'faith based evidence' is meaningless outside a Christian context. (And IMO redundant within said context)

The only way it could be redundant is if you think the faith is the functional equivalent of blind belief.


And - I said that making such an accusation is easy, backing it up is another thing altogether, to which you made, and will likely continue to make, no response because, as I also said, you do not know what you're talking about.

 

[quip]

The only way it could be redundant is if you think the faith is the functional equivalent of blind belief.

I say it's redundant because you're effectively preaching to the choir by lending evidence of faith to the faithful. But to each, their own. :idunno:

And - I said that making such an accusation is easy, backing it up is another thing altogether, to which you made, and will likely continue to make, no response because, as I also said, you do not know what you're talking about.

I'm in no need of backing up logic...it's sufficient on its own.

 

[Clete]

I say it's redundant because you're effectively preaching to the choir by lending evidence of faith to the faithful. But to each, their own. :idunno:

Once again, your presumption is that faith needs no evidence and I'm telling you that you are flatly wrong, at least when it comes to a biblically Christian idea of faith. The only sort of faith one could have where your objection would be valid is a faith that is not based on evidence, a faith that is, in effect, blind belief and that simply has nothing at all to do with anything that the bible teaches. Biblical faith is PRODUCED by evidence, not replaced by it.

I'm in no need of backing up logic...it's sufficient on its own.

It's official! You are stupid.

A claim is not logic. A claim is just a claim. You claim that "the evidence for faith (RE: the Christian belief) is self-referential i.e. circular logic" but you provide no evidence to support that claim nor any sort of argument whatsoever. You merely make the claim.

If you were to attempt to support the claim you'd have to define terms, provide examples and otherwise establish the veracity of your claim with sound reason but that's not the easy part. The easy part is making unsupported claims and pretending like you're the smartest guy in the room. My first born child had figured out how to do that before she was ten years old.

Clete

 

[quip]

Once again, your presumption is that faith needs no evidence and I'm telling you that you are flatly wrong, at least when it comes to a biblically Christian idea of faith. The only sort of faith one could have where your objection would be valid is a faith that is not based on evidence, a faith that is, in effect, blind belief and that simply has nothing at all to do with anything that the bible teaches. Biblical faith is PRODUCED by evidence, not replaced by it.

I truly believe you're sincere in your assertion of evidence provided faith. No blind faith required.

It's official! You are stupid.

A claim is not logic. A claim is just a claim. You claim that "the evidence for faith (RE: the Christian belief) is self-referential i.e. circular logic" but you provide no evidence to support that claim nor any sort of argument whatsoever. You merely make the claim.

If you were to attempt to support the claim you'd have to define terms, provide examples and otherwise establish the veracity of your claim with sound reason but that's not the easy part. The easy part is making unsupported claims and pretending like you're the smartest guy in the room. My first born child had figured out how to do that before she was ten years old.

Clete

It's not a claim in pointing out that a self-referential belief falls victim to logical circlularity..it's simply a fallacy of reason. (not that faith is necessarily false). Indeed, if your belief held to any objective evidence you'd have no need of any of the so-described faith-based variety.

The veracity of religion, with its subsequent faith/evidence, functions adequately within the realm of personal subjectivity. Beyond that, the onus is on the believer (not the skeptic) to provide objectivity to their belief.

 

[Clete]

I truly believe you're sincere in your assertion of evidence provided faith. No blind faith required.




It's not a claim in pointing out that a self-referential belief falls victim to logical circlularity..it's simply a fallacy of reason. (not that faith is necessarily false).

No such "self-referential belief", whatever you think that is, can be called faith in the biblically Christian paradigm.

Indeed, if your belief held to any objective evidence you'd have no need of any of the so-described faith-based variety.

There is no other kind of evidence. "Subjective evidence" in this context would be a contradiction in terms and so again, you are chasing windmills and burning down straw men.

The veracity of religion, with its subsequent faith/evidence, functions adequately within the realm of personal subjectivity.

This is, at best, your opinion, which no one asked for nor cares about.

The Christian faith is not about religion. It is about comforming yourself to the limits of reality, conforming your mind to the truth.

Beyond that, the onus is on the believer (not the skeptic) to provide objectivity to their belief.

No.

It is the onus of any claimant to prove his claim. You want the privalege of claiming that God does not exist without the necessity "to provide objectivity to [your] belief". You pretend that there is no evidence when it is all around you and in you. You believe there is no evidence but have never bothered to check to see whether that beleif is true. Indeed, the fact that you are able to read and understand this sentence is evidence, in fact proof, that God exist. Your every breath is filled with proof that you were created. Every time you walk outside, you are baraged with voices that lift praise to God and every detail you learn of the creation gives objective testimony to the existence of the Creator.

Paul said it better than I...

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.​

Clete

 

[quip]

No such "self-referential belief", whatever you think that is, can be called faith in the biblically Christian paradigm.

Of course it can, unverified Bible claims are exactly why Christianity is classified as a faith.
All religions view such 'evidence' through their particular religious lens.

There is no other kind of evidence. "Subjective evidence" in this context would be a contradiction in terms...

Precisely! You're making my 'evidence based faith' point for me.

This is, at best, your opinion, which no one asked for nor cares about.

Well...at least I have your ear.

The Christian faith is not about religion. It is about comforming yourself to the limits of reality, conforming your mind to the truth.

All such religions make similar claims. Again, provide objective evidence with a sufficient bend to prove your assertion over other such competing religious claims.

No.

It is the onus of any claimant to prove his claim. You want the privalege of claiming that God does not exist without the necessity "to provide objectivity to [your] belief".

Yes....else, if proving non-existence is a necessary criteria, one is reduced to believing in talking lions and unicorns because they were written as existing in a popular fable or two. It's now your onus to prove they don't exist. I'll be waiting.

You pretend that there is no evidence when it is all around you and in you. You believe there is no evidence but have never bothered to check to see whether that beleif is true. Indeed, the fact that you are able to read and understand this sentence is evidence, in fact proof, that God exist. Your every breath is filled with proof that you were created. Every time you walk outside, you are baraged with voices that lift praise to God and every detail you learn of the creation gives objective testimony to the existence of the Creator.

Clete

Nothing said here is unique to the Christian faith.

 

[Stripe]

That's all fine and well. I'm not trying to besmirch your religion. It's just that "faith based evidence" makes little sense outside of a specific religious context.

Here's the problem: You're phrasing the challenge as if it could only be directed at people who are religious. Are you prepared to tell a Darwinist that "faith-based evidence makes no sense outside of what he believes," or are you just going to accept — sans evidence — that he only has evidence-based faith?

Or are you of the belief that says Darwinists don't have faith in what they believe?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[quip]

Here's the problem: You're phrasing the challenge as if it could only be directed at people who are religious. Are you prepared to tell a Darwinist that "faith-based evidence makes no sense outside of what he believes," or are you just going to accept — sans evidence — that he only has evidence-based faith?

Or are you of the belief that says Darwinists don't have faith in what they believe?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Learn scientific methodology then get back with me.

 

[Stripe]

Learn scientific methodology then get back with me.

The scientific method is to test an idea against the evidence and throw it out if it is shown to be impossible.

When you learn to apply that process consistently — rather than pretending it only applies to groups who you don't agree with — then you will have a shot at a sensible contribution to discussions. :up:

Until you stop being a bigot, you're just a troll. :troll:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[quip]

The scientific method is to test an idea against the evidence and throw it out if it is shown to be impossible.

When you learn to apply that process consistently — rather than pretending it only applies to groups who you don't agree with — then you will have a shot at a sensible contribution to discussions. :up:

Until you stop being a bigot, you're just a troll. :troll:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Apply it to Christianity for me.

 

[Stripe]

Apply it to Christianity for me.

It's already been done:

Assertion:

Christ's Resurrection is the "central" fact of the Christian faith, which includes the belief that God is real.

Testing the evidence:

If the Resurrection is fictional, then you must dig a little deeper than simply imagining that it was a hoax made up by the Apostles. You have to explain all the death. And for me, believing that the Resurrection was just a hoax without any further explanation, does not explain all the death.

What does explain all the death is a suicide pact between Jesus of Nazareth, John the Baptist, the Disciples (including Judas Iscariot), and the Apostle Paul. The only one of these men who were not subjected to killing /violent death, either by their own hand (Judas), or by what was back then essentially what we'd today call 'suicide by cop,' is the Apostle John. He wrote his Gospel after Peter was killed, and instead of writing a letter confessing to the plot, he doubled down on the Resurrection being nonfiction historical fact.

So which makes more sense? Was this a suicide pact, or instead, did Christ rise from the dead?

You didn't engage over the evidence, you just waved it off as "faith-based."

When it comes to Darwinism, you're the opposite, declaring all of its beliefs to be "settled science."

You demand that others use the scientific method, but you don't know what it is and would never accept its proper, consistent use.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[quip]

It's already been done:

Assertion:


Testing the evidence:


You didn't engage over the evidence, you just waved it off as "faith-based."

Now test that against the scriptures of the Koran.
Does the evidence concur with one another?

 

[Stripe]

Now test that against the scriptures of the Koran.

Why? :idunno:

So you can avoid the challenge you face?

Does the evidence concur with one another?

:AMR:

Have you read the Koran?