Logic

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think there is a range of opinion on the matter. I think Suzianne would be the most extreme opinion that I know of on this matter, in that I think she would rule out scientific evidence as it would be contrary to the teaching of faith being a requirement.
Most other people seem to have a bit of a contradiction in that they think faith is required, but ...[text shortened]... rom those who think we are all secret Christians, to those that accept the existence of atheism.

And wow. How did *you* get that from *anything* I've ever said in this forum?

Originally posted by PatNovak
Ambrose Bierce defines it along those lines in his satirical book "The Devil's Dictionary."

"Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."

The bible defines faith along these lines:

Hebrews 11:1 (KJV)
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not se ...[text shortened]... ome theists already believe the issue has been proved in their favor (by the evidence of faith).

Compacting "Faith is the evidence of things not seen" into "Faith IS evidence" just ignores half of the original sentence -- "of things not seen".

"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." -- John 20:29, KJV

Originally posted by Suzianne
Compacting "Faith is the evidence of things not seen" into "Faith IS evidence" just ignores half of the original sentence -- "of things not seen".

"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." -- John 20:29, KJV

Perhaps I could have been a little more specific. I am arguing that (or at least wondering if) the statement "Faith is the evidence of things not seen" can be interpreted as "Faith itself is evidence, in the absence of other evidence." I am interpreting the "of thing not seen" part of the sentence as an absence of normal evidence.

Your John 20:29 quote seems to be saying something related but different, that belief based on faith is actually better than belief based on evidence (Sure you believe in me Thomas, because you've seen me. The really impressive people are those who haven't seen me but believe in me).

If my interpretations are correct, the Hebrews quote places evidence above faith (even though it considers faith as a form of evidence), while the John quote places faith above evidence.

Originally posted by Suzianne
And wow. How did *you* get that from *anything* I've ever said in this forum?

You have stated numerous times that there cannot be evidence for god
because god must be believed in by faith.

It thus naturally follows that god cannot be discovered scientifically because
then we would have evidence for you god which would [in your oft stated view]
mean we would no longer be believing in god based on faith.

Originally posted by PatNovak
Perhaps I could have been a little more specific. I am arguing that (or at least wondering if) the statement "Faith is the evidence of things not seen" can be interpreted as "Faith itself is evidence, in the absence of other evidence." I am interpreting the "of thing not seen" part of the sentence as an absence of normal evidence.

Your John 20:29 quote s ...[text shortened]... ugh it considers faith as a form of evidence), while the John quote places faith above evidence.

Yes, in a religious context, faith trumps evidence.

However, even in a religious context, faith can discover its own evidence, indeed, it can be a form of evidence, and faith itself surrenders first place to love.

"Of things not seen" is not necessarily merely a lack of evidence. It may be an item or substance that cannot be perceived with one's five senses. That doesn't mean it's not there. Invisible does not always mean insubstantial. We Christians also believe in the risen Christ, even though that was nearly 2000 years ago, none of us alive today could have seen Him with our own eyes and so we rely, or believe, on the evidence gathered by others.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You have stated numerous times that there cannot be evidence for god
because god must be believed in by faith.

It thus naturally follows that god cannot be discovered scientifically because
then we would have evidence for you god which would [in your oft stated view]
mean we would no longer be believing in god based on faith.

Good work on that Captain Obvious award.

What I meant was his statement that "I think she would rule out scientific evidence as it would be contrary to the teaching of faith being a requirement".

I do not, nor have I ever, ruled out scientific evidence.

I am not one of these 'frothing-at-the-mouth' fundamentalist creationists. I consider the Big Bang and Evolution as the toolboxes for creation.

And I certainly don't include myself in "those who think we are all secret Christians". Of all the Christians here, I have shown the greatest respect and latitude for the atheist position, even though some of them have not extended that courtesy to me.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Good work on that Captain Obvious award.

What I meant was his statement that "I think she would rule out scientific evidence as it would be contrary to the teaching of faith being a requirement".

I do not, nor have I ever, ruled out scientific evidence.

I am not one of these 'frothing-at-the-mouth' fundamentalist creationists. I consider the Big B ...[text shortened]... titude for the atheist position, even though some of them have not extended that courtesy to me.

Sometimes the obvious answer is actually the right one, and going around
looking for lots of hidden meanings and subtext is simply obscuring the truth.

Now I obviously don't know what twhitehead was thinking, but it read to me
[from the context] that he was saying that you rule out scientific evidence on
the specific area of gods existence, and other beliefs you deem to be faith and
not evidence based.

I am sure he has seen you many times defend evolution and other facets of
science and knows you are not a YEC... even if you do believe in the end of the
world will come in our/your lifetime.

Now I don't think twhitehead is an idiot, and I don't think you think he is either.

So that would suggest to me that his meaning should be interpreted in the light
of the fact that he knows you support science generally, even if you reject it's
being useful in specific instances.

So I think my original response is the right one.

Captain Obvious says he meant that you believe that science cannot find, or be
able to find, evidence of your god as that would negate the need for faith.
And that he didn't mean any more than that.


Of course I could be wrong, only twhitehead will tell. 😉

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, in a religious context, faith trumps evidence.

However, even in a religious context, faith can discover its own evidence, indeed, it can be a form of evidence, and faith itself surrenders first place to love.

"Of things not seen" is not necessarily merely a lack of evidence. It may be an item or substance that cannot be perceived with one's five ...[text shortened]... have seen Him with our own eyes and so we rely, or believe, on the evidence gathered by others.

So is faith by itself a sufficient tool for determining the truth about religion? If so, why even consider evidence? Your John 20:29 quote implies that believing on evidence is inferior to believing solely on faith, so it seems counterproductive to look for evidence if you think faith is sufficient.

Your first sentence says that faith trumps evidence, but then the rest of your post discusses what you view as evidence of Christianity (“faith can discover its own evidence”, “[faith] can be a form of evidence”, “we rely, or believe, on the evidence gathered by others&rdquo😉.

It appears as though you are as interested in evidence as anybody else, and your “faith trumps evidence” claim is merely an excuse to only accept evidence in favor of your position. I think it would be a more accurate statement of your position if it was changed to read “evidence in favor of Christianity trumps faith, and faith trumps evidence opposed to Christianity.”

Originally posted by PatNovak
So is faith by itself a sufficient tool for determining the truth about religion? If so, why even consider evidence? Your John 20:29 quote implies that believing on evidence is inferior to believing solely on faith, so it seems counterproductive to look for evidence if you think faith is sufficient.

Your first sentence says that faith trumps evidence, bu ...[text shortened]... dence in favor of Christianity trumps faith, and faith trumps evidence opposed to Christianity.”

I believe you are pointing out one of the problems with the atheists not seeing evidence of God in His creation all around them. They don't have faith that God exists so they don't see the evidence of his existence even when it is pointed out to them.

This is one of the purposes of my questioning the theory of evolution and the so-called millions and billions of years of past history of the earth and the universe.

By faith, some of us can see the evidence of a young earth and universe of only thousands of years as recorded in the Holy Bible; and by faith we also can see that the Shroud of Turin is evidence of the crucifixion death and the resurrection to life of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The same evidence is there for both sides to see, but without faith in Christ and the truth of the Holy Bible one side interprets that evidence differently.

Originally posted by Suzianne
And wow. How did *you* get that from *anything* I've ever said in this forum?

I am fairly sure that you have stated in the past that we can not find scientific evidence for God because it would rule out the necessity for faith. If I am mistaken then I apologize.

Originally posted by Suzianne
And I certainly don't include myself in "those who think we are all secret Christians".

I did not attribute that to you. I apologize if my post appeared to do so.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am fairly sure that you have stated in the past that we can not find scientific evidence for God because it would rule out the necessity for faith. If I am mistaken then I apologize.

I believe she was taking about scientific proof of the existence of God, not that there is no scientific evidence for God. Whereas, I believe my faith along with the evidence is proof enough for me of the existence of God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe she was taking about scientific proof of the existence of God, not that there is no scientific evidence for God. Whereas, I believe my faith along with the evidence is proof enough for me of the existence of God.

No scientific proofs are needed for the existence of god. Why? Because god is not a part of science. You cannot test god to see if he exists. Either he does or either he doesn't. But it is outside the domain of science to even deal with existence of god. That's why it's called religion.

The only thing needed is faith. Either you have it, or you don't. That's all.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
No scientific proofs are needed for the existence of god. Why? Because god is not a part of science. You cannot test god to see if he exists. Either he does or either he doesn't. But it is outside the domain of science to even deal with existence of god. That's why it's called religion.

The only thing needed is faith. Either you have it, or you don't. That's all.

Just as a painting is evidence of the painter and a building is evidence of a builder, the creation is evidence of the Creator God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe she was taking about scientific proof of the existence of God, not that there is no scientific evidence for God. Whereas, I believe my faith along with the evidence is proof enough for me of the existence of God.

You have started many many threads claiming that there is proof for the existence of God. Are you now saying you were wrong, or are you saying the proof you presented was not scientific?