How does one know anything via faith?

[Archaeopteryx]

In the case of a jury considering evidence, we assume a majority has arrived at a correct verdict.

If a majority of rational people think the evidence shows that God exists, it is reasonable to assume they are correct.

No, this is a fallacy known as the appeal to the majority. In any case, the majority cannot agree on the nature and identity of god or even how many gods there are. So clearly the majority's verdict needs to be scrutinised more closely.

 

[Chriliman]

In the case of a jury considering evidence, we assume a majority has arrived at a correct verdict.

If a majority of rational people think the evidence shows that God exists, it is reasonable to assume they are correct.

.

While I think this argument makes sense I don't completely agree. I don't think God wants us to assume He exists, I fully expect God to personally show me He exists and to remove all doubt in my mind and this has been the case ever since I took this mind set. I can confidently say I don't believe because others tell me to believe, I believe because Jesus personally saved me from destroying myself.

 

[Chriliman]

No. That won't do.

You don't get to say 'god exists' and then say that we cannot prove it. You make a faith based claim, you back it up.

The burden of proof is on you.

All one can hope to do when considering unprovable concepts, is back up their beliefs with sound reason that makes sense. If you want to see how I've done this go read this forum A problem at the bottom of reason

 

[quatona]

Except that I can use sound reason and logic to show why I believe in God,

Then why don´t you go ahead and start doing it already?

you'll just choose to ignore the tough questions that my sound reason and logic present,

Firstly, asking anyone "tough questions" doesn´t help substantiating your personal beliefs.
Secondly, feel free to ask those "tough questions" before making predictions how they will be received.

and you'll choose to ignore the questions because they threaten your beliefs.

Which beliefs of mine would that be, in particular?

 

[Chriliman]

Firstly, asking anyone "tough questions" doesn´t help substantiating your personal beliefs.
Secondly, feel free to ask those "tough questions" before making predictions how they will be received.

It certainly helps get to the truth, wouldn't you agree?

Which beliefs of mine would that be, in particular?

The fact that you claim to not believe in God. Meaning you accept the truth that God does not exist. However, this implies that you've been presented with evidence that proves God does not exist and you've accepted this proof as truth. I'm just asking you to present this evidence to me as well so I can determine the truth as well.

 

[Chriliman]

I have never claimed that I believe that god doesn't exist. I claim that i do not believe that there is a god. No belief is required by me to take this position. This is based purely on the empirical proof that this universe has provided. The only one of us that is espousing any belief is you. You and i both live in this world and experience it as we do. We are moved by it and we can have some effect on it, however small, by the way we live in it, by the way we act towards others. We are both subject to the natural laws of this world. The only difference is that you go one step further and claim 'god' as the designer.

This is why the burden of proof is on your shoulders and not mine.

The fact that you claim to not believe in God means you've accepted the truth that God does not exist, this implies that you've been presented with evidence that proves God does not exist and you've accepted this proof as truth. I'm just asking you to present this evidence to me as well so I can determine the truth as well.

 

[Chriliman]

No.

Yet again, through reason and, as stated by the lack of empirical evidence for any deity, the burden of proof is on you when you make a faith based claim.

There's lack of empirical evidence for a singularity and for imaginary time, which are the latest and greatest ideas from the smartest atheists on the planet. Do you choose to believe these claims? Or do you claim non belief in them too? If so will you continue to claim non belief in concepts that are unprovable no matter how much sense they make?

 

[quatona]

It certainly helps get to the truth, wouldn't you agree?

Depends on the question.

The fact that you claim to not believe in God.

You were mentioning my beliefs, not what I don´t believe.

Meaning you accept the truth that God does not exist.

No, that´s not what it means to not hold a belief.

However, this implies that you've been presented with evidence that proves God does not exist

No, that´s not what not believing in a God implies.

and you've accepted this proof as truth.

Wrong again.

The difference between "I don´t believe people who claim that a God exists because I haven´t been given evidence" and your pompously inflated "You accept the truth that God does not exist [and] have been presented with evidence that prove God does not exist" is so obvious that we needn´t go down that road of semantics trickery.

 

[Chriliman]

Depends on the question.




You were mentioning my beliefs, not what I don´t believe.

No, that´s not what it means to not hold a belief.

No, that´s not what not believing in a God implies.

Wrong again.

The difference between "I don´t believe people who claim that a God exists because I haven´t been given evidence" and your pompously inflated "You accept the truth that God does not exist [and] have been presented with evidence that prove God does not exist" is so obvious that we needn´t go down that road of semantics trickery.

Yet there are some atheists who claim to know God does not exist, why can't you know it as well? Knowing something implies you've been presented with proof. How can some atheists claim to know God does not exist and others not?

 

[Ana the Ist]

In the case of a jury considering evidence, we assume a majority has arrived at a correct verdict.

If a majority of rational people think the evidence shows that God exists, it is reasonable to assume they are correct.

.

No we don't. People aren't convicted by a jury "majority". It has to be unanimous. You got your analogy wrong.

 

[quatona]

Yet there are some atheists who claim to know God does not exist, why can't you know it as well?

I can´t explain other persons´ statements to you.
Personally, I don´t have such knowledge. Whether or why I can´t have it, I don´t know.

Knowing something implies you've been presented with proof.

Yes. I claim neither.

How can some atheists claim to know God does not exist and others not?

Probably for similar reasons how some theists can claim to know God exists and others not.
People can claim a lot on a long day, you know.

Now, does you "proof" for a God´s existence depend on people claiming to know that God doesn´t exist, or does it stand on its own feet? If the latter, present it already, and don´t ask me irrelevant questions about the psychology of other persons.

 

[Davian]

He clearly says he loves every person.

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Not every person, only those that believe. And belief in not a conscious choice.

Only a fool would believe this and then deny His love, yet there is forgiveness, because the price has been paid for all sins.

Is that not circular? If you believe in a particular god, does it not follow that you would believe in that particular god's attributes?

 

[Chany]

In the case of a jury considering evidence, we assume a majority has arrived at a correct verdict.

If a majority of rational people think the evidence shows that God exists, it is reasonable to assume they are correct.

.

Define "rational people" because, in all honestly, the vast majority of people have not rigorously examined their viewpoint. I've talked to people on both sides of the theistic argument and, often, I found their arguments to be parroted and paper-thin.

I'm not even sure how much of our own beliefs are rationally obtained and how many we believe for less than stellar reasons.

Furthermore, if we are going to do things by majority, this means that any minority position on any topic is wrong, so long as there are rational people inside the majority.

 

[Chriliman]

I can´t explain other persons´ statements to you.
Personally, I don´t have such knowledge. Whether or why I can´t have it, I don´t know.

Yes. I claim neither.

Probably for similar reasons how some theists can claim to know God exists and others not.
People can claim a lot on a long day, you know.

Now, does you "proof" for a God´s existence depend on people claiming to know that God doesn´t exist, or does it stand on its own feet? If the latter, present it already, and don´t ask me irrelevant questions about the psychology of other persons.

If you don't cliam to know that God does not exist then you're uncertain whether or not he exists. Isn't this then agnostic? And if your uncertain you then choose to assume God does not exist, correct? But the concept of God as an infinite timeless being makes sense, so assuming God does not exist becomes unreasonable. It's most reasonable to believe that which makes sense, especially among other unprovable concepts that contradict themselves.

 

[Chriliman]

Not every person, only those that believe. And belief in not a conscious choice.

Is that not circular? If you believe in a particular god, does it not follow that you would believe in that particular god's attributes?

Right, belief is not a consciouse choice but assumptions are. Choose not to assume and the truth will reveal itself.

For me personally, I believe in a God that makes sense, I wouldn't believe if when I honestly question I found out the God I believe in does not make sense. Instead I find the more I question the more truth is revealed and this only strengthens my faith and gives me peace of mind in knowing God is much greater than any made up human concept.

 

[JonahRR]

When someone says i believe in X, and someone says I do not believe in X, you have to investigate X. If there is no way to investigate X, then neither of the two statements can be proven false, and each believes it in faith, or despite some existence of doubt.

There are many circumstances by which someones faith cannot be proven or disproven, for instance, future events, like who will win any given sports game.

 

[Chany]

God of the holy bible describes himself as infinite and timeless. Do you really think humans just made a lucky guess 2000 years ago when writing the bible. A guess about an entity that is infinite and timeless that can explain our existence far better than the latest contradictory ideas of a singularity or imaginary time. Again it's more reasonable to believe an unprovable concept that makes sense rather than an unprovable concept that contradicts itself.

Answering a mystery with another mystery is pointless. The only rational option to take in the face of a mystery is to question and declare one does not know until the mystery clears up decently.

I think the unprovable concept of the Christian god makes no sense and, in many of its orthodox forms, contradicts itself. Does this mean I can ignore the classical Christian god now?

Also, I'm still find it funny how you vehemently deny you make assumptions in one thread, then pretty much declare you make assumptions in another.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As I've said before, humans can't prove God, only God can prove himself. Ask Him and He will show you the truth of Jesus.

What of those who "ask him" and are shown the truth of Islam?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The fact that you claim to not believe in God means you've accepted the truth that God does not exist, this implies that you've been presented with evidence that proves God does not exist and you've accepted this proof as truth. I'm just asking you to present this evidence to me as well so I can determine the truth as well.

No, that's not correct. This is a basic misunderstanding of the position of most atheists: we don't claim to know that God does not exist; we don't believe that he does (i.e., we lack belief). It's the difference between being unconvinced that there is a god and being convinced that there is no god.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God of the holy bible describes himself as infinite and timeless. Do you really think humans just made a lucky guess 2000 years ago when writing the bible. A guess about an entity that is infinite and timeless that can explain our existence far better than the latest contradictory ideas of a singularity or imaginary time. Again it's more reasonable to believe an unprovable concept that makes sense rather than an unprovable concept that contradicts itself.

You insist that it makes sense, but you haven't shown that it makes sense, and what is it supposed to make sense of?