Without evidence, how do you distinguish belief from imagination?

[3sigma]

I’ve been told many times by Christians that there is no sound, objective evidence that their God exists. I’ve even been told to stop asking for evidence. I’ve been told by Christians that the existence of their God cannot be proven or disproven. So I find it difficult to understand how you distinguish your belief from make-believe.

Without evidence or proof, how do you distinguish believing that your God exists from imagining that it exists? You can’t use subjective evidence, feelings or faith to distinguish your belief from make-believe because all those things can be products of your imagination. There is no way to tell whether those things are real or imagined unless you have some external evidence to support them. So what do you use to distinguish your belief from make-believe?

 

[Ikuis]

I’ve been told many times by Christians that there is no sound, objective evidence that their God exists. I’ve even been told to stop asking for evidence. I’ve been told by Christians that the existence of their God cannot be proven or disproven. So I find it difficult to understand how you distinguish your belief from make-believe.

Without evidence or proof, how do you distinguish believing that your God exists from imagining that it exists? You can’t use subjective evidence, feelings or faith to distinguish your belief from make-believe because all those things can be products of your imagination. There is no way to tell whether those things are real or imagined unless you have some external evidence to support them. So what do you use to distinguish your belief from make-believe?

I think the core phrase here is: "You can't use subjective evidence, feelings or faith...". Personally, I think that is all one can use, nor, when one recalls that faith itself is an entirely subjective matter, is there any need for any objective proof.

People do not always become Christians simply because they are born and raised in a culture where they are fed it from birth. For many people it is a transformation from an atheist, agnostic or disinterested disposition. There is some form of trigger for this. Naturally, this trigger can initiate imagined or purely chemical reactions. So what can we grasp at? I think instead of proof we only need personal conviction. We carry convictions about many things that we do not even bother to attempt to prove. However, religion involves invisible intelligence and life beyond mortal death, and that puts it on a different level altogether. But, ultimately, since even what may appear scientifically objective proof of something today may be scientifically disproved tomorrow, conviction is all we usually do have about anything!

So what turns belief into conviction? For me, there are many things, both internal and external. One is realising how many other people experience faith in the same way as I even though their backgrounds, intellect, characters, education, cultures, etc are all so vastly different. Another is the detectable response to prayer, another is finding answers to issues from the Bible, another is the peace and fulfulment of living a Christian life. Yet another is the same experience as Paul describes of opposing desires resulting in doing what I don't really want to do and not doing things that I really do want to do! Externally, I find in the mysteries and complexities of this physical world overwelming support of a God. No matter how macroscopic or microscopic our research goes, the more complex and mysterious this world becomes. When I compare the grey, cold, lifelessness of space with the myriad life, colour, senses, etc of this world, and the mystery of life and self-awareness, I find it very hard to believe this is all an accidental cause-effect result.

In addition, human emotions of love, guilt, compassion, self-sacrifice, joy, sorrow, hope, dispair, are all far too complex to simply be evolutionary by-products or the outcome of cultural development. Then add to that the human talent and craving for justice, awareness of good and evil, right and wrong, moral and ethical principles, and then artistic expression through music, art, dance, writing, etc and the desire to communicate, seek, understand, and we have a whole bucketload of reasons for seriously suspecting there is a greater being than ourselves.

Proof? No, I agree, no-one will ever find that! But do we really need proof? I don't think so. Imagination? Could be, but why do we so often find that inspiration comes into our mind from outside and then opportunities open up through no input of our own.

 

[DerSchweik]

Without evidence or proof, how do you distinguish believing that your God exists from imagining that it exists? You can’t use subjective evidence, feelings or faith to distinguish your belief from make-believe because all those things can be products of your imagination. There is no way to tell whether those things are real or imagined unless you have some external evidence to support them.

So what do you use to distinguish your belief from make-believe?

The implication here is that belief and make-belief are one and the same - in other words, belief is some sort of self-delusion of one's own making.

I think the premise for such a statement would have to be that you think belief is utter folly - or worse. Given the object of belief cannot be proven with objective evidence (otherwise belief wouldn't be necessary at all), the fact that someone believes in anything is evidence of some abnormality in their psyche.

But such a premise is utterly wrong - and I can prove it.

I'm 54. It seems the older I get the more I realize how little I actually "know" compared to how much I think I know. Each year seems to erode some "knowledge" I think I possess into a diminishing kernel of "truth" surrounded by an ever increasing body of exceptions. In other words, the farther I get from my teens, the less I realize how little I actually "know" anything.

Given your disdain for any form of belief, I would imagine you espouse to no beliefs whatsoever - that your life is conducted entirely and without exception on strict proofs, absolute knowledge, and pure empirical evidence. In other words, there is no decision in your life that hasn't been (or won't be) based purely on observable, objective, empirical, tested FACT. Would this be a fair conclusion to draw from your OP?

Or when say, you board an airplane, it is with absolute certainty that it won't crash or be blown up by some terrorist, or suck a straying goose into it's engines... For without such certainty, putting one's life on the line by boarding a plane they weren't absolutely, objectively certain would take off and land safely would be complete folly. Presumably then you also know for certain that when you get into your car the next time to drive somewhere you are certain you'll arrive safely as well. Or the next time you take a bus or a train... we can say with total assurance you take no such "risks" - that such risks would be tantamount to having "faith" which has no validity whatsoever, being based on something other than objective, observable, empirical evidence.

Such certainty in life is of course illusory. No one would ever admit to having no faith at all - it's not logical or rational to make such a claim.

But is it fair to say that when someone boards a plane they are "making believe" it won't crash? Of course not. "Make-belief" is something typically ascribed to childhood games while belief is altogether different.

So how do I distinguish my "belief" from "make belief?" Well, I'm committed to one but only having fun with the other.

I trust the next time you board a plane, it will be on the basis of committed belief, that you will be committing your life to the belief that you will exit the plane as safely as you entered it.

You may think the Christian's belief in God is without objective, credible substantiation - that's ok. But given that many planes have crashed and many lives have been lost, what rationale is it that elevates one's belief it won't happen to them above the Christian's belief that God exists? What body of evidence makes that belief more rational than the other?

What I would want to know, were I in your shoes, is why - if I'm so adamant and certain that God doesn't exist - why do I persist in seeking to prove it?

 

[3sigma]

The implication here is that belief and make-belief are one and the same - in other words, belief is some sort of self-delusion of one's own making.

Not all belief; only belief without any credible, verifiable evidence at all—in other words, religious belief. How can one distinguish such a belief from make-believe?

I think the premise for such a statement would have to be that you think belief is utter folly - or worse. Given the object of belief cannot be proven with objective evidence (otherwise belief wouldn't be necessary at all), the fact that someone believes in anything is evidence of some abnormality in their psyche.

But such a premise is utterly wrong - and I can prove it.

Again, I’m speaking of religious belief, not all belief. How can one distinguish religious belief from make-believe?

Given your disdain for any form of belief, I would imagine you espouse to no beliefs whatsoever - that your life is conducted entirely and without exception on strict proofs, absolute knowledge, and pure empirical evidence. In other words, there is no decision in your life that hasn't been (or won't be) based purely on observable, objective, empirical, tested FACT. Would this be a fair conclusion to draw from your OP?

No, it would be yet another example of a religious believer tending towards an extreme conclusion—in other words, a straw man. I believe plenty of things, but those beliefs are supported by at least some credible, verifiable evidence. I don’t believe things that have absolutely no sound, objective evidence supporting them. I hold no religious beliefs. I hold no beliefs in anything supernatural.

Or when say, you board an airplane, it is with absolute certainty that it won't crash or be blown up by some terrorist, or suck a straying goose into it's engines... For without such certainty, putting one's life on the line by boarding a plane they weren't absolutely, objectively certain would take off and land safely would be complete folly. Presumably then you also know for certain that when you get into your car the next time to drive somewhere you are certain you'll arrive safely as well. Or the next time you take a bus or a train... we can say with total assurance you take no such "risks" - that such risks would be tantamount to having "faith" which has no validity whatsoever, being based on something other than objective, observable, empirical evidence.

These are yet more ridiculous, straw-man arguments. I have no such certainty that I will not be injured or killed whenever I travel in a plane, bus, car or train. I know full well there are risks associated with these forms of transport and many other things in life, but those risks are relatively minor and worth taking for the convenience. I’m not the sort of person who thinks a St. Christopher medal or a Jesus fish will protect me.

Such certainty in life is of course illusory. No one would ever admit to having no faith at all - it's not logical or rational to make such a claim.

Of course any such certainty would be illusory, but then I have no such certainty. You are flailing at a straw man.

But is it fair to say that when someone boards a plane they are "making believe" it won't crash? Of course not. "Make-belief" is something typically ascribed to childhood games while belief is altogether different.

You know, it’s still a straw man, no matter how many times you strike at it.

So how do I distinguish my "belief" from "make belief?" Well, I'm committed to one but only having fun with the other.

When I say how does one distinguish religious belief from make-believe, I mean how does one tell the difference between them. Stating that you are committed to your beliefs doesn’t distinguish them from make-believe. Many people are committed to the belief that astrology is true, but that doesn’t mean it differs from make-believe.

I trust the next time you board a plane, it will be on the basis of committed belief, that you will be committing your life to the belief that you will exit the plane as safely as you entered it.

Boy, you just won’t stop flogging this straw man, will you?

You may think the Christian's belief in God is without objective, credible substantiation - that's ok. But given that many planes have crashed and many lives have been lost, what rationale is it that elevates one's belief it won't happen to them above the Christian's belief that God exists? What body of evidence makes that belief more rational than the other?

Wow, I’ve rarely seen such a display. First you imagine erroneously that I hold some extreme position and then you spend most of your post futilely attacking that imagined caricature.

What I would want to know, were I in your shoes, is why - if I'm so adamant and certain that God doesn't exist - why do I persist in seeking to prove it?

I told you [post=49481606]before[/post] and asked you to remember for future reference that I do not claim that your God does not exist. I said that given that there has never been a single shred of sound, objective evidence supporting your claim that your God exists, I think the probability of its existence is so vanishingly small as to be negligible.

I believe many things, but they have at least some credible, verifiable evidence to support them. I do not believe things that have zero credible, verifiable evidence to support them. I do not hold religious beliefs or beliefs in the supernatural.

What I’m asking here is how does one distinguish religious beliefs that have no credible, verifiable evidence to support them from make-believe?

 

[Ikuis]

What I’m asking here is how does one distinguish religious beliefs that have no credible, verifiable evidence to support them from make-believe?

Am I right in assuming that you are not actually asking if we have objective proof supporting belief (which, of course, would no longer be belief), rather that you are asking for evidence that carries sufficient credibility to justify calling Christian beliefs real beliefs rather than just make-believe?

In the airplane examples above I guess similar credibility would be crash statistics upon which one can base the decision whether the risk is significant or not. E.g. one might trust some airlines but not others based on a assessment of their statistical credibility?

With regard to Christianity and God, here are a few examples of how I find credibility in my beliefs:

- the bible's consistency in its core message in spite of being written by many different authors, in various languages and locations, over a period spanning maybe as much as 1500-2000 years, in spite of different motives for writing and many attempts to distort it and destroy it.

- that Jesus remained such a world-wide figure for so long in spite of his short life and lowly position in society.

- that Paul would have converted to Christianity from Judaism just at the point when his Jewish standing was so high and Christianity was at its weakest and scattered without a clear leader.

- that all Christians pretty much find the same message from the bible as I do,

- that living according to biblical principles concerning what to do and not do produces the results that the bible predicts.

- that prayer seems to produce sufficient results without my own input to justify believing it is a viable process.

- that friends coming to faith have noticeably changed in their character.

- that medical defects in some people that doctors have declared inoperable have vanished after prayer and without surgery or medicine.


These are not in any way proofs. But when I put them together I get a clear enough picture of an external universal consistency, outside of my own imagination, that I can trust my beliefs have credibility based on reasonable evidence. Naturally, everyone has a different threshold for what that are prepared to accept as "evidence"!

 

[3sigma]

Am I right in assuming that you are not actually asking if we have objective proof supporting belief (which, of course, would no longer be belief), rather that you are asking for evidence that carries sufficient credibility to justify calling Christian beliefs real beliefs rather than just make-believe?

Did you notice that I also said verifiable, sound and objective evidence?

With regard to Christianity and God, here are a few examples of how I find credibility in my beliefs:

I think you will find that there are more reasonable and plausible explanations than a supernatural being for your examples and that some of your conclusions are just plain wrong.

- the bible's consistency in its core message in spite of being written by many different authors, in various languages and locations, over a period spanning maybe as much as 1500-2000 years, in spite of different motives for writing and many attempts to distort it and destroy it.

Perhaps the books that make up the Bible you see today were deliberately selected by groups of people to present a consistent message and those books that were inconsistent with that message were omitted.

- that Jesus remained such a world-wide figure for so long in spite of his short life and lowly position in society.

Perhaps most people are credulous and insecure enough to allow the need for emotional comfort to override their reason when they find some figurehead who apparently offers hope.

- that Paul would have converted to Christianity from Judaism just at the point when his Jewish standing was so high and Christianity was at its weakest and scattered without a clear leader.

Perhaps Paul was one of those credulous and insecure people.

- that all Christians pretty much find the same message from the bible as I do,

Are you kidding? How do you explain the many versions of the Bible and the many and varied interpretations of it that have given rise to the numerous Christian denominations? How do you explain the fact that Catholics and Protestants have been killing each other for centuries over their different interpretations of the Bible’s message?

- that living according to biblical principles concerning what to do and not do produces the results that the bible predicts.

Perhaps this is the result of wish fulfilment and selective confirmation on your part.

- that prayer seems to produce sufficient results without my own input to justify believing it is a viable process.

Again this is more likely to be the result of confirmation bias on your part, given that no well-controlled study has shown that the outcome of prayer is any better than chance.

- that friends coming to faith have noticeably changed in their character.

Who would have thought that people’s behaviour could be influenced by their beliefs?

- that medical defects in some people that doctors have declared inoperable have vanished after prayer and without surgery or medicine.

Perhaps doctors are not infallible, some conditions are self-resolving and people are prone to post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies.

These are not in any way proofs. But when I put them together I get a clear enough picture of an external universal consistency, outside of my own imagination, that I can trust my beliefs have credibility based on reasonable evidence. Naturally, everyone has a different threshold for what that are prepared to accept as "evidence"!

Naturally, some people are more credulous than others. Have any of your examples been tested to verify that the existence of your God could be the only reasonable and plausible explanation for them? If you have no such verified examples then how can you distinguish your belief from make-believe?

 

[RobinRedbreast]

Mod Hat On

Thread closed for Staff Review

Please note: This topic is not to be re-posted (nor any off-shoots directly citing or discussing this thread) are to be posted until a staff review of the current thread is complete.

Mod Hat Off

 

[AdJesumPerMariam]

This Thread is re-opened. Please read the FSG's before posting.

Thank you​

 

[chosenpath]

Evidence is something scientists look for and they develop theories which another scientist will come along and challenge. They have been trying to discredit God for centuries and have not come up with substantial evidence to prove he doesn't exist.

Faith is something God searches for in us. He is the only one we need to prove this to all else is vanity and striving after the wind.



James 3:16-17
For where envy and self-seeking [exist], confusion and every evil thing [are] there.
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy.

1 John 5:4
For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith. Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is He who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son. He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.

 

[AV1611VET]

I’ve been told many times by Christians that there is no sound, objective evidence that their God exists.

Funny --- I have scientists and atheists telling me that all the time --- not Christians.

We simply agree with you.

But is that good enough? Of course not --- it's not what we say, it's what we are that matters.

 

[3sigma]

Of course not --- it's not what we say, it's what we are that matters.

No… It’s how you behave.

 

[ephraimanesti]

So what do you use to distinguish your belief from make-believe?

By the miraculous transformation of lives--my own included--which it engenders.

i find it rather humerous--in a very sad sort of way--to watch atheists go through the motions of pretending to be seeking for "truth", and then stack the deck by formulating "rules of evidence" which rule out the necessity of their ever being confronted by the Truth.

Smart plan. Big mistake.

A BROTHER/FRIEND/SLAVE OF CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[AV1611VET]

Smart plan. Big mistake.

Well-said.

 

[ephraimanesti]

No… It’s how you behave.

For Christians, what we are governs how we behave, and how we behave delineates what we are.

(This is, incidentially, is why the "No Proper Scotsman Falacy" does not pertain to Christians)

A BROTHER/FRIEND/SLAVE OF CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[synger]

Without evidence or proof, how do you distinguish believing that your God exists from imagining that it exists?

It's a fascinating question, and one that I think humans have questioned in both faith settings and non-faith settings. How do we know that what we see, think, feel, believe, etc., is "real"?

I know that God exists. But the evidence I have is purely subjective to my personal struggles, questions, studies, and joys, and how God has guided my life and brought me to a more solid understanding of His love and grace. On its own, it probably wouldn't convince you.

In reading your post, I am reminded of so many of my favorite type of movie or story... the ones where you're not sure what is real and what is not. Whether it is as simple as the unsatisfying "and then the boy woke up!" ending, or as convoluted as the Matrix, Horton Hearts a Who, the Truman Show, or Dark City, the question of how we can prove what we believe is real, especially in the face of overwhelming proof to the contrary, can be frustrating and maddening.

I don't have a blue pill to offer you to show you the real world of faith, nor an elephant prophet to champion the unseeable, unhearable Whos, nor a spotlight to drop on you from heaven, nor a subway that goes nowhere to tip you off that your city is really a prison. I know it's an unsatisfying answer, but if you refuse to allow the existance of God, you are unlikely to see him. And if he dropped a neon sign at your feet (or a burning bush), it would'nt be faith that you had if you believed. Faith is the certainty that what we cannot see, taste, smell or touch does indeed exist. (that's why I tend to use the term "people of faith" rather than "theists" when speaking of those who are "religious." It includes animists and spiritists as well as theists of all kinds)

Do I ever question that God exists? Sure I have. I can't think of a single person of faith that I've talked to about such things who hasn't. But I can look back on my life and see direct evidence of God's working in it. I can see His work in the hearts of others as well. Some might call it all coincidence or naivete. *shrugs* They would have as much difficulty convincing me of that as I would of convincing them that it is God.

So, long story short (too late!), how do I distinguish belief from imagination? By faith.

It may not be a satisfying answer, but it's the only one I have.

 

[3sigma]

By the miraculous transformation of lives--my own included--which it engenders.

Well, who would have thought that people’s beliefs could affect their behaviour? The fact that their behaviour changes doesn’t mean their beliefs reflect reality. Their beliefs could be the result of imagination and their behaviour could still change. Have you ever heard of the placebo effect?

 

[3sigma]

I know that God exists. But the evidence I have is purely subjective to my personal struggles, questions, studies, and joys, and how God has guided my life and brought me to a more solid understanding of His love and grace. On its own, it probably wouldn't convince you.

No, purely subjective evidence wouldn’t convince me. I would need at least some sound, objective evidence before believing something. Has anyone, anywhere, ever once produced any sound, objective evidence that your God exists?

So, long story short (too late!), how do I distinguish belief from imagination? By faith.

Would it be fair to say, given that your evidence for your God is purely subjective, that “faith” could be described as a readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence?

 

[synger]

No, purely subjective evidence wouldn’t convince me. I would need at least some sound, objective evidence before believing something. Has anyone, anywhere, ever once produced any sound, objective evidence that your God exists?

The leap to faith is, by its very nature, unsupported by evidence. If it were supported by objective evidence (God's voice from on high, for example), it would no longer be faith, but fact.

There is evidence that people of faith accept as objective. For instance, I believe that there was a Hebrew people that followed God, and to whom God sent prophets and teachers. I believe that their story, and the story of the Messiah prophesied by those prophets by God, is outlined in the Bible. Those who refuse to believe in God are more likely to interpret the Bible as the legends and myths of a particular people, rather than a true history. That is one difference between faith and fact.

Would it be fair to say, given that your evidence for your God is purely subjective, that “faith” could be described as a readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence?

Not necessarily. If by that you mean that people who believe in God are more likely to believe in other things on slight or uncertain evidence, I have seen no correlation between the two. And while my evidence may seem slight or uncertain to you, it certainly is not slight or uncertain to me. I have seen little evidence that there is NOT a God, and much that there is. But again, you are unlikely to look at events in history in the same way that I would, so I doubt that would be useful to you.

 

[3sigma]

The leap to faith is, by its very nature, unsupported by evidence. If it were supported by objective evidence (God's voice from on high, for example), it would no longer be faith, but fact.

Which returns us to my original question. If your belief is based on faith rather than fact then how do you distinguish it from make-believe? How do you determine that you aren’t just imagining your God if it isn’t a fact?

I have seen little evidence that there is NOT a God, and much that there is.

I’m guessing that you have seen little evidence that there is NOT a Santa Claus and much that there is (reindeer, sleighs, Christmas presents, etc.). Do you also believe that Santa Claus exists? Millions of people do so why don’t you have faith that Santa Claus exists? How do you tell the difference between Santa Claus and your God?

 

[AV1611VET]

If your belief is based on faith rather than fact then how do you distinguish it from make-believe?

By taste:

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.