Would proof of God devastate humanity?

[variant]

Most of humanity already says they believe in God, so how could evidence showing they are essentially correct be devastating?

A God that no one else gets to pretend to speak for would devastate religious communities that wrongly pretended to speak for God, but not humanity.

 

[variant]

Actually, such an event would engender faith rather than destroy it. Faith isn't believing without evidence, like so many proffer today.

Then the faithful should simply present their evidence.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Actually, such an event would engender faith rather than destroy it. Faith isn't believing without evidence, like so many proffer today.

How are you defining it then?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Then the faithful should simply present their evidence.

Many who believe really really really really strongly do not have actual living faith. They have no evidence or substance to present.

They say they have faith, they use the word until it's a worn out and tattered rag...but they'll never create faith on their own. It does not work that way.

The statement "just have faith" is out of ignorance. It is a gift authored by God, not mustered up by the willfulness of man.

 

[variant]

Many who believe really really really really strongly do not have actual living faith. The have no evidence or substance to present.

They say they have faith, they use the word until it's a worn out and tattered rag...but they'll never create faith on their own. It does not work that way.

The statement "just have faith" is out of ignorance. It is a gift authored by God, not mustered up by the willfulness of man.

The statement I responded to was a statement that "faith" was not "believing without evidence".

To which the proper response is: Well then, present your evidence.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

The statement I responded to was a statement that "faith" was not "believing without evidence".

To which the proper response is: Well then, present your evidence.

I feel I could present you with enough evidence to believe (as well as I'm able), but I cannot give you faith. That is from God to you when you are ready.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then no one would suffer if god presented itself to everyone with absolute proof.

Ok, ok, ok , ok..kkkkkk........

I think I see what you were saying several post ago. I thought you were talking about people who saw Jesus miracles and believed--that' what I was concentrating on. You seem to be concentrating on those who saw Jesus' miracles and still did not believe. So, we were talking past each other.

Ok. In my initial post, I was simply attempting to say that faith is not simply believing without evidence. However, I was not saying that evidence will strictly evince faith in people; sometimes because of hatred in the heart, evidence augments the existing hatred. Then, in that case, God's 'showing-up' would be a catastrophe, which is what is kind of depicted in that new Aronofsky version of the movie "Noah."

 

[variant]

I feel I could present you with enough evidence to believe (as well as I'm able), but I cannot give you faith. That is from God to you when you are ready.

I doubt you could do any such thing whether you feel like you could or not.

Which is why I said to present your evidence without actually thinking that is what you would do.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then the faithful should simply present their evidence.

Evidence is not something that impels belief. Evidence should not be equivocated with 'proof.' Evidence has to be considered, even tested. But even with testing (even in a scientific way), there is no guarantee that the findings will be conclusive and convincing to everyone.

So, I can present to you the Bible, Josephus, Tactitus, the Church Fathers, bits of archeaology, etc., etc., but none of that will by necessity be conclusive, because evidence isn't conclusive.

I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that the term 'evidence' infers a conclusive quality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How are you defining it then?

I'm defining as the New Testament does, a response to the evidence available. Evidence being something that has to be evaluated and isn't conclusive.

For instance, a bloody glove with OJ's blood on it doesn't conclusively mean OJ did it, although it seems that that is what is indicated.....

Additionally, a lack of evidence doesn't mean something specific didn't actually happen. The lack of evidence may just mean that the evidence was irretrievably destroyed, and we would like to have had that missing evidence.

 

[ReesePiece23]

There's conclusive evidence for a lot of things out there that people still don't agree with. Evidence in its own right can be as subjective as an opinion. Everyone will view something differently, and everyone - no matter how solid the evidence is, will take a different stance on it.

Opinions will always be divided, as the aforementioned evidence would be viewed through several different pairs of eyes. Some might stand by it, others will remain sceptical. What's evidence to some, is just more questions for others.

Good thread though I must say. I'll be following this one with interest.

 

[variant]

Evidence is not something that impels belief. Evidence should not be equivocated with 'proof.' Evidence has to be considered, even tested. But even with testing (even in a scientific way), there is no guarantee that the findings will be conclusive and convincing to everyone.

So, I can present to you the Bible, Josephus, Tactitus, the Church Fathers, bits of archeaology, etc., etc., but none of that will by necessity be conclusive, because evidence isn't conclusive.

I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that the term 'evidence' infers a conclusive quality.

Because we don't think you got your 'faith' through the quality of evidence but in spite of it being of fairly low quality in terms of conclusiveness.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Evidence is not something that impels belief. Evidence should not be equivocated with 'proof.' Evidence has to be considered, even tested. But even with testing (even in a scientific way), there is no guarantee that the findings will be conclusive and convincing to everyone.

So, I can present to you the Bible, Josephus, Tactitus, the Church Fathers, bits of archeaology, etc., etc., but none of that will by necessity be conclusive, because evidence isn't conclusive.

I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that the term 'evidence' infers a conclusive quality.

Some evidence has a conclusive quality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Because we don't think you got your 'faith' through the quality of evidence but in spite of it being of fairly low quality in terms of conclusiveness.

Well...I didn't say yet 'what' the evidence was, nor did I say that it is external evidence only that impels a response to God. Some evidence is internal and will only be good for me, but not for anyone else.

I would assert that 'faith,' at least for Christians, depends more on a coherence epistemology rather than one on foundationalism. It might even have more akin to formal pragmatism than foundationalism.

 

[variant]

Well...I didn't say yet 'what' the evidence was, nor did I say that it is external evidence only that impels a response to God. Some evidence is internal and will only be good for me, but not for anyone else.

No you didn't present any, and yet we have quite a few believers. Lots of "faith" little, if any, compelling evidence.

I would assert that 'faith,' at least for Christians, depends more on a coherence epistemology rather than one on foundationalism. It might even have more akin to formal pragmatism than foundationalism.

I don't see a coherent epistemology being presented either.

What should we have faith in seems a fair question for such an epistemology...

In terms of epistemology I think religions fail the P vs ~P test in that there are no specific things we can say about what would be different if things like Gods exist or don't exist (P and ~P look identical). This renders the idea of evidencing such concepts pretty moot.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

variant

No you didn't present any, and yet we have quite a few believers. Lots of "faith" little, if any, compelling evidence.

I would contend that when it comes to religions, whether Christianity or anything else, there is very little that would actually count as "compelling" evidence. It's a conglomeration of accumulated considerations that hang together in such a way that, for the person doing the evaluation, relevance seems tangible.

Also, because the human search within the context of religion deals not only with the existence of God, but also with whether or not God is good, evidence of existence still isn't, and won't be, the deciding factor that develops into faith.

I don't see a coherent epistemology being presented either.

What should we have faith in seems a fair question for such an epistemology...

In terms of epistemology I think religions fail the P vs ~P test in that there are no specific things we can say about what would be different if things like Gods exist or don't exist (P and ~P look identical). This renders the idea of evidencing such concepts pretty moot.

It's only moot if God's impenetrable silence doesn't have a reason. The main problem, other than that there is the possibility that God does not exist, is that if God's goals, values, and praxis are specifically attuned to eternal significance rather than to the immediate, human evaluations of significance that many people decide to only consider, then we'll just "miss it." Although it sounds trite, it really does come down to whether you see the glass as half empty or half full. No one will get a full glass, though. And that fact is what hacks us off.

 

[variant]

I would contend that when it comes to religions, whether Christianity or anything else, there is very little that would actually count as "compelling" evidence. It's a conglomeration of accumulated considerations that hang together in such a way that, for the person doing the evaluation, relevance seems tangible.

The overwhelming subjectivity of such an evaluation should tell you something about the quality of the idea you are proffering.

Also, because the human search within the context of religion deals not only with the existence of God, but also with whether or not God is good, evidence of existence still isn't, and won't be, the deciding factor that develops into faith.

Not knowing the nature of the thing you don't know exists doesn't help the difficulty I pointed out in knowing true from false ideas when making assertions about such a proposed entity.

It's only moot if God's impenetrable silence doesn't have a reason. The main problem, other than that there is the possibility that God does not exist, is that if God's goals, values, and praxis are specifically attuned to eternal significance rather than to the immediate, human evaluations of significance that many people decide to only consider, then we'll just "miss it." Although it sounds trite, it really does come down to whether you see the glass as half empty or half full. No one will get a full glass, though. And that fact is what hacks us off.

My point is that no amount of silence will ever convince you of anything.

God can only ever be shown to be true (never false) and, is so ill defined that I am not even sure what that would mean!

That you think you can come up with evidence or a coherent epistemology to deal with such an idea is actually pretty funny.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

variant

The overwhelming subjectivity of such an evaluation should tell you something about the quality of the idea you are proffering.

If I say that the world doesn't offer us evidence regarding religion that is compelling, pushing us definitely and clearly to one side or the other, that hardly qualifies as subjective. It's more of an objective statement that you can test for yourself. We are not arguing here as to whether the bible qualifies as history; I'm only talking about what the world offers us for evaluating religion in general. Some of this comes down to whether one approaches science from the standpoint of "methodological materialism" or instead "philosophical materialism." But I'm not going to take this thread down that tangent here.

Not knowing the nature of the thing you don't know exists doesn't help the difficulty I pointed out in knowing true from false ideas when making assertions about such a proposed entity.

And you would be partly correct, which contributes to why I said what I've already said about evidence regarding religion cannot be conclusive.

My point is that no amount of silence will ever convince you of anything.

And its not intended to. The silence is for God's own purpose, not necessarily for our benefit.

God can only ever be shown to be true (never false) and, is so ill defined that I am not even sure what that would mean!

I contend that we can neither show that God is true OR false. However, that doesn't mean that some conjunction of religious dimensions can't contribute to our decision making on the matter.

That you think you can come up with evidence or a coherent epistemology to deal with such an idea is actually pretty funny.

It's only funny if you assume Foundationalism, and as far as I can see Foundationalism, along with Evidentialism and Logical Positivism, etc., has been dealt heavy philosophical blows over the past several decades.

 

[variant]

And you would be partly correct, which contributes to why I said what I've already said about evidence regarding religion cannot be conclusive.

Inconclusive, and indistinguishable from "made up" are different ideas.

And its not intended to. The silence is for God's own purpose, not necessarily for our benefit.

In other words "we have no idea but I can only assume it fits in with my previous assumptions".

I contend that we can neither show that God is true OR false.

Complete agreement, there is nothing that could disprove such a nebulous idea.

However, that doesn't mean that some conjunction of religious dimensions can't contribute to our decision making on the matter.

Which means nothing.

It's only funny if you assume Foundationalism, and as far as I can see Foundationalism, along with Evidentialism and Logical Positivism, etc., has been dealt heavy philosophical blows over the past several decades.

Falcificationism is the standard today.

I find that you think your 'coherent epistemology' is on better ground than the positivists to be funny though.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I doubt you could do any such thing whether you feel like you could or not.

Which is why I said to present your evidence without actually thinking that is what you would do.

Among the evidences I would present are: the anatomy of a human, the anatomy of DNA, the anatomy of an atom, the relative strengths of the 4 fundamental forces, the dark matter and dark energy ratios, the distribution of poly-galactic structure, the intra-relationships of music, and the standard model of particle physics.

Where would you like to start?