Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?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.
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.
Then no one would suffer if god presented itself to everyone with absolute proof.
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.
Then the faithful should simply present their evidence.
How are you defining it then?
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.
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.
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
No you didn't present any, and yet we have quite a few believers. Lots of "faith" little, if any, compelling evidence.
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.
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.
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
The overwhelming subjectivity of such an evaluation should tell you something about the quality of the idea you are proffering.
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 its not intended to. The silence is for God's own purpose, not necessarily for our benefit.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.
And you would be partly correct, which contributes to why I said what I've already said about evidence regarding religion cannot be conclusive.
And its not intended to. The silence is for God's own purpose, not necessarily for our benefit.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?