Would you accept half an evidence for God? If you would never see the whole?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

This might seem naive, but, would you accept half an evidence for God? Would you adopt the beliefs and the traditions of a religion in favour of God on the basis of half an evidence, a conjecture without a conclusion, a statement without a meaning?

What if that meant you would never see the whole of the evidence? Because the fact that half an evidence is revealed to you, means that you are corrupt in this life and cannot in that manner enter Heaven?

In this manner God Himself has often revealed Himself, in reality, to those who see Him passing by (Moses) or by the words of affirmation that came with Christ (the people in the gospels) - it is not unreasonable to expect that He could do so again.

It would be interesting to know with what reference you reply to this, not for the sake of a sign, but as an indication of the working of your mind in response to God (for the sake of all).

Thanks.

 

[Eudaimonist]

This might seem naive, but, would you accept half an evidence for God?

What is "half" an evidence?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

Half a kilogramm or half a pound of evidence?

I won't accept any fraction of evidence not in metric format.

 

[Gottservant]

What is "half" an evidence?


eudaimonia,

Mark

As I said:

on the basis of half an evidence, a conjecture without a conclusion, a statement without a meaning

in reality, to those who see Him passing by (Moses) or by the words of affirmation that came with Christ (the people in the gospels)

In other words, something that without God as the conclusion would have no meaning.

If for example I say, it has bark, leaves and fruit, you comprehend "tree" though I have not said it (necessarily).

The implication being that if there was a God it would be possible to imply it, but not prove it, that we remain free.

 

[Gottservant]

Half a kilogramm or half a pound of evidence?

I won't accept any fraction of evidence not in metric format.

Unfortunately you don't give a reason, so you will never learn from the experience.

 

[Eudaimonist]

In other words, something that without God as the conclusion would have no meaning.

If for example I say, it has bark, leaves and fruit, you comprehend "tree" though I have not said it (necessarily).

The implication being that if there was a God it would be possible to imply it, but not prove it, that we remain free.

No, that would not be enough to get me to adopt the beliefs and the traditions of a religion in favor of Odin or any other god. "Half" an argument is like having no argument at all. It's all just speculation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

No, that would not be enough to get me to adopt the beliefs and the traditions of a religion in favor of Odin or any other god. "Half" an argument is like having no argument at all. It's all just speculation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Do you perhaps, if I may (ask), think that that means you are perhaps slightly unreasonable?

Or do you accept half an argument for everything but God?

 

[bhsmte]

Hi there,

This might seem naive, but, would you accept half an evidence for God? Would you adopt the beliefs and the traditions of a religion in favour of God on the basis of half an evidence, a conjecture without a conclusion, a statement without a meaning?

What if that meant you would never see the whole of the evidence? Because the fact that half an evidence is revealed to you, means that you are corrupt in this life and cannot in that manner enter Heaven?

In this manner God Himself has often revealed Himself, in reality, to those who see Him passing by (Moses) or by the words of affirmation that came with Christ (the people in the gospels) - it is not unreasonable to expect that He could do so again.

It would be interesting to know with what reference you reply to this, not for the sake of a sign, but as an indication of the working of your mind in response to God (for the sake of all).

Thanks.

What would this "half evidence" be?

 

[Gottservant]

What would this "half evidence" be?

as I already said twice in this thread

What is "half" an evidence?


eudaimonia,

Mark

As I said:

on the basis of half an evidence, a conjecture without a conclusion, a statement without a meaning

in reality, to those who see Him passing by (Moses) or by the words of affirmation that came with Christ (the people in the gospels)

In other words, something that without God as the conclusion would have no meaning.

If for example I say, it has bark, leaves and fruit, you comprehend "tree" though I have not said it (necessarily).

The implication being that if there was a God it would be possible to imply it, but not prove it, that we remain free.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Do you perhaps, if I may (ask), think that that means you are perhaps slightly unreasonable?

No, I have reasonable epistemological standards.

Or do you accept half an argument for everything but God?

I don't believe in the existence of the Loch Ness monster, Big Foot, space aliens visiting Earth, ghosts, psychic powers, the Illuminati, and plenty of other paranormal things for precisely the reason that they are too speculative and there is only "half evidence" for such things.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

No, I have reasonable epistemological standards.

An assertion.

I don't believe in the existence of the Loch Ness monster, Big Foot, space aliens visiting Earth, ghosts, psychic powers, the Illuminati, and plenty of other paranormal things for precisely the reason that they are too speculative and there is only "half evidence" for such things.


eudaimonia,

Mark

And the sense of compiling a list of things you don't believe is?

Sorry but that still sounds unreasonable?

 

[Eudaimonist]

An assertion.

You asked.

And the sense of compiling a list of things you don't believe is?

You had written:

Or do you accept half an argument for everything but God?

I was giving counterexamples to show that it's not everything but God. That answers your question in the negative. What did you expect?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

You asked.

I did.

You had written:

Or do you accept half an argument for everything but God?

I was giving counterexamples to show that it's not everything but God. That answers your question in the negative. What did you expect?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Something creative?

It doesn't seem too far fetched to expect from a human being a phenomenon of faith, that has its foundations in a basic deduction of experience.

Why am I being unreasonable?

 

[Eudaimonist]

It doesn't seem too far fetched to expect from a human being a phenomenon of faith, that has its foundations in a basic deduction of experience.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

Why am I being unreasonable?

Do you think that I should believe in the existence of the Loch Ness monster, Big Foot, space aliens visiting Earth, ghosts, psychic powers, and the Illuminati based on "half evidence"?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

I have no idea what you mean by that.

Read it again; this time consider what you attribute to a human being, for faith alone.

Do you think that I should believe in the existence of the Loch Ness monster, Big Foot, space aliens visiting Earth, ghosts, psychic powers, and the Illuminati based on "half evidence"?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Did I give you evidence that a change of topic was necessary?

Well so if I can stay focussed on God, what makes you want to reject it instead of accepting it?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Read it again; this time consider what you attribute to a human being, for faith alone.

I had read it several times through. I still didn't understand what you had meant by that statement.

Did I give you evidence that a change of topic was necessary?

I wasn't changing topic. My question is on topic for the purpose of answering your question.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

I had read it several times through. I still didn't understand what you had meant by that statement.

What do you expect of a human, if not faith?

I wasn't changing topic. My question is on topic for the purpose of answering your question.


eudaimonia,

Mark

So you expect me to have faith in your list, but you do not have faith in my God.

Once again, unreasonable?

 

[Eudaimonist]

What do you expect of a human, if not faith?

Something much better than faith: reason. That involves higher epistemological standards.

So you expect me to have faith in your list

Do you think that I should believe in the existence of the Loch Ness monster, Big Foot, space aliens visiting Earth, ghosts, psychic powers, and the Illuminati based on "half evidence"?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

Something much better than faith: reason. That involves higher epistemological standards.

And higher is permanently better, how?

Do you think that I should believe in the existence of the Loch Ness monster, Big Foot, space aliens visiting Earth, ghosts, psychic powers, and the Illuminati based on "half evidence"?


eudaimonia,

Mark

If you can't believe in God alone, yes.

It's still better than believing nothing, because the former cancels the latter.

 

[bhsmte]

If you can't believe in God alone, yes.

It's still better than believing nothing, because the former cancels the latter.

If you are one that can reconcile the belief, than sure, believe. Some people though, just can't fool themselves into believing it.