There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[PureX]

Depends on the God. Earth is often considered one and I look around and see that earth exists.

Technically, "Earth" would be a demigod. Not a (meta) God. As it cannot be the source, sustenance, and purpose of itself. Many religions employ demigods to represent the various ways that the singular source God manifests in our experience of the world. Typically; there have been demigods of the Earth, the ocean, the sun, of the weather/seasons, of fertility, of travel, and so on.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was just pointing out that many who claim no faith actually have faith.
It is rubbish to say that the poster relies on evidence only. The evidence does not tell us that there is no designer, the evidence can point either to or away from a designer depending on how you want to use the evidence. That is where the faith comes in, and it is wrongly equated with evidence, as if evidence is anathema to the existence of God.

Me: If the evidence doesn't point to a designer, than there's no reason to posit a designer

You: I would say that the evidence of nature points to a designer.


And so we're all the way back at what evidence?

The point under discussion is invoking faith when the evidence isn't up to snuff and whether lack of evidence for god means there is no god.
Again, lack of evidence for god doesn't mean "no god" it just means we don't have any need to enter god into the equation. It doesn't mean we invoke faith and run around declaring this is no god.

 

[PureX]

I would say that the evidence of nature points to a designer.

Existence is clearly the expression of design. If it weren't, science would not be possible. It is precisely the integrated design within the natural physical world that science is able to explore and is trying to uncover and understand. And the fact that the existential event is at least somewhat predictable is direct evidence of a control/design mechanism.

The problem for us is that we have no way apart from our imaginations of exploring what the possible origin of these mechanisms is. Even science can only explore the mechanisms, themselves. And so far we have not been able to even ascertain the "substance" of them. Let alone the motivating force(s) involved.

I agree that 'design' is glaringly apparent. But the idea of a "designer" implies something that we can honestly only imagine. The atheist is not wrong to object to any design assertion that presumes to 'characterize' the mystery. I have to side with them on that. Although not to the point of doing the same, in reverse.

I think we're being honest and safe so long as we understand that ANY proposed characterization of a "designer" is imaginary.

 

[PureX]

Many people make claims but when asked they say that does not show faith because it is based on the evidence (as if faith is never based on evidence).
They do not seem to realise that they are claiming their belief about what the evidence shows.

Most people won't be bothered to consider in any depth the difference between faith, belief, and knowledge. And as a result, most of the conversations around here are hopelessly mired in the confused and often deliberate misuse of these terms. I find that theists and atheists alike are doggedly determined to confuse and conflate faith with religious belief. The theists do it because their religion teaches them this unfortunate nonsense. And the atheists do it because it supplies them with endless easy "target" for them to insult, belittle, and reject.

 

[Audie]

You just confirmed that you do not understand the burden of proof. There is not a burden of proof to demonstrate that there was no "creator". Since there is no evidence of one, one should logically withhold belief. That is not a faith position. Can you prove that fairies do not exist? I know that you can't. So is it a faith position to not believe in the existence of fairies? You should say "no' by the way.

Winner frub

 

[Audie]

Bingo!!! We have a winner!


Wow! Two out of three, can he get the trifecta?

Oh rats. Oh well, better luck next time.

So close

 

[Audie]

You are just being vague.
Are you saying that belief based on evidence is not faith?
Are you saying that faith is belief that has no evidence?
What are you saying?

As important and central as " faith" is to believers
I'm a little surprised that theres not more
depth of thought re what you guys mean by it.

It's held in such special regard, a highest Virtue
for Christians.

But then you equate Faith, in god with
the well justified assumption that the car will start!

That's kind of weird.

You do know what equivocation is, what a
Fallacy it is?

What is that line "now faith....the unseen".?
Who the heck needs faith if you can see it???

Confidence that Boyles Law will still be
good is no more like Faith in god, than
"Amtrack Joe Biden resembles the Metro
Goodwin lion!

Yet you keep talking as if they are just the same.

You might as well not make it clear whether
by " frog" you mean a Frenchman or a happy amphibian.


It's not me who is vague.

 

[Unfettered]

Most people won't be bothered to consider in any depth the difference between faith, belief, and knowledge. And as a result, most of the conversations around here are hopelessly mired in the confused and often deliberate misuse of these terms. I find that theists and atheists alike are doggedly determined to confuse and conflate faith with religious belief. The theists do it because their religion teaches them this unfortunate nonsense. And the atheists do it because it supplies them with endless easy "target" for them to insult, belittle, and reject.

Well said. The three are very different. Related but different. And conflating them or interchanging them leads to confusion, deception or both.

 

[Unfettered]

Existence is clearly the expression of design.

I would say "organization is...," which is appropriately more encompassing than "existence is... ." Either way, I agree.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Funny.
You list a string of parallels and precedents
then say there aren't any.

There aren’t any parallels or precedents to These Educators. To me They are ample proof to me that God exists. Others may differ but I’m more than happy with my findings. There are none that can compare Them with regards to influence even thousands of years after Their death. Billions today model their lives on Their teachings.

 

[ppp]

Well said. The three are very different. Related but different. And conflating them or interchanging them leads to confusion, deception or both.

Piffle. No one thinks that religion and faith are the same thing. Faith is holding a position without epistemic warrant. Some religious beliefs are just specific instances of faith. Plenty of people hold such faith beliefs both with and without religion. Purexs disdain is about bringing others down. Never support for his own views.

 

[Brian2]

How? You claim that but all we have ever seen are arguments from ignorance.

"An argument from ignorance is an assertion that a claim is either true or false because of a lack of evidence to the contrary. The speaker assumes that their position is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or that their opponent's position is false because it has not been or cannot be proven true."

I know you have no evidence to the contrary, but do not say that my evidence is true because of that.
I also don't say that your position is false because it has not or cannot be proven true, even though it cannot be proven true.

 

[Audie]

There aren’t any parallels or precedents to These Educators. To me They are ample proof to me that God exists. Others may differ but I’m more than happy with my findings. There are none that can compare Them with regards to influence even thousands of years after Their death. Billions today model their lives on Their teachings.

Three. So why did you list 8?

 

[ppp]

I know you have no evidence to the contrary, but do not say that my evidence is true because of that.

You say that your god claims are true because of a lack of evidence against your claims. You do not have evidence to support your god claims.

 

[Brian2]

Existence is clearly the expression of design. If it weren't, science would not be possible. It is precisely the integrated design within the natural physical world that science is able to explore and is trying to uncover and understand. And the fact that the existential event is at least somewhat predictable is direct evidence of a control/design mechanism.

The problem for us is that we have no way apart from our imaginations of exploring what the possible origin of these mechanisms is. Even science can only explore the mechanisms, themselves. And so far we have not been able to even ascertain the "substance" of them. Let alone the motivating force(s) involved.

I agree that 'design' is glaringly apparent. But the idea of a "designer" implies something that we can honestly only imagine. The atheist is not wrong to object to any design assertion that presumes to 'characterize' the mystery. I have to side with them on that. Although not to the point of doing the same, in reverse.

I think we're being honest and safe so long as we understand that ANY proposed characterization of a "designer" is imaginary.

Any proposed characterisation of a designer is imaginary unless it has been revealed to us by the designer. That is the position of the Bible believers at least.

 

[Brian2]

You just confirmed that you do not understand the burden of proof. There is not a burden of proof to demonstrate that there was no "creator". Since there is no evidence of one, one should logically withhold belief. That is not a faith position. Can you prove that fairies do not exist? I know that you can't. So is it a faith position to not believe in the existence of fairies? You should say "no' by the way.

However there is evidence for a creator.

 

[We Never Know]

I’ve been reading through a couple of threads, and I see that it is said that there is no evidence for a god, it’s an unfalsifiable idea. We all agree on this? If you don’t, care to explain the evidence there is for god?
I’m in agreement. I used to believe my personal experiences to be subjective evidence for god, but I know now that’s not the case. I am not a theist anymore because I recognize I was a Christian thanks almost completely to my environment. That’s why I believed. I was brought up in it. Wasn’t because of any proof or anything,
So, theists, why do you believe? Is it mainly because of your environment and geographical location? There is no proof for god (right?), so what logically keeps you believing? Or is logic not supposed to be a factor when it comes to faith? Is it too jarring, the idea of leaving the comfort that religion and belief in a god brings?
I am curious about personal evaluations on why you believe. It can’t be because of logic, as there is no proof of god, right?

What would evidence for a god be?
What would it look like, be made of, etc?

 

[Brian2]

Nope, no faith required when no evidence for an object has been provided. You are misusing the word "faith" and denigrating your own beliefs because of your use of that word.

You should read the context before commenting imo.

 

[Brian2]

You say that your god claims are true because of a lack of evidence against your claims. You do not have evidence to support your god claims.

No I don't and yes I do.

 

[Brian2]

As important and central as " faith" is to believers
I'm a little surprised that theres not more
depth of thought re what you guys mean by it.

It's held in such special regard, a highest Virtue
for Christians.

But then you equate Faith, in god with
the well justified assumption that the car will start!

That's kind of weird.

You do know what equivocation is, what a
Fallacy it is?

What is that line "now faith....the unseen".?
Who the heck needs faith if you can see it???

Confidence that Boyles Law will still be
good is no more like Faith in god, than
"Amtrack Joe Biden resembles the Metro
Goodwin lion!

Yet you keep talking as if they are just the same.

You might as well not make it clear whether
by " frog" you mean a Frenchman or a happy amphibian.


It's not me who is vague.

So are you saying that if there is evidence for my faith then that means that it is not faith?