Who Cares About Evidence?

It's ridiculous for atheists to say they don't believe in God "because there's no evidence for it." More and more, Christians walk right into that by trying to prove the existence of God through arguments like fine tuning.

The whole point of Christianity (my frame of reference because that's how I was raised) is to have faith without evidence. That's the very criteria by which souls are judged! If God exists, and there's no evidence for it, then it's because theologically, there's not supposed to be.

Recall Doubting Thomas: he wanted evidence and he got it. Then what did Jesus say? "Happier will those be who have not seen me, yet still believe."

 

There's no use debating with religious people; it gives the impression that the person and/or their are ideas are worth talking about.

 

Why is this posted in the atheists forum?

It's illogical to not consider evidence for those who base the existence and everything that entails on the empirical nature of things. This might not pertain to all atheists necessarily but I feel that is who you are attempting to reach out to, unless you just completely posted this in the wrong forum.

 

Would it even be possible for God to prove that God is God? All I can think of would be if a voice came out of the heavens and said something like, "I am God. I will make it rain now," and it started raining. But even then I could doubt that it was God and not just some advanced intelligence claiming to be God.

Short of becoming God, I don't see how you could have any earthly evidence that God exists. If the world is a computer simulation, for instance, there's no reason the user couldn't claim all the powers one would attribute to God and actually not be omniscient him/herself. I say earthly evidence, because I suppose you might say that God could whisk us away to a different state of being in which we were immediately aware of God's presence, but then all we'd be able to say is that it seemed or felt like we were in the presence of God, whatever that means.

I guess to be in the presence of God would be to be in the presence of something mind-bogglingly fantastic. And it's fantastic nature would go beyond definitions such as omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and all that. That is to say, I don't think you'd be standing in the presence of God and analyzing God clearly as being something that is all of these things. Rather, if you were in the presence of God, you would be filled with some kind of all-consuming joy or something that left little room for analytical thinking.

Also, how does God know that God is God and not just a being created by the real God to believe that it is God?

I personally do believe in a meaningful unification of all that exists, and I think it's as significant as God would be, and anything as significant as God would be is God enough for me.

But I can appreciate atheists who are grounded in what they can know for sure. To say that they ought to believe in God because if God does exist that it's better to believe in God sort of begs the question.

 

You got that kinda wrong. it isn't faith without proof that saves/judges a person, it is what is the object of that faith. Nor did Jesus or scriptures say there would be no evidence to validate the claims. you forget about Pentecost and all that? "these signs will follow those that believe........."
What is the determining factor and has also been the main divisive point within Christian sects is the divinity of Jesus. Forget doubting Thomas, the real question was posed to Peter when Jesus asked "who do people say I am" and then asked Peter who he thought Jesus was. The crux of the biscuit is whether or not a person believes that Jesus was/is God incarnate.

Proving God's existence to another person through normal dialogue and debate is futile as if there is a God, every damn thing written concerning this phenomena says it is explicitly experiential, so sans the immediate experience, who's to say, but declaring god to be non-existent because of a lack of such a personal experience is kinda lame. The wise man would be honest and declare "I don't know".

 

Lol, if lack of evidence is important then why not believe in Zeus or something? There's just as little evidence of his existence as there is for the Christian god. Without looking for evidence how are we supposed to weed out error?

 

I don't think the whole point of Christianity is to believe without evidence. If I did, I wouldn't call myself a Christian. But ultimately, my belief rests on faith--defined by Luther as a "joyful bet". I think there's a fundamental difference between doing science and doing life. Science is concerned with avoiding what are called Type One errors or false positives, accepting propositions as true when they might not be. A person could adopt that standard for the everyday decisions of life if they choose to do so. But of course they might then fall victim to a Type 2 error (false negative)--rejecting something which is actually true simply because there is insufficient evidence to meet the high evidentiary threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe that reason is probably our greatest gift as humans, and think it's important to use it to the utmost in making decisions. I also think it's important to reject beliefs that are contrary to logic or science, and to base decisions on the weight of available evidence. But after doing all that, life remains something of a crap shoot. We bet our lives.

For example, take the case of "doubting Thomas". That's a nickname given to Thomas Didymous, Jesus' disciple, on the basis of a famous scene in John 20:27 in which Thomas, who doubted the Resurrection, is confronted by Jesus and asked to "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." That scene appears only in the Fourth Gospel, the Gospel of John, which came out of the Johannine community. Elaine Pagels, in Beyond Belief argues that that gospel was written to challenge and discredit the Gospel of Thomas, a gnostic tract that encourages us not so much to believe in Jesus, as John demands, as to seek to know God through one's own divinely given capacity with the guidance of Jesus' teachings. The Church fathers decided to keep John and can Thomas. In making my own decision, I draw upon my judgment based on intuition as well as reason, and informed by study of the historical evidence and I realize that certainty and proof are out of the question.. I like both gospels, and am betting on truths contained in Thomas, as well as John, which makes me a heretic in the eyes of the church.

 

And that's a great reason to reject the whole thing.

I don't see faith as a positive attribute. I consider it a character flaw.

 

Greetings unbeliever welcome to your family though you do not know it

 

But of course! I'm so happy everything is as it's supposed to be.

 

You think it is ridiculious for atheists to reject God because there is no evidence for it? That doesnt really make sense.

 

To me it has always seemed somewhat ridiculous to have a religion based on faith alone. Probably the Gnostics like Thomas may represent a more authentic and original version of Christ's teachings than the religion that has come down to us today.
The thing is though it has such a hold on people's minds that even the idea of knowledge of the Divine is thought of as something impossible, and as you suggest. often downright heretical. The OP seems to think that blind faith without anything else is the standard model for Christians. But to me that seems to indicate a kind of God who is happy for humans to remain ignorant, and to have only the somewhat weak instrument of faith to brandish. And more often than not, it's based on emotion and conditioning rather then anything else. Because if you preclude gnosis, what else is there?

Even so, it's useless to appeal to personal experience as any kind of 'proof' of a Divine reality. Hard science says that personal subjective experience is without value.

Indian religion takes it's stand on actual experience. All of the yoga systems are aimed at that. Faith is seen as only a necessary first step, as it is in many things humans do. Both materialist science and faith based religion would say the yogis are simply deluded or lying. And the same would be true for anyone claiming to be a modern gnostic.

 

and again, that is a misinformed attitude. Biblical scriptures do not dictate to believe blindly. Throughout the OT God reveals/vindicates himself via prophecy, and clearly states thus.
in the NT Jesus instructs the disciples to wait for the "comforter" and the accompanying signs that give vindication to the teaching/claims.
so I really do not understand where folks get this idea that Christianity is based on blind faith. to think so only indicates a considerable lack of information/knowledge concerning what the actual texts state.
I have said it before and will continue to do so, absent the personal conversion experience, a persons knowledge and understanding of it will be a dim guess at best.
Much the same as a psychedelic experience, research and study will NEVER convey the actual experience.

Everything you say concerning Indian religions apply to Christianity as well. Christianity is based on personal experience and faith is only a necessary first step as well.

why do people not understand that.
while Okie demonstrates considerable far reaching knowledge on the topic, I personally wonder if he has had the same type of conversion experience as described in the NT.
Remember folks in the NT conversion wasn't some slow steady process of learning, research and contemplation. It was dramatic, instantaneous and not needing a lot of research and education, just that initial faith/trust.

 

My embrace of Jesus and Christianity was the result of a "moment of clarity" beginning with a familiar passage in the Bible (Genesis 1:26) that triggered the cascade of thoughts that made me "reborn" as Christian. The principal insight that I took from this is that all humans are reflections of God; when we're in the presence of another human, we're in Christ's real presence; and that this is the meaning of life and the foundation of morality. Unlike some in these Forums, I've never done drugs or even alcohol, but we can never rule out a psychotic break. I decided to go with it, however, since it has made the world an enchanted, meaningful place ever since. Heaven has been described as the perpetual experience of God. I don't think of it as a place I'm going to when I die, but as the state of mind that I'm in now, as an on-going experience. And you're right, experience is the key: better than sex To use a crude, possibly blasphemous, analogy I've used before, when a person is making love to a significant other, it seems inappropriate to ask if (S)he exists. Its spoils the mood.

 

What's the error in believing in something that can neither be proven nor disproved?

Because its directed towards atheists.

 

All spend their lives striving to stay the purest water in their hands. Few if any have succeeded but why condemn the efforts of one simply because their hands grasp differently than your own?

 

It's a fumbling, nonsensical ramble though.

 

I'm not a religious person but i've always been a person driven by the need to find a higher meaning in everything

And as such a person - i really like this.

 

Here's a whole list to believe in then.

 

You haven't answered my question. What is the error in believing in something that can neither be proven nor disproved?

Possible i suppose. But people are often quick to say that about things they don't understand or goes against their beliefs. Myself included.