How can you believe in something with no proof?

[Rainbow Dash]

I'm sorry if this thread comes across as offensive but this has been nagging me for a while.

How can you believe in something with no proof supporting it? :/ I don't understand how people can believe in God. There is no proof at all to support the existence of God. I just don't get how you can accept something as truth when there's no evidence.

It's like if an innocent person was accused of murder and there was no body, no whitneses, no proof whats or ever but you still believe they killed a person and they get life in prison.

I would love to believe in God. I would love to believe in an afterlife but since there's no proof I'm not even going to humour the fact it could be a possibility. Just because I want something to be true doesn't make it true.

I honestly believe that strong claims need strong evidence.

[Gymnophoria]

This is one of the arguments I've had with my parents in the past. I'm in the same boat as you, Ceilidh. As much as I'd like to believe in a God, I can't make myself believe something so out there with no proof.
The main argument I seem to get against me is "it's all about faith" which really, is a bit of a dead answer. I could go out and invent my own religion centring around an amazing guy who did all this crazy stuff and tell everyone that it's true, there's no proof, you just have to have faith that it's real.
According to my dad, there's proof that Jesus did exist (obviously, I don't know about any other religious figures, I was raised Catholic) and that's great. But there's no proof he did all this amazing stuff the bible talks about. Maybe he was just really smart and more knowledgeable than the doctors at the time. I don't know. But you're right, if someone is going to make a claim that this man cured blind people, cured leprosy and paralysis, and came back from the dead, you're going to need some proof before I, or many others, will believe it.

[Cosmo]

I think we all believe in some things without proof.When we're on our at own at night and we hear creeking, it's a psychopath coming to kill you, even though there's no proof.


That said, it doesn't make it any more logical.

[Rainbow Dash]

Exactly :/ I believe Jesus was an actual person because I've watched a lot of documentaries to do with Christianity and I can see the proof and it makes sense. Adam and Eve, miracles, heaven and God are nice ideas but there's no proof at all.

[chickenonsteroids]

If we NEVER believed in something with no proof then science wouldn't really exist because theories require persistence... hence why they are theories.

Why did people believe atoms exist before experiments took place.

It's a faith for a reason. You don't 'believe' in knowledge... you just know knowledge if that makes sense

[chickenonsteroids]

Originally Posted by Mudkip

Exactly :/ I believe Jesus was an actual person because I've watched a lot of documentaries to do with Christianity and I can see the proof and it makes sense. Adam and Eve, miracles, heaven and God are nice ideas but there's no proof at all.

That makes no sense... did Jesus himself make the documentaries ? what proof would there be that Jesus (by saying Jesus I'd assume you mean the miracle one) exists? Just because you've seen a few documentaries on it? What stops Adam and Eve existing if documentaries were made on them?

[XxMallyPrydexX]

This is exactly part of the reason why I converted to Buddhism from Christianity. With Buddhism, there is no God, just the idea that if you do the right thing to the best of your knowledge, you will find happiness after death. Which makes sense as far as I'm concerned. And the whole thing about reincarnation is not as irrational as you would think, but I won't go into details there cuz I feel like I'm trolling. So I know how you feel dude :/ I'm sorry I can't help you, just wanted to let you know you aren't the only one.

[Rainbow Dash]

Most of it is common sense. I can believe a man existed because that's easily possible. What isn't possible is that two people, one of which God made out of a rib with three sons created the entire human race.

"Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out"

[ALLorNOTHINGforCHRIST]

Let me asks you this do you have proof that if you were to get up from your chair and sit back down it would support you? Do you have proof that if you get on public transportation or even you driving that you will make it home with no wreck? no. but do you BELIEVE these things based on either faith and/or past experience I would say so. Also we ALL have faith in something if it is not God it may be money it may be other people it may be other things or even ourselves but we ALL believe that SOMETHING or SOMEONE will help us and is the highest good. Also God HAS proven himself if you want more then feel free to message me.

[chickenonsteroids]

Originally Posted by Mudkip

Most of it is common sense. I can believe a man existed because that's easily possible. What isn't possible is that two people, one of which God made out of a rib with three sons created the entire human race.

"Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out"

How can something come from nothing ?

[California]

Religion is just one of those things where you believe or you don't, I have had friends who have had nothing and faced some of the darkest time in their life, turn to "God" it gave them a sense of purpose someone or something to believe in and everything will be okay. I was amazed how much their life turned around for the better by just having something to believe in.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Mudkip

How can you believe in something with no proof supporting it? :/ I don't understand how people can believe in God. There is no proof at all to support the existence of God. I just don't get how you can accept something as truth when there's no evidence.

It's like if an innocent person was accused of murder and there was no body, no whitneses, no proof whats or ever but you still believe they killed a person and they get life in prison.

I would love to believe in God. I would love to believe in an afterlife but since there's no proof I'm not even going to humour the fact it could be a possibility. Just because I want something to be true doesn't make it true.

I honestly believe that strong claims need strong evidence.

Before asking for "proof", you have to define what you want. Do you want 100% absolutely guarunteed factual information OR some evidence but not factual proof? If you want the former, then don't bother asking for proof of anything, religion-based or not because it's not going to happen. It's like demanding for proof of how the human brain works, not going to happen because it's a ridiculous request. If it's the latter, usually for most things it's an acceptable request. However, for religion, it's also a ridiculous request since religion is based on faith, which is absence of proof. You can ask a religious person for proof and if they oblige, their answer is likely faith they are so deeply devoted to, they conceptualized it as factual. Once they give it, you'll ask, "wait a sec, where's the evidence" and that's often when you'll realize there is none. That said, it's ridiculous to fault the religious person for having no proof because they don't need it.

As an analogy, it's like going to a Harvard professor in English and hoping they'll explain the details of the apical ectodermal ridge from the top of their head. It's not going to happen because they don't need to know about the AER, it's not in their field of expertise. Likewise, it's like a professor studying ancient Roman history demanding an otologist to talk about ancient Roman civilizations. Chances are, it's not going to happen.

[QuantumModulus]

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

If we NEVER believed in something with no proof then science wouldn't really exist because theories require persistence... hence why they are theories.

Theories require..."persistence"?

If I understand what you may have meant to convey, then you're essentially saying that there are some things that science takes "on faith" in order to function properly. However, this is mistaken: "faith" directly implies that there is no evidence or stimulus to lead you to the conclusion that it is true. Our modern theories have certain basic, tentative assumptions, and the assumptions fit beautifully with observations, allowing for the rest of the theories to, in large part, work. We have reason to believe our assumptions are true because they are based directly on what we observe. No such rigor has ever been used in a religious context. I feel like I'm going to be addressing this again very soon...

Originally Posted by ALLorNOTHINGforCHRIST

Let me asks you this do you have proof that if you were to get up from your chair and sit back down it would support you? Do you have proof that if you get on public transportation or even you driving that you will make it home with no wreck?

We don't need proof to have degrees of certainty regarding those things. If we participate in the act of sitting up and down many, many times, we may come to the general conclusion that it is reliable that the phenomenon of the chair's supporting your weight will be consistent. If you participate it enough times, each trial simply becomes more reason for you to have certainty in the assertion that the chair will support you -- but it doesn't mean that you have absolute proof that the chair will always support you.

The claims made by religion -- for example, prayer -- are not consistent, and if they are not meant to be tangible by the living, then why on earth would we be inclined to believe them? Notions of afterlives are inherently void of the ability to be tested and verified; hence, it is pointless to argue for them. I could easily assert to you something wild, fantastical, and utterly full of shit, and mention that you couldn't verify it -- but you would simply call me a fool without a basis for an argument, and rightly so.

Originally Posted by ALLorNOTHINGforCHRIST

...we ALL believe that SOMETHING or SOMEONE will help us and is the highest good.

Uhm...no? Where do you get this from, if I may ask?

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

How can something come from nothing ?

Typical argument made in the defense of creationism. I recommend "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking; he can attempt to answer that question in the context of theoretical physics more eloquently than I can. However, to probe your questioning itself: how does saying "God did it" make the issue go away? The moment you bring the question of creation into view, you dig yourself into a hole -- by invoking a supernatural power to solve the problem of creation, you shoot yourself in the foot by dragging the new question, "What created the supernatural power that created everything?"

Thanks, Ceilidh...it's been a long few weeks; I needed that.

[chickenonsteroids]

Typical argument made in the defense of creationism. I recommend "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking; he can attempt to answer that question in the context of theoretical physics more eloquently than I can. However, to probe your questioning itself: how does saying "God did it" make the issue go away? The moment you bring the question of creation into view, you dig yourself into a hole -- by invoking a supernatural power to solve the problem of creation, you shoot yourself in the foot by dragging the new question, "What created the supernatural power that created everything?"[/quote]

I never stated I had anything to do with creationism...

You are just moving away from what I've asked. I've seen enough arguments on the whole something from nothing argument and it doesn't work... it will always remain to be a paradox.

Plus if you take the definition that God is omnipotent then he would have made something from nothing... even himself. Omnipotence includes defying logic... it makes sense how that'd come about.

It's an answer that I don't see an answer to, you dont even know whether I'm religious or not, there's nothing wrong with making an argument.

I brought it up because it shows everything stems from belief whether you are the most faith rejecting person in the world.

[Lugez]

Well, it's pretty impossible to prove the existence of "God." A giant voice could from from the sky saying 'I AM GOD I EXIST" and people would still be skeptical. This *might* prove the existence of a more powerful being, but the creator of the universe? Explain how we prove that.

Also, people just find comfort in believing in this stuff. Having some definitive answers to things makes others feel more grounded and can give a more stable life knowing that something out there is watching over them. If this can help people, then cool. They're free to think whatever they want.

[Magic.]

For the record, I am not religious. I do believe that it is entirely possible that a God exists, but I do not believe in a specific God or religion. I'm human, and as you said I have no proof therefore I can't pretend to understand things like that if they exist.

I pose to you this question, as devil's advocate say, you believe there is no God, where is your proof? Just as nobody on this Earth can prove the existence of God, nobody can disprove it either.

I have my reasons for believing in a deity. Various things have happened to me personally, and one of my younger sisters, that make me believe that there must be a higher power than us. And I don't mean we had stupid prayers answered. I'm talking about medical stuff that doctors said could never happen and still shocks doctors we see today ...

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

Plus if you take the definition that God is omnipotent then he would have made something from nothing... even himself. Omnipotence includes defying logic... it makes sense how that'd come about.

How convenient.

[chickenonsteroids]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

How convenient.

Religion involves a lot of 'convenient' things. i didn't invent it lol

[Nostalgia]

I get asked this a-lot as I am a believer in ghosts and spirits, I once saw at an audience with Derek Acorah this quote on the poster behind him :

' To the believer anything is possible, To a sceptic everything is impossible'

I think its the same with the whole God thing. You either believe it or you don't. That's how see it any-ways. People will obviously beg to differ, with the God thing I need proof so in that sense you could say I am a sceptic about whether or not there is a god.

But with the whole paranormal ghost side of things, I believe there are ghosts and spirits.

I honestly think the quote says a-lot. The quote 'To the believer anything is possible , To a sceptic everything is impossible' . Is true and explains a-lot.

Sceptics need prove, believer's don't.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by SquidPid

I get asked this a-lot as I am a believer in ghosts and spirits, I once saw at an audience with Derek Acorah this quote on the poster behind him :

' To the believer anything is possible, To a sceptic everything is impossible'

I think its the same with the whole God thing. You either believe it or you don't. That's how see it any-ways. People will obviously beg to differ, with the God thing I need proof so in that sense you could say I am a sceptic about whether or not there is a god.

But with the whole paranormal ghost side of things, I believe there are ghosts and spirits.

I honestly think the quote says a-lot. The quote 'To the believer anything is possible , To a sceptic everything is impossible' . Is true and explains a-lot.

Sceptics need prove, believer's don't.

That's a criticism of those who demand evidence for belief, which is not something to be criticise.

[Gymnophoria]

Originally Posted by SquidPid

I get asked this a-lot as I am a believer in ghosts and spirits, I once saw at an audience with Derek Acorah this quote on the poster behind him :

' To the believer anything is possible, To a sceptic everything is impossible'

I think its the same with the whole God thing. You either believe it or you don't. That's how see it any-ways. People will obviously beg to differ, with the God thing I need proof so in that sense you could say I am a sceptic about whether or not there is a god.

But with the whole paranormal ghost side of things, I believe there are ghosts and spirits.

I honestly think the quote says a-lot. The quote 'To the believer anything is possible , To a sceptic everything is impossible' . Is true and explains a-lot.

Sceptics need prove, believer's don't.

Can I just add, aside from always believing that Derek Acorah is an idiot, Billy Connolly had it right. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV5m77_HHKw

Secondly.

Originally Posted by Magic.

I pose to you this question, as devil's advocate say, you believe there is no God, where is your proof? Just as nobody on this Earth can prove the existence of God, nobody can disprove it either.

The reason I don't believe in God is that there's no proof either way. I don't have any proof he doesn't exist aside from thinking it's scientifically implausible. So I choose to just stay out of it.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Magic.

I pose to you this question, as devil's advocate say, you believe there is no God, where is your proof? Just as nobody on this Earth can prove the existence of God, nobody can disprove it either.

Nobody can disprove the tooth fairy either; the puzzle is why only children believe the tooth fairy exists while adults are still happy to believe that god exists.

[Nostalgia]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

That's a criticism of those who demand evidence for belief, which is not something to be criticise.

I'm not criticising anyone, I'm giving my view on the whole god thing. No criticism at all.

[Rainbow Dash]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Nobody can disprove the tooth fairy either; the puzzle is why only children believe the tooth fairy exists while adults are still happy to believe that god exists.

Thank you. Nobody questions the existence of Santa but you can't disprove that either. Common sense mostly answers why Santa and the tooth fairy don't exist.

How about if I said a giant unicorn named Billy is in my room and only I can see it? Nobody can disprove that either.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Nobody can disprove the tooth fairy either; the puzzle is why only children believe the tooth fairy exists while adults are still happy to believe that god exists.

Given that we have firsthand, secondhand and probably thirdhand evidence as well that the tooth fairy is not in fact carrying out its claimed role but instead it is parents disposing of baby teeth, as well as a lengthy folklore tradition establishing it firmly as a fictional character, that probably isn't the best example to go for. From a pure balance of probabilities perspective, that one overcomes the burden of proof for non-existence to be established quite easily. For one, there has never been a freestanding, serious claim of its existence other than as a cover for said parents, which rather holes the comparison below the waterline. I see the point you're trying to make and it has some merit, just not with that particular example.

Originally Posted by Mudkip

Thank you. Nobody questions the existence of Santa but you can't disprove that either. Common sense mostly answers why Santa and the tooth fairy don't exist.

Before making any statements about Santa, it's worth bearing in mind that the figure upon which such stories were based, Saint Nicholas, was very much a real person who served as Bishop of Myra in the 4th century. As such, you could quite legitimately and rationally argue that "Santa" did exist. Probably safer to go with Father Christmas in future.

Originally Posted by Mudkip

How about if I said a giant unicorn named Billy is in my room and only I can see it? Nobody can disprove that either.

Unless your room is the size of an Olympic swimming pool, we're already on pretty shaky ground from the outset. You are talking about a giant unicorn, after all, and given the traditional understanding of "giant" we're already in the realms of the implausible before we even get to the unicorn bit or selective invisibility, both of which would require separate explanation. In any event, this is something of a smokescreen as none of the major world religions actually lay any claim as to what God looks like, if indeed he/she/it has a visible form. The closest is Hinduism, and even then it's questionable to what extent that is making such claims.

On a more general note, consider that religion is not the only field prone to this. Theoretical physics can be just as prone - and I know Jorge will be seething at that statement, so I'm going to justify it now! - as evidenced by the search for the Higgs boson currently underway at CERN and similar research institutes. According to the Standard Model in physics, the Higgs boson must exist to account for the mass of larger particles, yet thus far no evidence has emerged proving its existence and the very mathematics underpinning the aspect of the theory concerning the Higgs boson has been shown to have some fairly sizeable flaws. On that basis, you would probably not view "belief" in the Higgs boson to be particularly sensible at this stage, yet a fair chunk of theoretical physics is contingent on this boson existing. If it doesn't, then a lot of current thinking is going to need serious revision or scrapping altogether. (That is a very rudimentary explanation of the situation, and I'm sure others will put it better than I have and correct any glaring mistakes) If we want to take things to a properly mind-bending level, you could argue that we have no real certainty in any scientific theory in this field as it is reliant on the assumption that both the rationale behind our theories and the instrumentation we use to verify them are both providing accurate results. Objectively speaking, we have no way of proving that either is correct as one relies on the other for its verification - for all we know, they could both be wrong and it is purely dumb luck that we have muddled on regardless. It's very unlikely, but it's an illustration of the dangers of calling for proof without qualification, as The Man and XX Master pointed out earlier. I realise that this is not necessarily comparable with the kind of proof you're seeking in regard to religion, but it is worth bearing in mind nonetheless.

[Rainbow Dash]

LOL true By Santa I meant the dude with the beard who delivers presents to every child in the world (of course not the starving children in Africa) in the space of a few minutes.

[Baxter]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Nobody can disprove the tooth fairy either; the puzzle is why only children believe the tooth fairy exists while adults are still happy to believe that god exists.

You say that like believing in god is making their lives worse. God is "always going to love you". It may not be true, but some people need that in their lives. I always question in this issue whether this false hope is better than none at all, and at least from what I've seen, it is.

[Rorschach]

There's no proof that God isn't real, though.
I know there is no proof that God is real, but there is also no proof behind people saying God isn't really there.

There could be more than one, there could be thousands of Gods.
It's all just belief and feeling. There is no solid evidence.

And what's wrong with believing?

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by Rorschach

There's no proof that God isn't real, though.

We don't need to provide proof he isn't real. Those who advocate God are the ones who must present evidence.

[Rainbow Dash]

There's nothing wrong with believing in God but I want to know why people do. I sometimes think religion is dangerous but that's a completely different debate.

[chickenonsteroids]

Originally Posted by Mudkip

There's nothing wrong with believing in God but I want to know why people do. I sometimes think religion is dangerous but that's a completely different debate.

For some people it's because of their up bringing and they are fine with keeping it that way. Thinking for yourself doesn't always mean you have to disagree with what is in front of you.

For others it gives them a purpose that they need in their lives, a lot of people change for the good when they become religious... others not so much lol

That's why in my opinion. Aha yes keep the dangerous religion to another thread :P

[Baxter]

I don't think anyone who believes in god can answer that to be honest. No one has 100% faith, but why do they believe in god? Because if they don't they'll go to hell. Why do they believe that? Because they were taught it. And they have enough faith to keep believing it. Some people say they need evidence to believe in a deity but isn't faith the reason why people believe in things like reincarnation or karma? It's pretty stupid to rag on someone for thinking there might be a magic man in the sky, when you think your mind might come back in a fucking butterfly.

Religion is based on faith. If there was evidence god existed, it wouldn't be faith, it would be fact. I don't believe in god, but my opinion is that people do because it's easier. It justifies things. It's easier to accept there is always someone who loves you, and you'll go to the greatest place ever when you die, instead of that you're all alone, and when you die it all go's black. It's easier to believe Stalin, Hitler or serial killers paid for their sins, instead of getting off scott free, or that their victims are in a better place rather than just in the ground. It's just easier to accept the world is a great place rather than the sad truth. You know, ignorance is bliss. I would love to believe in god. That's just my opinion on it all anyways.

[Kira-Kira]

i think kids just grew up knowing that and its faith some dont need proof just faith in their God somedays i feel like its not true but other days i know he is there because i will read something and say wow thats exactly what i needed and as a little girl i was always told God doesnt hand things to you or give you out comes he leads you to the streaghth to overcome these things but i do see where your coming from it is intreasting how people believe so strongly in somthing and have no proof i believe in it but not to the point where i would push people into christanity or anything i dont go to church but i pray everynight i guess its more of a comfort thing i know people that our just christains because if there is an afterlife they wont go to hell but thats of course not the way it goes but its just how i was raised and i do question it many times but its what i was taught

[Megan1]

Originally Posted by Gymnophoria

But you're right, if someone is going to make a claim that this man cured blind people, cured leprosy and paralysis, and came back from the dead, you're going to need some proof before I, or many others, will believe it.

Well, there is proof that over 500 people claimed to be eye-witnesses when He came back from the dead and appeared to the crowd. And there is proof that many if not most of those 500+ people were killed for refusing to deny this. Why would that many people die for a lie?

Same thing for the miracles that He performed....I don't know how many witnesses there were for those, but I do know that many were killed for refusing to deny that they saw/experienced those things. Would hundreds of people die for a lie? It wouldn't make sense. If it were just a few people, you could say that they were just crazy or deceived....but not that many people.

There is proof that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John interviewed countless amounts of people who experienced Jesus first-hand before writting the gospels to get as much accuracy as possible.

Plus, there is proof that He fulfilled all of the able-to-be-proven prophecies (such as where He was born, the way that He was killed, what happened while He was dying, etc). None of those things were things that He could have chosen for Himself if He wasn't God. He couldn't have controled where He was born. He couldn't have controled how He was killed (and may I point out, it was predicted that the Messiah would die with His hands and feet being pierced hundreds of years before people were ever killed in that way- it hadn't even been thought of yet when that was predicted). He couldn't have controled that people gambled for His clothes while He was hanging on the cross. These are only a few examples of the 400+ prophecies that were fulfilled. In order for that to be a set up, hundreds or thousands of people would have had to be in on it, which scientists have declared to be mathmatically impossible. Personally, I think it takes a lot more faith to believe that hundreds of humans could pull that off flawlessly than it does to just believe that Jesus is God.

It couldn't have been an accident; there's too much that fit together. It was either truly God, or a set up....and a set up would have involved hundreds of people who most likely never met each other. That's hard to believe. Much harder than just believing in God.

Disclaimer: I do believe by faith rather than by the evidence, but I wanted to point out that there is evidence too.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Rorschach

There's no proof that God isn't real, though.
I know there is no proof that God is real, but there is also no proof behind people saying God isn't really there.

Originally Posted by Magic.

I pose to you this question, as devil's advocate say, you believe there is no God, where is your proof? Just as nobody on this Earth can prove the existence of God, nobody can disprove it either.

If someone cannot provide proof a certain apple can turn into a cucumber, then by basic logic, I have to do nothing to disprove it. You're both asking for people to disprove something that doesn't exist. Logically, it's impossible and is an argument used by people who know nothing of logical arguments or even common-sense.

Originally Posted by Magic.

I'm talking about medical stuff that doctors said could never happen and still shocks doctors we see today ...

I can never understand why people turn to god as an explanation when medical doctors administered some form(s) of treatment and said the patient couldn't regain full control/wouldn't live for more than 4 months (or whatever it was in your story) but it happened anyway. Doctors don't know everything and their claims are based on falsifiable research and clinical experience. When something extraordinary happens, how can you exclude the administered treatment(s) as being a potential cause?

Originally Posted by Megan1

Well, there is proof that over 500 people claimed to be eye-witnesses when He came back from the dead and appeared to the crowd. And there is proof that many if not most of those 500+ people were killed for refusing to deny this.

One of the issues when it comes to providing evidence is the reliability of the source. The bible and scripture is by no means reliable. You have to go by faith alone to say they are true because they cannot be verified.

Originally Posted by Megan1

Same thing for the miracles that He performed....I don't know how many witnesses there were for those, but I do know that many were killed for refusing to deny that they saw/experienced those things.

This falls under a similar explanation as above: the evidence is not verifiable in any way. However, it has more faith because you've stated an explanation for the events that you cannot support in any way, so your explanation is purely faith, nothing more.

Originally Posted by Megan1

In order for that to be a set up, hundreds or thousands of people would have had to be in on it, which scientists have declared to be mathmatically impossible.

This is a scientific statement and so you need to provide evidence for this, otherwise it's simply faith once again.

Originally Posted by Megan1

Personally, I think it takes a lot more faith to believe that hundreds of humans could pull that off flawlessly than it does to just believe that Jesus is God.

What else do you think has to be present? Reliable verifiable evidence would be ideal but you've shown nothing of the sort.

Originally Posted by Megan1

It couldn't have been an accident; there's too much that fit together. It was either truly God, or a set up....and a set up would have involved hundreds of people who most likely never met each other. That's hard to believe. Much harder than just believing in God.

So your belief in god is by exclusion only because you reasoned the probability is there but it's too low so to hell with it. I'll play along and say it does indicate some god did it, however, it does not show which god did it as that takes further reasoning. This explanation by exclusion could account for the existence of all gods making yours nothing special. Obviously you believe your god is special so how do you rule out all those other gods? It cant be by faith because you said something else is necessary.

Originally Posted by Megan1

Disclaimer: I do believe by faith rather than by the evidence, but I wanted to point out that there is evidence too.

I'm so confused. Just above you stated there has to be something more than complete lack of evidence (i.e. faith) and that has to be some form of evidence. Yet here you say there is such evidence but you don't believe it. Why? In the context where you stated something more than faith is needed, what is the additional support you believe?

[Megan1]

The bible was not my source for any of what I stated- there are several other historial documents (some of which the bible is based on). They're all over the place and would take several days to gather them all up and provide you source names, because they are things that I have found little by little over the course of the past 2 years, but I can find them for you....it'll just take some time. I'll get back to you in a few days.

I never ever said that evidence is nessicary in order to believe. I just said that there IS evidence. It exists, but we shouldn't need it in order to believe. And how do I know which God did those things? That part is mostly faith, but also because why would some other god help us get proof that Jesus was God and help Jesus to fulfill all of those prophecies if He wasn't?

Again, I never said that something more than faith is needed....I just said that something more than faith exists. I believe in all of the evidence; I just don't rely on it for my relationship with God. I only rely on faith.

[JKmadu619]

I believe what I do, because I do. How can you not believe in something, and expect proof around every corner? How can you only take things for their factual representation?

It doesn't matter why, or how, but some people think differently than others. My father, although technically a Christian believes heavily in the big bang, evolution, a non-traditional afterlife, and other things generally asociated with athesists or at least agnostic people.

My mother is the polar opposite, refusing to believe in evolution, the big bang, and believes the afterlife is a simple state of bliss.

I am a combination of the two, acknowleding scienctific fact like evolution, but not placing abstract hypothesis (like the big bang) above religious abstract hypothesis, like God creating the universe. Fact is fact, and anyone who denies it is simply a bible-thumping blind follower, but at the same time, people who value their own hypothesis above religious hypothesis are arrogant. Take everything for what it is, and be open minded about other's beliefs.

Religion is not dangerous as long as you respect your own logic above the logic of "god". If you believe God wants you to kill others to protect holy land, use your own logic, instead of the moral system laid out for you. Hating gays? Use your own logic. Women belong in the kitchen? Use your own logic. Spare the rod spoil the child? Use your own goddamn logic. Thinking things through for what they are if an important part of being grounded in realitiy. Heck, the bible might not even be literal (As many Christians would like to believe) for instance, the Garden of Eden, or Noah's ark are likely a methaphorical way of teaching basic morality, rather than factual accounts. The morals are the same no matter if it's factual or not. Do not kill, do not molest, do not rape, do not steal, do not wish death on others, ecetera. Regardless of if it's factual or not, I don't think anyone could object to those core values.

I don't mean for any of this to sound harsh, because it was a very good question on your part.

- Justin

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Megan1

It exists, but we shouldn't need it in order to believe

Is there something wrong with believing in the evidence, after all it is there?

Originally Posted by Megan1

I believe in all of the evidence; I just don't rely on it for my relationship with God. I only rely on faith.
...
And how do I know which God did those things? That part is mostly faith, but also because why would some other god help us get proof that Jesus was God and help Jesus to fulfill all of those prophecies if He wasn't?

You've misunderstood so I'll explain it in a different way. Think of a large barrel full of different apples, all of which look ripe and tasty. You ask the guy at the store which is the best and he says they're all equally good and have their own unique taste but you only have money to buy 1 apple, so you select the green apple. The guy looks at you and says, "why not the red one over there, what's wrong with that one?" and you respond with, "no, this is the best one".

The analogy is each of the thousands of theistic religions have their own particular set of god(s) and "evidence". Naturally you can say it's all about faith and that's that but wouldn't it be helpful to use the evidence at this point? If you believe evidence exists, why wouldn't you use it?

Originally Posted by Megan1

And how do I know which God did those things? That part is mostly faith

Mostly implies there is something else that you use, which has to be some form of evidence. Perhaps it is simply a poor choice of words on your part and I'm making mountains out of moguls but I find it interesting in both posts. Interesting coincidence.

[Megan1]

I forgot to point out that when I say there is evidence other than the bible to back up what I said, I am referring to things like hundreds of court records of martyrs who were killed for refusing to deny that they saw/experienced those things that Jesus did. Again, I'll find exact things for you if you give me a few days, but those are the types of things that I am referring to.

There's nothing wrong with believing in evidence, because obviously you kind of have to believe it if it is there. But my point is, even if there wasn't all of that evidence, I would still believe by faith. I believed long before I knew that any of that evidence existed. That's all I meant.

I said "mostly" faith because of the thing that I stated after it- the fact that it also wouldn't make sense for some other random god to give us evidence about our God. If there is evidence that Jesus is God, that's most likely because Jesus is God...not because there is some other god out there trying to trick you into thinking so.

As far as why only one religion can be right......if Jesus is God (whether you base that on faith or on the proof that I gave you), He said that there is only one way. If there is one way that you know for sure is right, and that way tells you that it's the only way, then that's it. Call me close minded if you want, and if you do I'm not going to respond or debate.....if you don't agree with me here, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Megan1

I forgot to point out that when I say there is evidence other than the bible to back up what I said, I am referring to things like hundreds of court records of martyrs who were killed for refusing to deny that they saw/experienced those things that Jesus did. Again, I'll find exact things for you if you give me a few days, but those are the types of things that I am referring to.

OK, post the links once you find them.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I said "mostly" faith because of the thing that I stated after it- the fact that it also wouldn't make sense for some other random god to give us evidence about our God. If there is evidence that Jesus is God, that's most likely because Jesus is God...not because there is some other god out there trying to trick you into thinking so.

I never said a god is giving evidence of another god or that a god is trying to trick someone, you're not on the same page. Using the apple analogy, you're saying the red apple is tricking me into buying it rather than the green apple because it's so devious. I used such an analogy because apples do not carry any theistic properties about them, so re-read the apple analogy. If it's confusing, tell me what part you don't understand.

Originally Posted by Megan1

As far as why only one religion can be right......if Jesus is God (whether you base that on faith or on the proof that I gave you)

Proof? I've yet to see any unless you mean the evidence you said you'll get in a couple of days, or did I miss something?

Originally Posted by Megan1

if you don't agree with me here, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

That is the lamest conclusion, "agree to disagree" but if you refuse to respond, could you still give the links to the evidence you've been alluding to?