Christians showing love at Gay Pride

[Hobbs]

That evidence might not reach us to allow us knowledge of its existence, but that doesn't mean that the evidence wasn't there at some point.

I think you've answered yourself. If the evidence, "might not reach us to allow us knowledge of it's existence..." then how would we know such evidence exist? How can we show you something if, as you claim, the knowledge of the existence is unknown to us?

[Ghel]

Geez, did you even finish reading my post?

If, as many Christians claim, a creator god existed (and still exists) and intervenes in the world's processes on a daily basis, then there should be evidence of his existence. And not just minuscule evidence, but mounds of it. It should be apparent for all to see.

This isn't a case of something that ceased to exist a long time ago and we're trying to scrape together enough evidence to figure out what it was (like we would with a supernova that happened millions of years ago or a person who died tens of thousands of years ago and all we have left of her is part of a hip bone). This is something that Christians claim still exists and influences the world and its people on a daily basis. Where is the overwhelming evidence that demonstrates its existence?

[Hobbs]

Why do you need evidence for faith? That's what I don't get. I believe God exists. I also believe love exists. You haven't been able to prove love exists either, have you?

I think Futurama said it best, "When you do things right, people won't be sure you did anything at all."

[Wingates_Hellsing]

The point, as I understand it, is that God's influences are specifically laid out such that we can't recognize them as evidence. They're either too subtle to notice, disguised as free will or mental illness or any number of social or scientific phenomena or take a form we're not yet capable of measuring.

It's a stretch, but hey, we've cured diseases on stretches.

The absence of evidence does not necessitate disbelief, it necessitates nothing. Those who choose to believe do, those who demand evidence before they believe don't and anyone left over's just waiting it out.

[Ghel]

The point, as I understand it, is that God's influences are specifically laid out such that we can't recognize them as evidence. They're either too subtle to notice, disguised as free will or mental illness or any number of social or scientific phenomena or take a form we're not yet capable of measuring.

If we can't tell the difference between a universe with a god and a universe with no god, then what reason do we have to conclude that this universe has one?

Those who choose to believe do, those who demand evidence before they believe don't and anyone left over's just waiting it out.

Is this that "fence sitting" that I keep hearing about? I may be repeating myself, but "believe" means to accept something as true. Either you accept a claim or you don't. Anyone who's "just waiting it out" hasn't accepted the claim, and therefore doesn't believe.

And waiting what out, exactly? If there's never going to be evidence available for the existence of God, as you state, then they can wait all they want and they'll never come to a conclusion.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

There's a subtle but important difference between concluding NO and abstaining to conclude (i.e. MAYBE)

If you conclude NO then you are deciding that whatever it is definitely doesn't exist. If you don't conclude/conclude MAYBE than you're basicaly saying 'I don't know'.

For the longest time we couldn't tell the difference between an irradiated rock and a regular rock. But as technology advanced we discovered the difference. That we don't perceive something is not conclusive evidence of it's non-existence. There has and always will be things that have always been there but go undiscovered.

Personally, I choose not to believe anything without some evidence, which is why I didn't believe in giant squids until someone actually hauled up a carcass.

[Ghel]

There's a subtle but important difference between concluding NO and abstaining to conclude

"Conclusion" was the wrong word in my last post. I should have stuck with "belief."

For the longest time we couldn't tell the difference between an irradiated rock and a regular rock. But as technology advanced we discovered the difference. That we don't perceive something is not conclusive evidence of it's non-existence. There has and always will be things that have always been there but go undiscovered.

That would be a good analogy if, as scientific knowledge advanced, it was becoming more likely that a god exists. In fact, the opposite is happening. Science is finding explanations for things that used to be filed away as "God did it." There's fewer and fewer places for God to fit.

Personally, I choose not to believe anything without some evidence, which is why I didn't believe in giant squids until someone actually hauled up a carcass.

Then we agree. We shouldn't believe in a god until there's sufficient evidence to support the claims.

[Hobbs]

That would be a good analogy if, as scientific knowledge advanced, it was becoming more likely that a god exists. In fact, the opposite is happening. Science is finding explanations for things that used to be filed away as "God did it." There's fewer and fewer places for God to fit.

I still don't see science telling us why we're here...or why we have sentience. And don't give that whole, "Find for yourself" crap, because that's just your version of "God did it."

[Ghel]

Why do you need evidence for faith?

Hold on. Faith and belief are two different things. Believing something means you accept it as true. Having faith in something means that you believe it without (or, in some cases, in spite of) evidence. And I don't need evidence for faith. I know very well that faith exists. What I need evidence for, before I'll believe it, is the existence of God.

I also believe love exists. You haven't been able to prove love exists either, have you?

Love exists. It is an emotion that is readily apparent to anybody who sees it or experiences it. Scientists can study what happens to a person's brain and body when they experience different emotions, including love.

Are you saying that "God" is no more than an emotion? A feeling? A concept? Something that only exists because of the meaning that humans have assigned it?

[Hobbs]

Are you saying that "God" is no more than an emotion? A feeling? A concept? Something that only exists because of the meaning that humans have assigned it?

No, I'm saying that your definition of love is just as "flimsy" as you claim my faith is. Brain chemistry=/=love, and if that's all it is for you, then I feel sorry for you.

[Ghel]

I still don't see science telling us why we're here...

I think you need to ask yourself what you expect of science. Science is a process that we use to understand the world around us. "Why we're here" is something we each need to decide for ourselves. As far as I can tell, there's no intrinsic value to our existence.

And don't give that whole, "Find for yourself" crap, because that's just your version of "God did it."

Until you can demonstrate that there's some intrinsic value to humanity's existence, then I am perfectly justified in saying that we each need to bring meaning to our own lives. And until you demonstrate that a god exists, then you are not justified in saying that god brings meaning to our lives.

[Hobbs]

Until you can convince me there is any intrinsic value of having faith in science, I will continue to believe.

[Nyoibo]

Why do you need evidence for faith?

You don't, that's why it's called faith.

[HYHYBT]

I think part of the problem here is not a lack of results from God's existence, but a lack of any basis for comparison. For instance, if God created and maintains the universe, then its (and our) being here *is,* in a sense at least, the mounds and mounds of evidence you say there should be; but it doesn't work as evidence because we do not, and cannot, have a clear example of how things would be otherwise.

Separately, and setting aside big things like creation, I've asked this before but could not get a straight answer. (an answer, yes.) Suppose for a moment that a miracle occurs: someone walks into your kitchen, puts a clean, empty bottle under the tap, fills it with water, then pours it into a glass as wine. What sort of evidence would there be? How would you go about proving it even a few minutes later, other than by testimony of witnesses?

[Hobbs]

I would like to hear the scientific explanation of the Miracle of the Sun, among others.