Veeeeery tricky philosophical question about atheism.

[DetlefK]

So, the special thing about faith is that it explicitly is supposed to be without evidence. You are special/chosen because of your blind trust: You don't need evidence. You already know what's correct without evidence. Faith and belief exalt you because you are instinctively drawn to what's right: There is no need to convince you of doing the right thing.

Doesn't this get turned upside-down when there's evidence that supports your belief?

How can you be of pure mind and believe in your faith without the need for evidence when you are aware of evidence? You would no longer believe, you would know.

For example:
How can you believe in God if there's factual evidence that God exists? You would know for sure.
There would no longer be this blind trust.
There would no longer be this innate goodness that makes you and your fellow believers special.
There would no longer be sacrifice and purity.







So, here's my question:
If there is evidence that God exists, if he is not belief but undeniable, verifiable fact, then it would be an act of faith, an act of blind trust, an act of instinct and purity, to believe that he doesn't exist. Correct?
If there is a God and if he is proven, that would mean that the religions in such a world would be built on the concept that there's no God. Correct?

[safeinOhio]

1. Just show me the evidence

And I'll figure it out.

[SusanCalvin]

2. Really. Have yet to see any credible evidence. nt

[Salviati]

3. No, that would be an act of delusion.

There is a difference between believing something which cannot be proven and believing something which has been proven to be false.

[intrepidity]

4. Jesus told doubting Thomas

In John 20, that Thomas believes because he has seen. He does not diminish Thomas' belief. Rather
, he goes on to say "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." Belief by faith alone is "blessed" but other paths to belief are valid as well. JMHO

I think the important thing about faith is what Jesus (or was it John or Paul?) said about faith without works is dead.

Sort of a tangent.

[Iggo]

6. No. That would be delusional. (n/t)

[procon]

7. People of faith will always rely on that concept, especially if a god figure is made manifest.

They will look to faith for reassurance when their own uncertainties raise doubts. Faith will confirm that the new presence of a physical deity is worthy of their unquestioned devotion. They will look to faith to guide them, to help them accept the divinity and righteousness of a godhead made real.

[forgotmylogin]

19. I am not a religious person by any means.

I haven't been to church since age twelve, and I joined a Methodist choir in college just because I wanted to go with them to England.

That said, I can personally tell you that the Universe or God or some magical equation that balances existence has worked in my favor multiple times, and I have been guided on occasion by forces external to myself.

I can't prove any of that to you in any way that you would believe, and I think that's the answer. I am very spiritual on the inside, and I try to put good energy into the Universe when possible. I have experienced Karma.

It may be stray electrical impulses in the brain, or whatever. I don't limit it to "a physical deity worthy of unquestioned devotion." I have my own personal relationship with this energy/god/equation/balance/karma and it doesn't matter if anyone else believes me or not.

I think this sort of "brain activity" is what has historically been interpreted as God/Allah/Zeus/whatever, and that's why religious texts suggest prayer or meditation or study however they do.

Religion, to me, is a pre-packaged philosophy wrapper that's easy to explain to someone who hasn't for whatever reason sought their own answers. All religions in some manner are seeking this energy, and define it in terms of their own culture and environment.

[rogerashton]

8. I am not a person of faith myself. Nevertheless,

I would say that faith is belief not conditioned on evidence.

That does not mean that it is conditioned on the absence of evidence. To say "not conditioned on evidence" and "conditioned on the absence of evidence" is to say two different things, and to ignore that difference is, (if I remember correctly!) to commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

By the way, this is why it is incorrect to say that atheism is a different form of faith. Because -- for most atheists; there may be a few exceptions -- belief in the nonexistence of God is very definitely conditioned on evidence. If there were evidence for the existence of God that the atheist finds credible then the atheist would abandon her position. Of course, different people may disagree about the credibility of purported evidence, but that's a different matter. And then the position of the agnostic would seem to be conditioned on the absence of evidence, either way -- yet another kind of reason, and different both from faith and from atheism.

[Brettongarcia]

16. No. If faith is believing without evidence...

Then faith has no way to grasp a proven fact.

[rogerashton]

17. I don't understand your brief comment.

What does the verb "to grasp" mean in that context? I usually take it to mean "to understand." Perhaps you are asserting that the non-existence of God is a proven fact. If that is what you mean, then it seems clear that a theist does not understand that "proven fact" as you do. But it is a very old saw that an omnipotent God could fake any evidence put forward to disprove her existence, and that establishes that (for one who believes in God) no evidence could prove nonexistence. In any case, proving nonexistence is really difficult. I spotted a black swan in Cape May a couple of years ago. So, what is this "proven fact" you refer to? Help me out, here.

[Brettongarcia]

22. Most likely, faith is simply believing without evidence.

But? If someone strongly insists that religion is mainly or wholly faith? And that means believing without evudence? Then what happens if a proof or disproof cones along? Then they would have to abandon faith, the perpetual uncertainty of faith, to accept it.

And so long as his mind is in faith mode, no evidence can be seen. The mindset of faith - seeing no evidence - would have to be abandoned.

As to what constitutes evidence, that's another question.

[rogerashton]

23. I don't think we really disagree.

All the same, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Brettongarcia]

44. Christianity not only cannot prove its god;

but moreover, we can actively prove that many of the main aspects of the biblical God are false.

Look at John 14.13. With its promises of "all" the miracles you "ask" for. Here, perform a simple experiment: ask for a specific giant miracle, now. And observe the results.

Have a billion Christians do this if you want, under controlled laboratory conditions. As often as you like.

This will prove that a a major part of the biblical God is false, ineffective, or nonexistent.

Therefore? The perfect biblical God at least, is down the tubes. Thanks to experimental science.

Effectively dealing with any objections, like the situation you describe.

[rogerashton]

46. It is one thing --

to disprove specific bible stories, and another to disprove the existence of God. Even if the God of the book of John doesn't exist the God of Spinoza might.

Even then, I think empirical proof that miracles didn't occur is harder than you think. Take turning wine into water -- you might cite experimental physics and chemistry to make a case that this miracle is not possible. But a believer in miracles will believe that these laws of physics and chemistry exist, to the extent that they exist, because God so wills, and accordingly God could suspend them in particular cases. And then the believer will point out that you were not there, so you have no information about that particular case, which by the definition of a miracle is exceptional. Of course, he wasn't there either, has no empirical evidence that it did occur, but isn't trying to prove a negative, only a possibility. Anyway, it is a truism of the philosophy of science that empirical evidence is never conclusive. There are always those black swans.

Mind you, I don't believe in the miracles for a single moment. But I do think you are asking more of empirical evidence than it can deliver.

[Brettongarcia]

48. Disproving any biblical miracle, disproves the BIBLE's God.

The other gods have far less status and influence in our culture.

The Bible God by the way, promises that all those who follow him should be able to ask for a miracle - including those that Jesus is is pictured doing. And get them even today. But we aren't getting anything like the hundred miracles promised.

We can change the definition of miracle, or God, from what we seem to see in the Bible. To something more plausible or defensible. But again, that in any case dispenses with the most currently influential God: the biblical one.

[rug]

10. Your premise about faith is flawed.

Faith is not "supposed to be without evidence." Faith describes beliefs that can not be known by natural methods. You can no more think your way into God than you can demonstrate God in a laboratory. That's why the clamor for physical evidence is an intellectual red herring.

[Brettongarcia]

34. The dictionary definition of faith?

Includes this:

"Firm belief in something for which there is no proof"

-Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition

Parts of Paul confirm and expand that. Telling us, as countless preachers insist, to ignore visible evidence. To "walk by faith and not by sight."

[rug]

39. The dictionary definition of synonym

includes this:

"a word that has the same meaning as another word in the same language"

"proof" = "evidence"

No one, including Paul, is telling anyone to ignore evidence. I thought you said there is none to ignore.

[Brettongarcia]

42. Paul or others welcome any evidence of God there may be.

However? He admits that often it seems, there isn't any. Or worse? What we see with our eyes, even contradicts our religion.

For example, we don't see anyone walking on water.

So Paul is actually supporting faith; here by telling us to actively ignore, deny, visible material evidence against Christianity.

It would stherefore seem that on the face of it, Paul is inconsistent or two-faced and inconsistent on the matter of evidence and proof. He wants us to 1) look hard for evidence that supports Christianity. But then 2) often, in many readings, he wants us to ignore the huge amount of physical evidence that contradicts it. Telling us - as many preachers reasons him - to ignore it when our eyes tell us our religion is empirically false.

[forgotmylogin]

12. Faith isn't just belief in existence.

It is also belief that something works for you and will do the right thing. Like we have faith in Hillary Clinton, plus evidence she exists.

[TlalocW]

14. You're conflating different kinds of faith

What is being discussed is religious faith, which you're supposed to have based on no evidence. Your examples fall more into the realm of trust. I have faith/trust the sun will rise (or it will appear to do so for sticklers) tomorrow because it always has; we have mathematical and physic models describing how it does so, etc. Totally different thing.

TlalocW

[TlalocW]

13. More importantly

Why would a god require faith instead of making His/Her/Its presence known? If the payoff of believing and accepting a certain attitude toward Him/Her/It and an avatar of said deity is eternal bliss, and said deity truly loves us all, then the deity should make its presence known beyond a shadow of a doubt to maximize number of supposed loved-ones being saved.

The common complaint about this idea is that there would be no free will, but that's not true as the deity's mortal enemy knows the deity, used to hang around the deity, but still will not worship the deity.

TlalocW

[Ron Obvious]

15. From the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED"

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

[rug]

18. An atheist and a theist went for a walk in the woods and came upon a glass ball eight feet across.

They both wondered where it came from and agreed that someone or something must have put it there. The theist then asked, "If the ball were sixteen feet in diameter, would it still need a cause?

"Of course," replied the atheist. "If little spheres need causes, then so do larger ones."

"Ah, so," said the theist, "then what if it were eight thousand miles in diameter-would it still need a cause?"

The atheist paused and said, "Yes, if little spheres need causes and larger ones do too, then a really big one would also need a cause."

Then the theist said, "What if we make a ball as big as the whole universe: would it still need a cause?"

"Of course not," snapped the atheist. "The universe is just there."

[DetlefK]

20. There's a flaw in that reasoning:

A small ball can be separate from its cause, because there are things in the universe that are separate from the ball.

A ball equal to the whole universe would include its own cause, because the ball is everything: It wouldn't need yet another cause.

[stone space]

21. "We've got the biggest balls of them all!"

A ball equal to the whole universe would include its own cause, because the ball is everything: It wouldn't need yet another cause.

Our balls don't need no stinkin' cause!

[Goblinmonger]

24. Well played. That's the funniest thing I've seen you post.

[rug]

25. The universe is its own cause? An uncaused cause?

Sounds more like theology than cosmology.

[Brettongarcia]

33. Theologians also often used Uncaused Cause

Last edited Mon Oct 24, 2016, 05:12 PM - Edit history (1)

But they stole it, ironically, from philosophers like Aristotle. It was originally used for what are really non-Christian explanations for the origin of the universe.

[DetlefK]

43. Well, believers have no problem with that premise when it comes to God.

Why is that premise a problem when it comes to the cosmos as a whole?

[rug]

45. Because cosmology is based on natural evidence.

There is no evidence that anything material always existed and always will.

[Brettongarcia]

49. Nor God either

At best, religious theories of the origin of the universe were stolen from philosophy. Its idea of an eternal uncaused cause.

So at best we have a draw there. Or less generously? A theft.

Then thousands of other things in Christianity can be shown to be flatly false.

So overall, religion loses.

[Goblinmonger]

26. Really? The watchmaker BS?

You're better than that.

[rug]

27. You're confusing the uncaused caused argument with the blind watchmaker argument.

Neither are BS.

You knew that.

[Goblinmonger]

32. They are both ontological arguments

Don't be thinking they are uniquely different in their root.

And, yeah, saying "hey we found this thing that we know doesn't exist in nature. think something made it?" is pretty silly. Especially since science is (or is getting close to) being able to explain why the things that we used to think could not occur in nature actually do occur. There is no need for the ontological "god did it" argument. We can figure it out. People aren't watches. Or glass spheres. We know how humans evolved.

[rug]

40. And both are different ontological arguments.

What you say, "hey we found this thing that we know doesn't exist in nature. think something made it?", is indeed pretty silly. Of course, you're the only one saying it.

I can't tell if your next phrase is more silly than hopeful, "We can figure it out." That's on the same level as Karnac saying "All will be revealed". Evolution is child's play compared to a beginning that has no beginning at all.

[Brettongarcia]

50. They are related

The Uncaused Cause used by both religion and reason, came from philosophy.

Probably neither is entirely satisfactory. But then science outstrips religion in every other way.

[rug]

53. "in every other way" but answering this question.

[Tikki]

28. Faith is a belief system...at least that has been my experience

when talking to many religious people. God seems to exist for their
wants and needs, they even have revelations (excuses) built into their belief
system for when they don't get what they want or need from God.

It, also, seems to be a closed system..where no debate in belief is allowed.

Tikki

[Motley13]

29. The Bible is a story book written by poorly educated men, who needed to believe in something

[anamandujano]

37. Man needed something to keep fear at bay in the random universe and so religion was born.

[Iggo]

47. I'm speaking for myself, here...

...but knowing why the bullshit exists doesn't make it any less bullshit.

[anamandujano]

52. True. I was just saying that they made it all up.

[WDIM]

30. Most religions teach of innate wickedness

And original Sin that can only be counteracted by faith and devotion to God. It is not innate to be good but a choice to live in devotion to gods will.

And it is a choice to be wicked or good.

Unfortunately so many chose wickedness even in the name of religion. And believe it is gods will to harm others.

Others choose wickedness for greed and power and vanity and revenge.

Others choose it just to survive in a very harsh world.

But all your major religions teach that it is not enough just to believe but to practice your faith through love, kindness, taking care of your fellow humans, and choosing to do what is right.

There is already evidence for God all around us. But God is not a old man with a beard that lives in the sky. God is everything and everything is God we are all one of one energy everything is connected. Through the galaxies and the universe it is all connected to one and one is all.

Therefore truly there is nothing to believe or disbelief for it is and always will be. And when humankind learns to respect life and accept all people who chose to live in love and grace we will be even closer to the gods that we all truly are.

[anamandujano]

38. Agree but "everything" does not need to be called "God." Religions seek to make God finite and

make up their own rules to control the hapless. Well, we're all hapless but you know that I mean.

[Act_of_Reparation]

35. No.

If there is evidence that God exists, if he is not belief but undeniable, verifiable fact, then it would be an act of faith, an act of blind trust, an act of instinct and purity, to believe that he doesn't exist. Correct?

If it were undeniable, verifiable fact, then not believing it would be straight up denialism.

What I fail to see is how this question is germane to anything, let alone "tricky".

[AtheistCrusader]

36. You would still be free to choose allegiance or not. God allegedly revealed himself

Many times in the Bible, in various forms. Burning bush. Pillar of fire, etc.

Seems like it would either be a problem at all times, or wouldn't be a problem at all.

[TonyPDX]

51. Aw, this is making my head hurt.

[Albertoo]

54. Your question rests on faulty premises

So, here's my question:
If there is evidence that God exists, if he is not belief but undeniable, verifiable fact, then it would be an act of faith, an act of blind trust, an act of instinct and purity, to believe that he doesn't exist. Correct?
If there is a God and if he is proven, that would mean that the religions in such a world would be built on the concept that there's no God. Correct?

First, there is no evidence God exists. Even major clerics admit so (Rowan, Ramadan).

So, second, your hypothesis "If there is a God and if he is proven" is imaginary

And third, IF ever such a proof came to appear,
THEN disbelieving in god would not be an act of faith but a delusional negation of reality,
BUT the chance of such a proof ever appearing is now extremely low:

now that Science as shed light on most things from the Big Bang to atoms and cells,
if there was a god wanting to communicate behind all this, it (god) could just come forward.
Which it, for some mysterious reason, appears unwilling or unable to do.