Well said.
And of course, its been long said that Satans’ greatest trick is convincing humans that he doesn’t exist.
Quite the conundrum…or something like that…
One would think that, if god existed, he would have the power to convince everyone of his existence, instead of remaining hidden and unevidenced, having created a universe whose properties make him look unnecessary for its existence. And if Christianity were Divine Truth, why wouldn’t knowledge of Jesus have been revealed to humans throughout the far reaches of the world, instead of having to be spread through conquest and missionary work over the course of two millennia?
Because. 
Oh, He does, and He will.
Romans 14:11
Oh, He does, and He will.
Romans 14:11[/quote]
Well, if it says it in the Bible, it must be true…
(That’s supposed to be sarcasm)
[quote=“housecat”]Oh, He does, and He will.
Romans 14:11[/quote]
I would be more inclined to copy Paul (Acts 17:22-29), and use the ‘two books’ defense. 
Oh, He does, and He will.
Romans 14:11[/quote]
Well, if it says it in the Bible, it must be true…
(That’s supposed to be sarcasm)[/quote]
Yeah, I knew you’d say that. That’s always the problem with these type discussions.
[quote=“Fortigurn”][quote=“housecat”]Oh, He does, and He will.
Romans 14:11[/quote]
I would be more inclined to copy Paul (Acts 17:22-29), and use the ‘two books’ defense. [/quote]
You just did it for me! Thanks.
Could you explain why you feel this is the case? Maybe you can explain the two-books defense.
From Paul (Acts 17:26-29), biblestudytools.com/msg/acts … s+17:26-34
"Starting from scratch, he made the entire human race and made the earth hospitable, with plenty of time and space for living so we could seek after God, and not just grope around in the dark but actually find him. He doesn’t play hide-and-seek with us. He’s not remote; he’s near. We live and move in him, can’t get away from him! "
See, I feel like if He does exist, He is hard to find, and He seems to be playing a bit of hide-and-seek. I’ve met so many people, like me, who really believed or really tried to believe, and they got no clear signs whatsoever.
When you pray, have you ever heard an actual voice? I haven’t. If He were 1. near and 2. not playing hide-and-seek and 3. wanted me to know Him, well . . . seems I’ve done the impossible . . . I’ve gotten away from Him.
I’ve never been a believer, but when I listen to the testimonies of former Christians who became atheists, such as Matt Dillahunty (of the Atheist Community of Austin) or Dan Barker (of the Freedom From Religion Foundation) (on ex-Christian forums you can read lots of such testimonies), one of the most common reasons for deconversion is their search for evidence and/or reasoning to justify their beliefs.
For example, Matt Dillahunty was studying to become a minister, and was preparing to apply to seminary. He wanted to be able to convince people, through reasoning and evidence, rather than mere say-so, that Christianity was true. He read numerous philosophers and apologists, consulted with clergy, prayed and meditated, but he found that the more he investigated, the less the answers he found made sense*. In order for Christianity or theism to be true, there must be some kind of objectively verifiable evidence for it that could be shared with all humanity. But he found none. He soon migrated toward a pantheistic view, but then he thought that if the the universe was god, why not just call it the universe, instead of god? Sometime after that, he rejected theistic belief.
If god exists, why has he left no evidence for his existence? Why is he playing hide-and-seek? Why does it appear that belief in god has to be based in faith? I mean, any belief, no matter how outlandish, can be accepted if one just has faith.
- This is probably why so many religious traditions discourage questioning. I always applaud those religious people and traditions who encourage and/or engage in questioning.
Fortigurn, you troublemaker!
No. One can’t have fait in something one finds outlandish. Thus, Chris, you’re not a Christian.
Faith isn’t simply deciding to believe in something outlandish. Faith is evidence of things unseen.
Did you get that?
Faith = evidence.
NOT evidence = faith.
[quote]Faith is evidence of things unseen.
[/quote]
I don’t get that. Faith is belief in things unseen, not evidence, surely.
No. One can’t have fait in something one finds outlandish. Thus, Chris, you’re not a Christian. [/quote]
Obviously, if someone believes in something, they themselves don’t find it outlandish. That’s not what I’m taking about. I mean more from an objective standpoint. Such as the belief that there’s a fire-breathing clown orbiting the third planet of Alpha Centauri. I mean there’s no evidence that there isn’t such a being, but does it make sense to believe in it? Someone sincerely subscribing to such a belief would be doing so based on faith. You and I would find it outlandish, but he wouldn’t.
Hebrews 11:1. That’s just a Bible platitude, and it’s contradictory. Faith is belief in something without evidence for it, or despite evidence against it.
Tested.
Can’t seem to help myself. 
bob, you start a new thread on the topic, and you pursue that ‘particular, subtle and VERY important line of reasoning’ all you like. I’ll even leave you to do so by yourself if you prefer. Meanwhile, please call up Maoman and complain to him directly, He gave you his number, and invited people to do just that, so off you go.
housecat wanted to make the argument that God has made knowledge of Himself available to all. Unbelievers don’t find the Bible convincing evidence of itself, so they won’t accept a quotation from the Bible saying God has made knowledge of Himself available to all; furthermore it is patently obvious that the Bible has not been made available to all, so that can’t be the method God has used. Paul’s argument for the ubiquity of available knowledge of God is predicated on the ubiquity of the availability of His creation (the world), which Paul then substantiates by observing the ubiquity of acknowledgment of God’s existence. Paul’s argument is:
- God has made knowledge of His existence available to all
- He has done so in a way which is ubiquitous
- Positive evidence for this is the fact that acknowledgment of God’s existence is ubiquitous
Note that this is not an argument for the existence of God, though it is often confused as one. Paul was not preaching to atheists, he was preaching to people who already believed in Zeus for a start, and a string of other gods. Paul was simply arguing for the ubiquity of available knowledge of God.
Well, there you go. We’re all different.
Never. See however Psalm 8 and Psalm 19.
Or perhaps He’s speaking in a way you don’t recognize. Or perhaps He doesn’t exist. There are other possibilities.
Yeah well it’s like pouring water uphill when you start off with a religious belief as unfortunately incoherent as theirs. Bit of a footshot right there.
Christian seminaries are great for doing this. They have an excellent track record of opening people’s minds and making them question, challenge, and doubt long held and much cherished beliefs, putting them to the test. That’s how Erhman made his way to agnosticism; one of his seminary lecturers made a casual marginal note in one of his assignments, ‘Maybe Mark just made a mistake?’, and that started him off. Hey, I never went to seminary and I still learned all about higher criticism, the Documentary Hypothesis and source criticism while doing English at uni.
If you’re going to beg the questions, we can’t answer them. The good news is that this means you can have the conversation with yourself, we’re unnecessary.
Because there’s no proof for the existence of God.
Sure. Some people have lower standards than others.
I’m going to keep recommending this until you read it. I do not believe there’s another religious tradition which has encouraged and preserved doubt as much as the Christian tradition. The Bible is a great start; find another sacred work which records chapter after chapter of doubt, with God’s own son asking ‘Why have you abandoned me?’.
Faith is the belief in what you can’t see, on the basis of what you can.
It isn’t contradictory. The way it’s phrased in the KJV sounds contradictory however, but most people can’t understand 16th century English.
Faith is belief in something without proof, not without evidence. Faith is not belief in something ‘despite evidence against it’. That would be blind faith.
Thomas was a hopeless cynic, and a poor skeptic.
Which Thomas?
[quote=“housecat”]Faith isn’t simply deciding to believe in something outlandish. Faith is evidence of things unseen. [/quote] (emphasis added)
With all due respect to you, my friend, and the other faithful here, this doesn’t make sense to me, nor would it have back when I had faith, having been raised Catholic. Faith as I understand it is not “evidence” of things unseen. It is belief in things unseen, especially in the absence of evidence (such as the ability to see them) (perhaps Fortigurn will want to insert the word proof instead of evidence; we may just have to disagree there). I accept Fortigurn’s definition which elaborates: [quote]Faith is the belief in what you can’t see, on the basis of what you can.[/quote] If there is evidence (perhaps Fortigurn will insist on ‘proof’), one does not need faith. Yet faith can be based upon one’s experience, which can include what some might term evidence. These statements are not intended to belittle the value that the faithful place upon faith, nor is this part of an argument in favor of an atheist position. I am merely commenting on what the word ‘faith’ means to me, regardless of my position vis-à-vis religion. If you wish to make the argument that “knowledge” of a deity is somehow directly available to people, and that this constitutes evidence of the deity’s existence, and you refer to this as faith, then we shall merely have to agree to differ amicably on the meaning of basic words such as knowledge, evidence and faith, in which case there can never really be any meeting of the minds here.
[quote=“Dragonbones”][quote=“housecat”]Faith isn’t simply deciding to believe in something outlandish. Faith is evidence of things unseen. [/quote] (emphasis added)
With all due respect to you, my friend, and the other faithful here, this doesn’t make sense to me, nor would it have back when I had faith, having been raised Catholic.[/quote]
As I pointed out, this is not what the text says; this is the unfortunate KJV rendering. The first part of the verse in the KJV is better (with the alternative rendering in the margin), ‘faith is the confidence of things hoped for’; in other words, faith is being confident about what you hope for (the rest of the verse goes on to say ‘even though you haven’t seen it yet’).
Merriam-Webster (11th ed. 2003), ‘faith’:
Oxford Concise (11th ed. 2004):
That’s what we’re working with here. Let’s use standard English definitions, or we’re going to get ourselves all mixed up.
Thank you. This is in agreement with the standard meaning of the English word.
Yes, if there is proof you don’t need faith.
Note how I carefully avoided that circular argument. 