Is Faith Belief Without Evidence?

What do you believe and why? Here's the place to discuss anything relating to church and God.
User avatar
Connie G.
Peach Cobbler
Posts: 1491
Joined: August 2014
Location: odyssey.chat

Post

I haven't really closely followed this thread, but this might help. Our family is going through and watching a couple of these videos a week, and if I could interest any of you in them, I think you would like them as well.
https://vimeopro.com/mycms/ccrcoc-ttpye ... /137159685 (It's also from Focus)
There's 10 of them at 30 min. apiece, and I think two series of that. Anywho, felt like throwing that out there. If you follow this link, it'll take you to the page with the first one in the first series (1.1), and then the rest of them are below the video.
Image
Strength for today, and bright hope for tomorrow.

"Why does Connie shower all of the time?" ~CGM_Games
Tarol
Peach Cobbler
Posts: 1413
Joined: June 2015

Post

Ok, I just heard something recently and thought I'd just put it in here. It kinda fits with the original question about faith and evidence. Although if it doesn't... oh well. :anxious:

So, to start off with: Why can't we prove God's existence? This can be a tough question to answer, but I recently heard something totally fascinating that kinda blew my mind. We can't prove God's existence because of one simple reason: Free Will. If we were able to prove God beyond a shadow of a doubt, believing in Him wouldn't be a choice. Just like we all know there's air... we can't see it but wind has to be something, so we just accept air as truth. However, since God believes in Free Will and free choice, He allows his existence to be not nearly as simple or easy to prove. Of course, we can find some things to prove God's existence, but it's not nearly as full-proof as we would like. It does require faith. We are jumping out there and saying "I believe in God," even though sometimes it doesn't always make sense to a modern, scientific mind, or even an ancient, pagan mind.

So, I guess the point is, faith is emphasized because we don't have all the answers and can't have all the answers. Faith is harder to understand that evidence.... so that's probably why Christians talk about it so much.
xo eht haiasi-
Jo March
Raspberry Ripple
Posts: 709
Joined: July 2016
Location: Look in the Library
Contact:

Post

That actually makes sense, Ox. I really like this analysis.
Image
Jo March
"There is no such thing as impossible. The word itself says I'm possible."-Audrey Hepburn
“You are never too old to set another goal or to dream a new dream.” –C.S. Lewis
“No one ever made a difference by being like everyone else.” P.T. Barnum
Pound Foolish
Coffee Biscotti
Posts: 3342
Joined: June 2012
Location: Kidsboro
Contact:

Post

Connie G. wrote: Our family is going through and watching a couple of these videos a week, and if I could interest any of you in them, I think you would like them as wel
Homework? Phooey. Only seen the first one and part of the second so far. He lost some credibility with me when he said scientists use faith in their work. That is a fundamental mistake.

Isiah the Ox, a lot of Christians support that idea. It sounds like a convenience. "You can never quite disprove my point of view because God deliberately makes it so you can't prove He is real. God doesn't want you to prove He is real. So the lack of proof is actually proof He's real. See my neat trick there?" Also, Aquinas argues we can and should be able to prove God. Further, you're essentially confirming what Dawkins said. That faith is accepting something as absolute fact with insufficient evidence.

Also the question was not only about proof of God. It was about the apparent contradictions and logical problems in Christianity. We do not understand how God can be three and also one, it sounds like a contradiction. We do not know how Jesus can be fully man and fully Divine, that sounds like a contradiction. We are taught to embrace that apparent contradiction, that the apparent contradiction is good. That it challenges us to have "faith." Is apparent contradiction really a good thing? Richard Dawkin's asserts that faith is belief without evidence, that indeed, it flies in the face of the evidence of contradiction.
“I absolutely demand of you and everyone I know that they be widely read in every [censored] field there is: in every religion and every art form and don’t tell me you haven’t got time! There’s plenty of time.”~ Ray Bradbury
Tarol
Peach Cobbler
Posts: 1413
Joined: June 2015

Post

Pound Foolish wrote:Isiah the Ox, a lot of Christians support that idea. It sounds like a convenience. "You can never quite disprove my point of view because God deliberately makes it so you can't prove He is real. God doesn't want you to prove He is real. So the lack of proof is actually proof He's real. See my neat trick there?" Also, Aquinas argues we can and should be able to prove God. Further, you're essentially confirming what Dawkins said. That faith is accepting something as absolute fact with insufficient evidence.
I completely recognize that. And I must admit, I don't know if it's something I would exactly believe. But it is an interesting idea. I do think it may play a small part into our existence though. The Bible tells us several places where God has sent us signs of his existence... I'm thinking of the story of the rich man and Lazarus, where the rich man goes to hell and he asks Abraham "Why don't you let me go back to earth and tell my family what will happen when they die!?" And Abraham says, "God sent Moses and the Prophets, if they didn't listen to them why would they listen to you?" (my own faulty-memory version of the story, that is :P) We have evidence... proof of God, but still it's not enough for many peoples. Or at least, that's obvious in the many people now and years ago that refuse to believe God, or a god, exists.

I do want to point out that.... faith /is/ accepting something as fact without full proof. The Bible tells us faith is the assurance of things hoped for, conviction of things unseen. Of what we /hope/ for, not what we have a scientific proof for. I do think there are evidences of God, of course. But, it still requires faith. We still have to accept there is something beyond us, which can never be scientifically proven. There will never be a "God equation" where you can input the capital "G" along with several other numbers, mathematical symbols and functions and arrive at proof for God. No. That won't happen. Belief in God will require some faith.
Pound Foolish wrote:Also the question was not only about proof of God. It was about the apparent contradictions and logical problems in Christianity. We do not understand how God can be three and also one, it sounds like a contradiction. We do not know how Jesus can be fully man and fully Divine, that sounds like a contradiction. We are taught to embrace that apparent contradiction, that the apparent contradiction is good. That it challenges us to have "faith." Is apparent contradiction really a good thing? Richard Dawkin's asserts that faith is belief without evidence, that indeed, it flies in the face of the evidence of contradiction.
Our human brains can't grasp a God that is way bigger than us. Hmm. Who woulda thunk. But seriously. Explain how something can be eternal, or incorporeal, or omniscient and I'll tell you how the Trinity works. This may be a bad thing to say, but it's rather silly to get caught up on such things. Wondering about it is not silly, as we all have doubts. That's very understandable and something we all go through in our walk with Christ. However, contradictions should be expected. Not big contradictions like differences in theology, but when it comes to our understanding of our God, it makes sense that we can't fully understand Him. There are going to be some things that our human minds can't comprehend. The closest way human language was able to decipher God was to say he was "Three in One." We can't understand how this possibly can be, but it is the closest our language and minds can get to understanding this great mystery. I recently heard this one sermon from Church Father Saint John Chrysostom:
Homily 5 on Colossians wrote:Tell me, how did the beast contain Jonah in its belly, without his perishing? Is it not void of reason, and its motions without control? How spared it the righteous man? How was it that the heat did not suffocate him? How was it that it putrefied him not? For if to be in the deep only, is past contriving, to be both in the creature's bowels, and in that heat, is very far more unaccountable. If from within we breathe the air, how did the respiration suffice for two animals? And how did it also vomit him forth unharmed? And how too did he speak? And how too was he self-possessed, and prayed? Are not these things incredible? If we test them by reasonings, they are incredible, if by faith, they are exceeding credible.
By reasoning, this is incredible- nearly impossible. But with faith, it's easy to accept, and we move on.

Now, I don't think i've been that convincing, but since apparently this group of Christians hate talking about Christian/Biblical topics *glares at debate vampires* I thought I'd continue this little discussion we are having. xD Feel free to pick me apart PF, because i'm sure I made like no sense. xD :wacky:

Oh, I found this a while ago, and thought it was pertinent too.

Image
xo eht haiasi-
Post Reply