05-16-2019, 02:02 PM
(05-16-2019, 12:11 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: And there it is. Before you asked for evidence you knew there wasn't evidence. Which is why I asked you why you're asking for something you know you're not going to get? You're smart enough to know the answer so what is your purpose? You're also smart enough to know Christianity is a faith based religion obviously in the religious context, not the colloquial context. Therefore the answer to why believers believe can be answered with a single word: faith. You're smart enough to know that. If you only believe in the demonstrable then you miss the entire point of faith. You're smart enough to know that, also. So I'm curious where you're going with this and why?
It is most definitely my opinion that there is currently no "evidence" available that would justify belief in any deity. However, I feel you are incorrect to to say that Christians are entirely faith based. While faith is a huge part of the equation. I've been presented with many examples of different types of evidences over the year from Christians, that they use to rationalize their faith. While not empirical in nature, they aren't reliant on merely anecdote or personal testimony either, so they must be evaluated honestly and examined as to their possible veracity.
While God himself may not be demonstrable in any verifiable / detectable way, there have been countless attempts to establish - by way of proposed evidences - that there are also non-faith justifications that help support and strengthen the belief that there is indeed a God. While I haven't yet been convinced by any of these evidences, as they all tend to fall well short of their intended goal, it doesn't mean there are no possible evidences that I could not find intriguing and compelling if presented with. One should not close their mind to future possibilities based on current conclusions.
It may be the case that my inquires only prove to solidify my position that there is no rational reason to believe in a deity of any sort. However, it could also be the case that, at some point in time, I'm presented with an evidence or argument which causes me to doubt my previous conclusions. I know some religious people who feel much the same way. While their current conclusions suggest a God does exist and their faith is justified, they do not discount the possibility of changing their minds based on what they may learn or be presented with in the future.
Quote:Furthermore, I haven't objected to anything. I rather enjoy the "why" of things, also. Which is why I'm inquiring into your inquiry especially after you demonstrated you already know the answer to your inquiries for evidence.
You seem to be implying that a question shouldn't be asked if one presupposes the answer. How can we ever learn anything new or find out if we're wrong in our assumptions if we avoid questions that we presume we already have the answer to?
Quote:Lastly, can you demonstrate your non-belief to me so it is believable? I wanna believe that you don't believe, but how am I supposed to believe that? You could tell me you don't believe (again), but how do I know you don't secretly believe? So I think I'll have to default to non-belief in your non-belief since you can't demonstrate it.
I have never asked anyone to prove they "believe" - as I always work under the assumption that they actually do, so I'm not sure what the purposely fallacious response is about.
I ask people if they believe in general, in what they believe specifically and what reasons they have for believing. From those inquiries, I venture into areas of possible evidences, rationales and justifications.
Nowhere in that equation is there a request for one to "prove' that they believe.
.
