Christian Faith

[steve_bank]

If you are a Christian with true faith why must you intellectualize and prove the faith as true?

I would think that with true faith on can simply dwell in the it without having to explain, prove, or justify. Eternal impervious unassailable joy. Which by the way is what I believe the Buddhism goal, without a deity.

 

[fast]

One way to destroy faith that God exists is to prove He exists with such proof that not even an atheist would deny He exists.

 

[DBT]

Faith that God exists rests on hope, fear and desire, but not evidence, which is what makes it faith.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Faith that God exists rests on hope, fear and desire, but not evidence, which is what makes it faith.

That is true.

Intellectually, is it even possible to believe in demigods?

Why is it possible that a child can be made to believe that reindeer can fly around in the sky pulling a flying sleigh?

Just some random thoughts...

 

[steve_bank]

My point is that if Christians have trye faith, why must they intellectualize it and attempt to prove it? Question directed at the the theists.

 

[Lion IRC]

The bible (Jesus) commissions His followers to do so.
That would be one reason.

 

[fast]

Faith that God exists rests on hope, fear and desire, but not evidence, which is what makes it faith.

That's not true. There is evidence. For one, there is testimonial evidence.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Faith that God exists rests on hope, fear and desire, but not evidence, which is what makes it faith.

That's not true. There is evidence. For one, there is testimonial evidence.

Are you sure you don't mean evidence-free testimony? If I testify that bigfoot sleeps under my bed is that evidence of bigfoot?

 

[Politesse]

If you are a Christian with true faith why must you intellectualize and prove the faith as true?

I would think that with true faith on can simply dwell in the it without having to explain, prove, or justify. Eternal impervious unassailable joy. Which by the way is what I believe the Buddhism goal, without a deity.

I tend to agree. Those who set out to "prove" this or that about God through some manner of logical or rhetorical trick betray a lack of confidence in their own basic position. If god exists, she is not in need of a mortal lawyer to prove her case.

 

[Lion IRC]

Would you say the same about atheist proselytisers / counter-apologists lacking confidence?

Christians have a scriptural warrant for defending what they think. (1st Peter 3:15)

 

[fast]

Faith that God exists rests on hope, fear and desire, but not evidence, which is what makes it faith.

That's not true. There is evidence. For one, there is testimonial evidence.

Are you sure you don't mean evidence-free testimony? If I testify that bigfoot sleeps under my bed is that evidence of bigfoot?

"Evidence" is a peculiar word and often misunderstood.

Things, (oh say, like a knife or a gun) is not evidence for sake that there is something. Things, when used to show or demonstate something can then be considered evidence. Again, to show or demonstrate something else.

There is more, and this is often troubling for some people. If I take a gun and shoot your wife (while you're on a date with your girlfriend), and if then I later break into your home and place that gun I fired and place it in your bedroom closet, the gun that I put there that the police later find will be considered evidence, and it will be used to show that you killed your wife.

This is where people object and say that it's merely evidence of a gun, but no, it's evidence being used to show that you killed your wife. It does not have to successfully show or demonstrate what it's being used to show or demonstrate.

So (believe it or not) yes, your testimony that Bigfoot sleeps under your bed is evidence, not because you're saying it per se, but because you're attempting to make the case that he does. Furthermore, that what you're saying may be false does not render the claim non-evidentiary.

 

[abaddon]

Are you sure you don't mean evidence-free testimony? If I testify that bigfoot sleeps under my bed is that evidence of bigfoot?

"Evidence" is a peculiar word and often misunderstood.

Things, (oh say, like a knife or a gun) is not evidence for sake that there is something. Things, when used to show or demonstate something can then be considered evidence. Again, to show or demonstrate something else.

There is more, and this is often troubling for some people. If I take a gun and shoot your wife (while you're on a date with your girlfriend), and if then I later break into your home and place that gun I fired and place it in your bedroom closet, the gun that I put there that the police later find will be considered evidence, and it will be used to show that you killed your wife.

This is where people object and say that it's merely evidence of a gun, but no, it's evidence being used to show that you killed your wife. It does not have to successfully show or demonstrate what it's being used to show or demonstrate.

So (believe it or not) yes, your testimony that Bigfoot sleeps under your bed is evidence, not because you're saying it per se, but because you're attempting to make the case that he does. Furthermore, that what you're saying may be false does not render the claim non-evidentiary.

I agree.

Saying "you have no evidence your religion is true" is just parading one's values around, it's not descriptive of actuality.

It should be obvious theists have both reasons and evidence that are convincing to them. If it doesn't impress some people because it's not scientific evidence, they should say the truth "I have a different standard of what's convincing" instead of the dogmatic pronouncement "you have no evidence".

 

[Learner]

If you are a Christian with true faith why must you intellectualize and prove the faith as true?

I would think that with true faith on can simply dwell in the it without having to explain, prove, or justify. Eternal impervious unassailable joy. Which by the way is what I believe the Buddhism goal, without a deity.

I don't doubt this may happen but ... Christianity in true-faith is not about trying to convince ones "own self" that the faith is true! And debating on the subject of "faith" in a discussion is not the same as the OP but then again , it could happen in discussions too be fair.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, if you think that something is true, you're going to begin with the assumption that any logical analysis will lead to the conclusion that it is true. If you're really sure that something is true, you're going to pound as many square pegs into as many round holes as possible to ensure that the logical analysis works out that way because what the fuck were those holes doing thinking that they were round in the first place?

 

[Learner]

Argh... usual blunder!

*EDIT: Christianity in true-faith is not about trying to convince ones "own self" that the faith is true (intellectualizing in a discussion / debate on the usual type threads )!

 

[DBT]

Faith that God exists rests on hope, fear and desire, but not evidence, which is what makes it faith.

That's not true. There is evidence. For one, there is testimonial evidence.

Testimony from others in exactly the same position, their own experiences being shaped by their faith....perhaps attributing the recovery of a sick relative as an answer to their prayers, for example. That unverifiable connection (faith) being the foundation of their testimony.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So (believe it or not) yes, your testimony that Bigfoot sleeps under your bed is evidence, not because you're saying it per se, but because you're attempting to make the case that he does. Furthermore, that what you're saying may be false does not render the claim non-evidentiary.

Right. Evidence is always scrutinized for its value. How much value would you place on testimony that bigfoot sleeps under my bed?

 

[fast]

Biblical faith does not exclude evidence.

 

[DBT]

Biblical faith does not exclude evidence.

How so?

 

[fast]

Biblical faith does not exclude evidence.

How so?

Biblical faith is a product of evidence and non-evidentiary belief.

You guys know me, and as far as I can remember, I've never posted a scripture, but let's take one for illustrative purposes:

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Both believe. Thomas believes and others. But, Thomas has evidence, right? Yes, but others have evidence too. So, evidence isn't the decisive factor. What you probably see is that others have faith whereas Thomas didn't, and though that too is true, it's still true others have evidence. What Thomas has is indisputable knowledge and evidence based belief. Others have faith, which is a kind of belief, but it's not separate from evidence, even if that doesn't guarantee knowledge.

If God came down and impressed upon us His powers such that nobody would deny Him, we all would believe, but no former believer nor new believer would have a faith-based belief. The latter would have a history of denying previous evidence (because no knowledge was guaranteed by it) and no acceptance of non-evidentiary belief whereas former believers (that continue to be believers) would no longer solely have a mix of evidence-based and non-evidence-based belief--where the prior evidence-based belief is different from the new evidence-based belief. The new evidence better guarantees knowledge.