Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

Faith and Evidence

FourTrouble
Posts: 12,777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 2:33:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If people stop to consider for a moment the way people argue, debate, and vote, on this site, one thing seems certain: believing is seeing. I mean that seriously, people only see what they already believe. The so-called "evidence" for God's existence or non-existence is only evidence within the context of assumptions that are themselves matters of faith.

Thus the only way an atheist will ever see any evidence for the existence of God will be if he loses his faith that he never will, and the only way a theist will ever see evidence against God's existence will be if he loses faith that he never will. So, if what we see as evidence is always determined by our faith in assumptions about what evidence is, is there any point to atheist-theist debates?
astrocometman
Posts: 86
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 7:48:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 2:33:27 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
If people stop to consider for a moment the way people argue, debate, and vote, on this site, one thing seems certain: believing is seeing. I mean that seriously, people only see what they already believe. The so-called "evidence" for God's existence or non-existence is only evidence within the context of assumptions that are themselves matters of faith.

Thus the only way an atheist will ever see any evidence for the existence of God will be if he loses his faith that he never will, and the only way a theist will ever see evidence against God's existence will be if he loses faith that he never will. So, if what we see as evidence is always determined by our faith in assumptions about what evidence is, is there any point to atheist-theist debates?

My reply: More than a few crimes have been solved by a preponderance of evidence than eyewitness testimony. The evidence is the issue where atheist's views hinge on those who affirm the existence of Yahweh in particular. There's all kinds of artifacts and facts to point out that sum total into a powerful affirmative argument. There is no point to a debate when facts of more than a few kind are put on the table and the response is predictably the same. So, the fact of the matter is intent more so than whether or not what's in view is given its proper assessment. It's not like the biblical claim isn't sufficient to be applied to anything one chooses to discuss; that, in and of itself tells Yeshua's claim has substance that can't be exhausted by the no no minds that atheists are forced to exhibit in their writing.