Total Posts:98|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Faith In God Without Evidence Stupid?

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 3:17:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think so. It probably makes you happy. Although it's also likely only speaking to the void created by certain emotional insecurities that would be better treated.

I might add that all actions are based on a leap of faith of some kind.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 3:53:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 3:14:03 AM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

Both of these are KRfournier debates suporting the concept of "faith".
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 4:48:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 12:18:25 AM, Polaris wrote:
Yes. Anything worth knowing, is worth having evidence for.

I see a philosophical bias right there, If humans had never a concept of God, then you would support the opposite, but now you will also have to disagree with the use of creative innovation to progress technology as well :| many of your favourite inventions were based on new radical ideas, many scientific leaps were sparked by wishful thinking, and this all presupposes that there is no evidence for God.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Cinco
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 6:03:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is not stupid, nor is it without evidence. Regardless of one's opinion about what another considers "evidence", evidence is evidence and one doesn't get to dictate what is and isn't evidence to another.

I will grant that an omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving Creator of All Things is the exact opposite of the God "invoked" by most religious individuals. I would even go so far as to say that the anti-God they use to beat others over the head matches the description of a petulant, petty, tantrum-throwing human being, to a tee, but that does not preclude the existence of a designer of this magnificent universe.

Religion is not the only cause of war, nor is it the only weapon used by actual petulant, petty, tantrum-throwing human beings when an idea that contradicts their own, frightens them. Far from it. When it comes to man's perpetual hissy fit over the diversity that makes existence and this universe what it is, man is armed, to the teeth. It doesn't do any good, but sans religion, man would be far from unarmed when it comes to his "you are/no, you are/no, you are/no, you are" nonsense.

If there is a creator, then the fact that one doesn't get to dictate thought and belief to another serves him - or her, or whatever. If there is not a creator, then the fact that one doesn't get to dictate thought and belief to another is the result of the laws that govern the universe. Either way, people's arguments are not with one another. they're either arguments with the universe or arguments with the creator of it.

Good grief. If man didn't have this ridiculously childish, absurdly time-wasting view of diversity, we'd have broken the light barrier, long ago, and I could get a Starbucks cappuccino, anywhere in the galaxy. It is just this constant, all-consuming, merry-go-round of absurdity that drives people guano. It consumes most's every waking moment to watch, criticize and condemn one another and to make sure their hair's OK!

Does this opinion "make my butt look big"? ROFL!! Who gives a flying f**k?!?!
If your time, to you,
Is worth savin',
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone.
For the times they are a-changin'. - Bob Dylan
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 6:32:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There are plenty of respectable epistemological positions that rely on certain basic beliefs that can be accepted without evidence -- for instance, foundationalism. And there are those like Alvin Plantinga who argue that God is a properly basic belief in this respect. So, I don't think accepting God's existence without evidence is stupid.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:00:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 12:18:25 AM, Polaris wrote:
Yes. Anything worth knowing, is worth having evidence for.

There is no evidence that thiis is true, so it is not worth knowing.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:07:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 6:32:58 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
There are plenty of respectable epistemological positions that rely on certain basic beliefs that can be accepted without evidence -- for instance, foundationalism. And there are those like Alvin Plantinga who argue that God is a properly basic belief in this respect. So, I don't think accepting God's existence without evidence is stupid.

Polaris' evidentialism is completely faith based and frankly, illogical and irrational.

What he is proselytizing is a philosophical theory of epistemic justification called "evidentialism"; it has no basis in fact and has been thoroughly discredited both philosophically and scientifically. Evidentialism self referentially negates itself, there is simply no evidence for it, and a boatload of evidence against it, therefore, according to his own contention, he should be arguing that his own statement does not exist.

Scientism is a very strange religion.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:12:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:07:58 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/26/2013 6:32:58 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
There are plenty of respectable epistemological positions that rely on certain basic beliefs that can be accepted without evidence -- for instance, foundationalism. And there are those like Alvin Plantinga who argue that God is a properly basic belief in this respect. So, I don't think accepting God's existence without evidence is stupid.

Polaris' evidentialism is completely faith based and frankly, illogical and irrational.

What he is proselytizing is a philosophical theory of epistemic justification called "evidentialism"; it has no basis in fact and has been thoroughly discredited both philosophically and scientifically. Evidentialism self referentially negates itself, there is simply no evidence for it, and a boatload of evidence against it, therefore, according to his own contention, he should be arguing that his own statement does not exist.

Scientism is a very strange religion.

Agreed, I've never understood how anyone could subscribe to evidentialism, since, as you say, the position undermines its own criteria.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:56:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:00:02 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/26/2013 12:18:25 AM, Polaris wrote:
Yes. Anything worth knowing, is worth having evidence for.

There is no evidence that thiis is true, so it is not worth knowing.

You've reversed the meaning in my statement. It's not worth knowing because it has evidence, but if it is worth knowing you should have evidence for it.

I'm sure you thought this was a clever response.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 8:00:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:07:58 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/26/2013 6:32:58 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
There are plenty of respectable epistemological positions that rely on certain basic beliefs that can be accepted without evidence -- for instance, foundationalism. And there are those like Alvin Plantinga who argue that God is a properly basic belief in this respect. So, I don't think accepting God's existence without evidence is stupid.

Polaris' evidentialism is completely faith based and frankly, illogical and irrational.

What he is proselytizing is a philosophical theory of epistemic justification called "evidentialism"; it has no basis in fact and has been thoroughly discredited both philosophically and scientifically. Evidentialism self referentially negates itself, there is simply no evidence for it, and a boatload of evidence against it, therefore, according to his own contention, he should be arguing that his own statement does not exist.

Scientism is a very strange religion.

There is evidence that evidence isn't the primary justification of belief? Do tell.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 1:30:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Debates by KRfoureir defending the concept of faith:

http://www.debate.org... To use faith as your reasoning for one specific god is irrational

http://www.debate.org...
All knowledge is founded on faith.

http://www.debate.org...
All knowledge is founded on faith 2
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 2:55:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:00:02 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/26/2013 12:18:25 AM, Polaris wrote:
Yes. Anything worth knowing, is worth having evidence for.

There is no evidence that thiis is true, so it is not worth knowing.

Who said there is no evidence?...Anybody can run an experiment to see how close to the truth they come by either having faith, or by believing evidence that supports conclusion. Obviously, evidence would lead one closer to the truth. Thus, one could use that experiment as evidence.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 3:59:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's nothing stupid about looking at the world and seeing that their must be a higher power than man, who created it. From that perspective, you can begin to see evidence for a creator. Everyone uses faith to some degree. Even those who claim to be all about science, use faith that nature is responsible for the universe we live in. Faith in God is not stupid, imo, nor is it without evidence.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 4:49:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:56:42 AM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:00:02 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/26/2013 12:18:25 AM, Polaris wrote:
Yes. Anything worth knowing, is worth having evidence for.

There is no evidence that thiis is true, so it is not worth knowing.

You've reversed the meaning in my statement. It's not worth knowing because it has evidence, but if it is worth knowing you should have evidence for it.

I'm sure you thought this was a clever response.

The word "evidence" itself means that which makes 'evident', apparent or makes clear the truth of some matter. It is information which supports the truth of some proposition, condition, belief or claim.

In other words it is information that helps discern what is true from what is untrue.
To say that you may believe something without evidence, is to not care if it is true or not, but to believe it anyway. That is the definition of irrational.

Methods and institutions that rest upon evidence-based thinking, tend to converge over time and become more solidified as generally true. Science and math, become more unified over time, whereas faiths become more divided over time, and tend to splinter into smaller factions whenever disagreement occurs, because with faith alone there Is no way to rationally resolve disagreement. This convergence of evidence-based notions constitutes evidence that evidence is a reliable way to converge upon truth.

Furthermore, many of the technological discoveries and innovations we have today, constitute tangible proof of the reliability of such evidence-based methodologies. Our entire modern society functions, because this is true.

If you want to believe claims without evidence, no one is stopping you, but don't expect to be taken seriously.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 5:14:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 11:56:58 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is it?

Too answer this question I think you have to back track.

Is faith in X stupid ?

What determines whether having faith in something is stupid or not ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 5:29:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 3:59:45 PM, medic0506 wrote:
There's nothing stupid about looking at the world and seeing that their must be a higher power than man, who created it. From that perspective, you can begin to see evidence for a creator. Everyone uses faith to some degree. Even those who claim to be all about science, use faith that nature is responsible for the universe we live in. Faith in God is not stupid, imo, nor is it without evidence.

My concept is that Susan the Alien & her 12 Sisters Created absolutely everything we know & don't know!

I could be wrong; but so far, the legitimate evidence against that concept is zero!

Conversely, the legitimate evidence Life was created by an Omnipotent loving Supernatural god, is unambiguously wanting!
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 5:32:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 5:29:04 PM, Composer wrote:
My concept is that Susan the Alien & her 12 Sisters Created absolutely everything we know & don't know!

IF SUSAN THE ALIEN AND HER 12 SISTERS CREATED ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING THEN WHO CREATED SUSAN THE ALIEN AND HER 12 SISTERS? CHECKMATE, SUSAN-THE-ALIENISTS!
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 5:38:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 5:32:50 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 2/26/2013 5:29:04 PM, Composer wrote:
My concept is that Susan the Alien & her 12 Sisters Created absolutely everything we know & don't know!

IF SUSAN THE ALIEN AND HER 12 SISTERS CREATED ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING THEN WHO CREATED SUSAN THE ALIEN AND HER 12 SISTERS? CHECKMATE, SUSAN-THE-ALIENISTS!

Susan the alien doesn't doesn't need a cause, as Susan the alien exists without cause.

Check mate you non believer.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 5:41:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 5:38:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Susan the alien doesn't doesn't need a cause, as Susan the alien exists without cause.

Check mate you non believer.

Who caused the uncaused cause?

Checkmate again, story book Susan-the-Alienists!
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 5:49:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 5:41:17 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 2/26/2013 5:38:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Susan the alien doesn't doesn't need a cause, as Susan the alien exists without cause.

Check mate you non believer.

Who caused the uncaused cause?

Checkmate again, story book Susan-the-Alienists!

Oh yeah? Who moved the designer of the cause of the uncaused cause?
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 5:51:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is your belief in God based on faith or evidence? Both are ridiculous, but for different reasons. The former is absurd by nature, and the second absurd by the facts.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 5:51:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 5:49:44 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 2/26/2013 5:41:17 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 2/26/2013 5:38:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Susan the alien doesn't doesn't need a cause, as Susan the alien exists without cause.

Check mate you non believer.

Who caused the uncaused cause?

Checkmate again, story book Susan-the-Alienists!

Oh yeah? Who moved the designer of the cause of the uncaused cause?

Obviously the one who designed the mover of the cause of the uncaused cause.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 5:51:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 5:49:44 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 2/26/2013 5:41:17 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 2/26/2013 5:38:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Susan the alien doesn't doesn't need a cause, as Susan the alien exists without cause.

Check mate you non believer.

Who caused the uncaused cause?

Checkmate again, story book Susan-the-Alienists!

Oh yeah? Who moved the designer of the cause of the uncaused cause?

Themself.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12