What's the utility of faith?

[_Buffalo]

Can you demonstrate how a working, organized universe mandates the existence of your god?

What does a non-working and/or non-organized universe look like?

I was asked to provide evidence. I've done so. You may disagree with the evidence, or the conclusions one may draw from it, but it is solid, observable evidence all the same. Which makes the op's premise false. Which was my point from the outset.

You don't understand the concept of evidence.

If I claimed to be able to supernaturally fly, and showed you ticket stubs from a recent Delta flight to prove it, would this constitute evidence of my original claim?

[_Mad Viking]

Can you demonstrate how a working, organized universe mandates the existence of your god?

What does a non-working and/or non-organized universe look like?

I was asked to provide evidence. I've done so. You may disagree with the evidence, or the conclusions one may draw from it, but it is solid, observable evidence all the same. Which makes the op's premise false. Which was my point from the outset.

By that standard, the universe is evidence of... well... anything we can imagine. Certainly, you don't really think that such reasoning can be accepted as being sound? Do you? Certainly you recognize that it isn't going to be convincing to anyone who doesn't already believe?

[_Buffalo]

By that standard, the universe is evidence of... well... anything we can imagine. Certainly, you don't really think that such reasoning can be accepted as being sound? Do you? Certainly you recognize that it isn't going to be convincing to anyone who doesn't already believe?

Exactly. Here is some similar logic.

Q: How do you know wood nymphs exist?
A: Well, you've seen trees, haven't you? There you go. Evidence.
Q: How do you know that Poseidon is a real god?
A: Have you seen the ocean? How'd it get there if not by Poseidon?
Q: Give me some evidence that god exists
A1: Well, look at the wind. God is making it blow. There's your evidence.
A2: Look at the regular motion of the planets. That means that there's a God.
A3: Have you see a picture of Audrey Hepburn in her prime?

Admittedly A3 is compelling, but there is no connection made between the supernatural claim and the real world thing. You can't just claim "B exists, therefore A" without establishing a connection. That's a logical fallacy.

[_Mad Viking]

By that standard, the universe is evidence of... well... anything we can imagine. Certainly, you don't really think that such reasoning can be accepted as being sound? Do you? Certainly you recognize that it isn't going to be convincing to anyone who doesn't already believe?

Exactly. Here is some similar logic.

Q: How do you know wood nymphs exist?
A: Well, you've seen trees, haven't you? There you go. Evidence.
Q: How do you know that Poseidon is a real god?
A: Have you seen the ocean? How'd it get there if not by Poseidon?
Q: Give me some evidence that god exists
A1: Well, look at the wind. God is making it blow. There's your evidence.
A2: Look at the regular motion of the planets. That means that there's a God.
A3: Have you see a picture of Audrey Hepburn in her prime?

Admittedly A3 is compelling, but there is no connection made between the supernatural claim and the real world thing. You can't just claim "B exists, therefore A" without establishing a connection. That's a logical fallacy.

Back when I was a believer I most likely would have taken the route of the universe and some of its features as being evidence of god. In doing so, I was working backwards. I already believed in god. Look back at the universe from the believer position caused me to filter the evidence through god colored glasses. I came to a point where I was seriously questioning the existence of god. I had to start from a blank slate and work forward this time. I had to go where the evidence led me as opposed to making the evidence support my conclusions. That is not to say that some don't look at the universe and deduce the existence of a god. However, I have serious doubts about the validity of their arguements.

[_mormonx]

I got my definition from the practical observation of Christians in the wild.

Where is your evidence?

haha.. your like a dog on bone. when I was young I had this idea to gain my fathers favor. With me, my brothers and sisters together at lunch I would purpose a contest for my Dad to judge. Who can draw the best horse. They all loved the idea because everyone is artistic in my family. What they didn't know was that I had been practicing horses for a month straight and had planned this little event well ahead of time so that I would win. and of course I won. Even though deceptive, it made me feel good about myself. How long have you been drawing horses?

I've already said, I have reasonable evidences for my faith, I laid them out like on page two. I know you don't put stock in these evidences. But it is evidence non the less, whether it meets your standards or not. The original thread was discussion that faith had NO evidence needed. I refuted that, faith and belief (of a christianity) are based on evidences. These evidences are some times empirical, some subjective, some historical some spiritual a little bit of all. The argument your wanting to have will never work quit the way you want it. Because we both have a different standard our evidences have to meet. I need probability, you need God to slap you on the ass and apologize for all the evil things he does.

[_Mad Viking]

I got my definition from the practical observation of Christians in the wild.

Where is your evidence?

haha.. your like a dog on bone. when I was young I had this idea to gain my fathers favor. With me, my brothers and sisters together at lunch I would purpose a contest for my Dad to judge. Who can draw the best horse. They all loved the idea because everyone is artistic in my family. What they didn't know was that I had been practicing horses for a month straight and had planned this little event well ahead of time so that I would win. and of course I won. Even though deceptive, it made me feel good about myself. How long have you been drawing horses?

I've already said, I have reasonable evidences for my faith, I laid them out like on page two. I know you don't put stock in these evidences. But it is evidence non the less, whether it meets your standards or not. The original thread was discussion that faith had NO evidence needed. I refuted that, faith and belief (of a christianity) are based on evidences. These evidences are some times empirical, some subjective, some historical some spiritual a little bit of all. The argument your wanting to have will never work quit the way you want it. Because we both have a different standard our evidences have to meet. I need probability, you need God to slap you on the ass and apologize for all the evil things he does.

Probability is NOT on your side. You only have possibility.

[_Rambo]

haha.. your like a dog on bone. when I was young I had this idea to gain my fathers favor. With me, my brothers and sisters together at lunch I would purpose a contest for my Dad to judge. Who can draw the best horse. They all loved the idea because everyone is artistic in my family. What they didn't know was that I had been practicing horses for a month straight and had planned this little event well ahead of time so that I would win. and of course I won. Even though deceptive, it made me feel good about myself. How long have you been drawing horses?

Did you draw a tapir? Was your Dad a Mormon apologist?

I've already said, I have reasonable evidences for my faith, I laid them out like on page two. I know you don't put stock in these evidences. But it is evidence non the less, whether it meets your standards or not. The original thread was discussion that faith had NO evidence needed. I refuted that, faith and belief (of a christianity) are based on evidences. These evidences are some times empirical, some subjective, some historical some spiritual a little bit of all. The argument your wanting to have will never work quit the way you want it. Because we both have a different standard our evidences have to meet. I need probability, you need God to slap you on the ass and apologize for all the evil things he does.

I missed this evidence on page two. Can you refer me to it? Was it Jesus being a historical figure because that is not evidence of god its just some evidence of some dude that died on a cross. Lots of people have died on crosses you know.

[Guest]

k

[_mormonx]

[/quote]By that standard, the universe is evidence of... well... anything we can imagine. Certainly, you don't really think that such reasoning can be accepted as being sound? Do you? Certainly you recognize that it isn't going to be convincing to anyone who doesn't already believe?[/quote]

Once again your asking for more from the evidence than is possible. It can be probable that one of the solutions to this universe could be intelligence. I, along with many scholars, think it's highly probable.

By that standard, the universe is evidence of... well... anything we can imagine.

wrong.. the universe works by laws, the universe, in the least, produces intelligence (except on this thread), the laws of the universe exist outside of the universe and are not dependent on the universe. So the conclusion we must come to is that there is intelligence (laws) that supersedes the universe. This does not leave us with whatever we can imagine. It leaves us with the weight of laws to contend with. Weight of something existing outside of the universe that must exist to form a universe.

And I might add, my job as christians is not to convince you through empirical evidence, it's to convince you, you are a sinner, that God's wrath is pointed directly and personally at you, that your in deep need of a savior. You know him already, you just hate him.

[_Rambo]

wrong.. the universe works by laws, the universe, in the least, produces intelligence (except on this thread), the laws of the universe exist outside of the universe and are not dependent on the universe. So the conclusion we must come to is that there is intelligence (laws) that supersedes the universe. This does not leave us with whatever we can imagine. It leaves us with the weight of laws to contend with. Weight of something existing outside of the universe that must exist to form a universe.

I think this is one of the most ironic statements I have read on MDB.

mormonx, you claim there is a god. Where is the evidence?

I think this is a very simple question.