Seattle,
Maybe not in and of itself, it could be just something you thought up. But the fact is, there is a culture which thinks exactly the same thing, coupled with the fact that you are making a definate claim about something you cannot know.
Faith just doesn't mean ''there isn't evidence'', it mean there can be no evidence, and as such some things have to be taken on faith. Also, one doesn't need faith to believe in God, one needs faith to depend upon God, having made a commitment of surrender.
And that subjective thought is dependant on what you think you know about God, so what you have is faith, because there exists no way to know, as a scientific fact whether God exists or not.
My belief in God did not come about by joining some group or reading some scripture, and my family isn't religious. I didn't have to go to church as a kid, to learn about God.
Maybe not, but other people do. How do you know what they experience isn't real?
That's your criteria, fine. Other people have a different criteria. Why is yours right and theirs wrong?
Same as above.
God is defined as transcendent, not that people generally say so (although they might say so). If God wasn't transcendent, He wouldn't be God. To be God, He must be greater than His effect. So to say God doesn't exist because there is no physical evidence (modern scientific method), is making a decision as to what and who God is.
This analasys is based on your understanding of God, not on the definition of God.
In essence you have made an inadvertant decision not to believe in God, by limiting the definition of God.
Now you're just attempting to label the concept of God as childish fantasy, making your position seem credible and justified.
jan.
We just have to disagree I guess. Adding "due to insufficient evidence" doesn't imply a belief system in any way. "Due to insufficient evidence" is implied even if not stated. Why else would you think something was true?
Maybe not in and of itself, it could be just something you thought up. But the fact is, there is a culture which thinks exactly the same thing, coupled with the fact that you are making a definate claim about something you cannot know.
Faith means there isn't evidence otherwise you wouldn't have to take it on faith. Having a belief in religion (or God) requires faith to derive "truth".
Faith just doesn't mean ''there isn't evidence'', it mean there can be no evidence, and as such some things have to be taken on faith. Also, one doesn't need faith to believe in God, one needs faith to depend upon God, having made a commitment of surrender.
Not believing doesn't require faith. It isn't deriving "truth" either. It's subjective. I don't "know" that there isn't a God. That would require evidence as well. Subjectively I don't think there is a God.
And that subjective thought is dependant on what you think you know about God, so what you have is faith, because there exists no way to know, as a scientific fact whether God exists or not.
Regarding whether I came to these conclusion "in a flash" or not or how....it wasn't by joining some group or reading some "manifesto" as you put it. As a kid my family was religious and so I had to go to church and learn whatever there was to learn.
My belief in God did not come about by joining some group or reading some scripture, and my family isn't religious. I didn't have to go to church as a kid, to learn about God.
What evidence would be sufficient? The same evidence I would require of anything else that I consider to be real. I don't have any evidence that any supernatural concepts are real including God, ghosts, mind reading, etc.
Maybe not, but other people do. How do you know what they experience isn't real?
If God appeared in body form from up in the clouds and said "how's it going?" and made it rain frogs I might start to think "he" was real. It wouldn't take "faith" just as it doesn't take faith to "believe in" the sun. It's just a fact. One doesn't have to strain credulity searching for evidence.
That's your criteria, fine. Other people have a different criteria. Why is yours right and theirs wrong?
Prayer could be answered in a statistically significant way (but it's not). Evidence could be available but it doesn't seem to be.
Same as above.
The "catch" is that people generally say that God is "transcendent" or supernatural and any evidence of course will not be of the natural world (the world of science). Therefore all of the evidence is not evidence in any meaningful sense of that word.
God is defined as transcendent, not that people generally say so (although they might say so). If God wasn't transcendent, He wouldn't be God. To be God, He must be greater than His effect. So to say God doesn't exist because there is no physical evidence (modern scientific method), is making a decision as to what and who God is.
Evidence in that case just becomes whatever you want it to be...some dream you have, some thought, God is in us, he is everywhere, I can see him as surely as I'm looking at you, etc.
This analasys is based on your understanding of God, not on the definition of God.
In essence you have made an inadvertant decision not to believe in God, by limiting the definition of God.
That isn't evidence for unicorns and it isn't evidence for God or anything else.
Now you're just attempting to label the concept of God as childish fantasy, making your position seem credible and justified.
jan.