1. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    21 Jan '09 23:31
    If having faith in the non-existence of God is based on having no evidence for the non-existence of God, then wouldn't that be a false faith since that faith has no basis grounded on evidence?

    Since there is no evidence for the non-existence of God, then having faith that there is no God is a false faith.

    On the other hand, having faith in the existence of God is grounded on evidence. Therefore it is a true faith, reguardless of whether or not one agrees that the evidence is valid.
  2. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    21 Jan '09 23:37
    Originally posted by josephw
    If having faith in the non-existence of God is based on having no evidence for the non-existence of God, then wouldn't that be a false faith since that faith has no basis grounded on evidence?

    Since there is no evidence for the non-existence of God, then having faith that there is no God is a false faith.

    On the other hand, having faith in the existenc ...[text shortened]... refore it is a true faith, reguardless of whether or not one agrees that the evidence is valid.
    Do you consider it 'false faith' to believe in the non-existence of the
    Flying Spaghetti Monster?

    Nemesio
  3. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    21 Jan '09 23:391 edit
    Originally posted by josephw
    If having faith in the non-existence of God is based on having no evidence for the non-existence of God, then wouldn't that be a false faith since that faith has no basis grounded on evidence?
    You exhibit a great notional confusion regarding the nature of evidence.
  4. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    22 Jan '09 03:57
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    You exhibit a great notional confusion regarding the nature of evidence.
    How so?

    If one believes by faith that God does not exists while having no evidence that God does not exist, then it is a false faith.

    If one believes that it takes faith to believe in something they have no evidence for believing in, then that faith is false.

    True faith is believing in something one knows exists based on evidence for the existence of that which one has faith in.

    Faith isn't believing in something one knows they have no evidence for.

    It isn't faith to believe in the non-existence of something when one knows one has no evidence for its' non-existence. Therefore it is false faith.
  5. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    22 Jan '09 04:07
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    Do you consider it 'false faith' to believe in the non-existence of the
    Flying Spaghetti Monster?

    Nemesio
    Exactly.

    You have no evidence for the non-existence of the flying spaghetti monster. Therefore it is a false faith.

    Faith is in something you know to be true based on the evidence for its' existence.

    One has faith IN something, not faith for the existence or non-existence of something. Right?
  6. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    22 Jan '09 04:19
    Originally posted by josephw
    Exactly.

    You have no evidence for the non-existence of the flying spaghetti monster. Therefore it is a false faith.

    Faith is in something you know to be true based on the evidence for its' existence.

    One has faith IN something, not faith for the existence or non-existence of something. Right?
    Faith is in something you know to be true based on the evidence for its' existence.

    No, faith is in something you believe to be true despite there not necessarily being evidence for its' existence.

    You're redefining faith to what suits you.

    One has faith IN something, not faith for the existence or non-existence of something. Right?

    I don't have faith that god doesn't exist, I just have no faith that he/it/she/heshe does exist.
  7. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    22 Jan '09 04:41
    Originally posted by josephw
    How so?

    If one believes by faith that God does not exists while having no evidence that God does not exist, then it is a false faith.

    If one believes that it takes faith to believe in something they have no evidence for believing in, then that faith is false.

    True faith is believing in something one knows exists based on evidence for the existence o ...[text shortened]... thing when one knows one has no evidence for its' non-existence. Therefore it is false faith.
    Your epistemic framework appears to have been struck by a tornado. As much as I'd like to try to help you piece it together, I'm afraid we'll just have to write it off as a total loss.
  8. Standard memberChronicLeaky
    Don't Fear Me
    Reaping
    Joined
    28 Feb '07
    Moves
    655
    22 Jan '09 05:44
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Your epistemic framework appears to have been struck by a tornado. As much as I'd like to try to help you piece it together, I'm afraid we'll just have to write it off as a total loss.
    Indeed. Why, at this late date, when the presence of wolves is well-established, do people insist on building epistemic frameworks out of straw and sticks?
  9. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    22 Jan '09 06:344 edits
    Originally posted by josephw
    If having faith in the non-existence of God is based on having no evidence for the non-existence of God, then wouldn't that be a false faith since that faith has no basis grounded on evidence?

    Since there is no evidence for the non-existence of God, then having faith that there is no God is a false faith.

    On the other hand, having faith in the existenc ...[text shortened]... refore it is a true faith, reguardless of whether or not one agrees that the evidence is valid.
    On the other hand, having faith in the existence of God is grounded on evidence.

    Really? You just started another thread** not long ago where you told me and I quote "The knowledge of God is self evident" (where by "knowledge of God" you were talking about knowing the proposition that God exists). Now, maybe you are not even familiar with your own terminology, but self-evidence is enjoyed by propositions whose truth follows obviously just from their being understood in and of themselves. In other words, just to understand a self-evident proposition is also to understand its truth. So, self-evident propositions are (justifiably) taken to be true under no supporting evidence. That's basically what makes them "self evident".

    So why do you need underlying evidence to make yours a "true" faith? Why would you need to claim underlying evidence for your theistic belief if the knowledge of God is self-evident to begin with?

    Try being consistent for once, would you? In one thread you're telling me that you don't need to offer me any supporting evidence or argument for God because it is simply self-evident that He exists. In the next thread, however, all of a sudden underlying evidence is integral to your "true" faith.

    ------
    **Thread 106645
  10. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    22 Jan '09 07:02
    Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
    Indeed. Why, at this late date, when the presence of wolves is well-established, do people insist on building epistemic frameworks out of straw and sticks?
    I guess everybody just puts stock in different fairy tales.
  11. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    22 Jan '09 11:33
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    [b]On the other hand, having faith in the existence of God is grounded on evidence.

    Really? You just started another thread** not long ago where you told me and I quote "The knowledge of God is self evident" (where by "knowledge of God" you were talking about knowing the proposition that God exists). Now, maybe you are not even familiar with your ...[text shortened]... evidence is integral to your "true" faith.

    ------
    **Thread 106645[/b]
    I changed my mind. 🙄
  12. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    22 Jan '09 11:34
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Your epistemic framework appears to have been struck by a tornado. As much as I'd like to try to help you piece it together, I'm afraid we'll just have to write it off as a total loss.
    Well, you can't blame a guy for trying. 😵
  13. Bronx, New York
    Joined
    26 Nov '07
    Moves
    99782
    22 Jan '09 13:05
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    Do you consider it 'false faith' to believe in the non-existence of the
    Flying Spaghetti Monster?

    Nemesio
    The Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist! I saw him talking to the One Eye, One Horn Flying Purple People Eater once. Wonder if they're related.
  14. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    22 Jan '09 17:26
    Originally posted by josephw
    I changed my mind. 🙄
    So it is no longer your claim that the proposition that God exists is self-evident?
  15. England
    Joined
    15 Nov '03
    Moves
    33497
    23 Jan '09 15:32
    Originally posted by josephw


    Since there is no evidence for the non-existence of God, then having faith that there is no God is a false faith.
    the term of faith is to belive without visable proof, if it were visible then it would not be faith as a spiritual belief.
    But a false faith leads to sin thats how you know.
Back to Top