21 Jan 09
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.
21 Jan 09
Originally posted by josephwDo you consider it 'false faith' to believe in the non-existence of the
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.
Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Nemesio
21 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwYou exhibit a great notional confusion regarding the nature of evidence.
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?
22 Jan 09
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHow so?
You exhibit a great notional confusion regarding the nature of evidence.
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.
22 Jan 09
Originally posted by NemesioExactly.
Do you consider it 'false faith' to believe in the non-existence of the
Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Nemesio
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?
22 Jan 09
Originally posted by josephwFaith is in something you know to be true based on the evidence for its' existence.
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?
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.
22 Jan 09
Originally posted by josephwYour 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.
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.
22 Jan 09
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIndeed. 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?
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.
22 Jan 09
4 edits
Originally posted by josephwOn the other hand, having faith in the existence of God is grounded on evidence.
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.
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
22 Jan 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloI changed my mind. 🙄
[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]
23 Jan 09
Originally posted by josephwthe term of faith is to belive without visable proof, if it were visible then it would not be faith as a spiritual belief.
Since there is no evidence for the non-existence of God, then having faith that there is no God is a false faith.
But a false faith leads to sin thats how you know.