Why?

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
That's just not good enough.

Hearsay does not stand up in a court of law.
Only facts will do.

No one can see evidence for God that don't believe in Him, they will always
see an excuse not to agree this is evidence. Only God can reveal Himself
to you, I cannot show you God. God does draw us, you'd not even entertain
the question if God wasn't working on you drawing you to Him. Reaching
out to God is only done when God draws, it will not be done while living in
one's own selfish life. The only court that matters with this question is the
one of our hearts, not proof through science, science is blind to God, and
you need eyes to see.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
It certainly is worth investigating. But oddly enough whenever I bring up the topic on this forum, the theist show no interest whatsoever in investigating, instead they are only interested in asserting and affirming their beliefs. You will not find one single theist on this site publicly asking 'does God exist, lets, investigate it scientifically' you wi ...[text shortened]... gle theist asking 'is there life after death, lets discuss it or investigate it scientifically'.

Agreed...but to bring tangible evidence is not possible. The best I can do is direct you to churches where miraculous healing is taking place.

As I have stated already
Heb 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
NKJV


Many will testify that these rewards are not speaking of future, but the here and now...

If countless people have bought into this, many with their lives, indeed it is worth investigating. But the way is right before your eyes. God values faith for some reason I do not completely understand.
But I don't understand exactly how electricity works either, it just does.

Originally posted by rwingett
Believing that aliens exist and believing that it is possible for aliens to exist are two different things.

Yes, of course.

I don't mean that any old belief in aliens is valid. If their evidence is "there was a UFO that couldn't possibly be man-made so it must be ALIENS!" - I wouldn't take that seriously. But if they present evidence that, based on the size of our galaxy and the presence of many other galaxies / solar systems, it is likely that other life exists somewhere, that might be reasonable. I might not agree with their evaluation of the evidence, but I would not think them a kook for believing it.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Yes, of course.

I don't mean that any old belief in aliens is valid. If their evidence is "there was a UFO that couldn't possibly be man-made so it must be ALIENS!" - I wouldn't take that seriously. But if they present evidence that, based on the size of our galaxy and the presence of many other galaxies / solar systems, it is likely that other life e ...[text shortened]... agree with their evaluation of the evidence, but I would not think them a kook for believing it.

Again, is saying that other life is likely to exist the same as believing that other life exists? I would say no, it isn't.

Originally posted by rwingett
Again, is saying that other life is likely to exist the same as believing that other life exists? I would say no, it isn't.

Does belief have to be 100% certain or can it be just more likely than not? If not, what level of certitude is required before one can say they hold a belief?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Does belief have to be 100% certain or can it be just more likely than not? If not, what level of certitude is required before one can say they hold a belief?

Well this is the whole argument isn't it?

It's my contention that if you know something to be
factual and true, then you can have absolute belief in it.

But Christians and other religious denominations don't have 100% belief.

A lot of what they believe in is based on faith.

I know a lot of people who put faith in things only to discover
that they made a mistake and their faith in what they had put
faith in had let them down once they had discovered the real truth.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Does belief have to be 100% certain or can it be just more likely than not? If not, what level of certitude is required before one can say they hold a belief?

Well, I certainly don't think a 51% probability assessment equals belief. It may be the case that it does have to equal 100%. I am 100% certain that evolution is true. Therefore I believe in evolution. I am not 100% certain that a god does not exist. Therefore I do not believe in god's non-existence. I think it is unlikely that a god exists, but I will stop short of claiming to believe in his (its) non-existence.

Originally posted by rwingett
Well, I certainly don't think a 51% probability assessment equals belief. It may be the case that it does have to equal 100%. I am 100% certain that evolution is true. Therefore I believe in evolution. I am not 100% certain that a god does not exist. Therefore I do not believe in god's non-existence. I think it is unlikely that a god exists, but I will stop short of claiming to believe in his (its) non-existence.

I think it's interesting that science doesn't like to use the term 'law' anymore. Probably because there were exceptions discovered to Laws like Newton's Laws of Motion. Einstein only got 'theory' status for Relativity even though it has been well-verified.

I tend to share that thinking. I am not sure how likely one must think that some proposition is for it to be called a belief, but I think it is often less than 100% (though substantially more than 51).

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
Well this is the whole argument isn't it?

It's my contention that if you know something to be
factual and true, then you can have absolute belief in it.

But Christians and other religious denominations don't have 100% belief.

A lot of what they believe in is based on faith.

I know a lot of people who put faith in things only to discover ...[text shortened]... faith in what they had put
faith in had let them down once they had discovered the real truth.

That's the difficulty - people do know that the god stuff is 'factual and true' - or at least they think they do. I know many people who sincerely think they know this stuff. I used to be one of them.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Agreed...but to bring tangible evidence is not possible. The best I can do is direct you to churches where miraculous healing is taking place.

So you first admit that 'tangible evidence is not possible' then you try to present some 'tangible evidence'. Please make up your mind.
Are you saying that churches where miraculous healing takes place cannot be investigated? If not, why not? And if not, why did you mention them?

You asked whether or not it would be worth investigating, yet the moment we start to discuss it, you start to back track and say that it cannot be investigated. Instead you choose to believe despite the lack of evidence and you refuse to investigate anything that might be evidence.