Evidence for God from Science

Have a look at this quote that I took off of a home theater audiophile site, of all places...

Faith (in the religious sense) is based on the premise that faith is God's proof that God's existence is truth and does not rely on facts. Indeed, if facts were available, then faith is not required - so in a sense, faith can be seen to be based on an absence of evidence - a fiction.

Believers may also qualify faith as either representing truth or they will represent it as being above and beyond our understanding. Truth becomes a consequence of faith which is the believer's recognition of the absence of evidence. Truth is therefore defined according to a circular perception.


...
Anyone wish to offer some comments on this? I figure some real Christian philosophers might have a much better definition of faith! (Psychobabble like this always confuses me)

Personally, I feel that all faith must be grounded in reason, with each Christian being required to take only the "final step". For what constitutes "proof" anyway? To see something with your eyes? ...Hmm, no I've been wrong about things that I have seen that's for sure.

Faith...is trust IN evidence for something. It's trust in that which you understand and believe to be true...

krynn9000 wrote:Have a look at this quote that I took off of a home theater audiophile site, of all places...

Lol, they should stick to being audiophiles....he fails to define faith, truth, evidence, facts etc, so there is already potential for misunderstanding and misrepresentation before we even start.

Faith (in the religious sense) is based on the premise that faith is God's proof that God's existence is truth and does not rely on facts.

Right off the bat this is a false premise. How does the writer know this? If something is quoted as a premise, it is either self-evident, which this statement is not, or can be proven, which this statement can not. Furthermore, should the writer wish to prove anything, he must first prove how he can know anything. He must also show where his assertion that "faith is God's proof" comes from, logically proven from an objective source outside of anything that can be construed as revealed by God, like the Bible, since he is calling into doubt the existence of God. He cannot attempt to disprove God by using God's revelation, now can he? He must also show how faith in God "does nor rely on facts". What does he really mean? There are no facts that support the existence of God? Has he examined all the evidence, everywhere? If so, what evidence can he show that God does not exist?

Since his statring premise is incorrect, pretty much the rest is also nonsense, but for the sake of being complete, I will address it.

Indeed, if facts were available, then faith is not required - so in a sense, faith can be seen to be based on an absence of evidence - a fiction.

Yet another false statement, no doubt based on his flawed premise. The first part of the statement, namely that if facts are available then no faith is required, simply leads to:
1. How does he know there are no facts, 2. how does he know that facts mean what they mean without having faith in something, at the very least, he has faith in the reliability of his senses and the uniformity of nature 3. how is faith based on the absence of evidence, this is a baseless assertion, 4. he falsely equivocates "no evidence=fiction"

Believers may also qualify faith as either representing truth or they will represent it as being above and beyond our understanding.

Again, an astonshing use of the strawman. He has to show where and how believers qualify faith, also where believers say faith leads to the truth when in fact it is the other way around. The second part of the statement again shows the writers gross misunderstanding of Christianity at least, the basic doctrines are well understood, well communicated and widely followed.

Truth becomes a consequence of faith which is the believer's recognition of the absence of evidence.

In that case, I would like the writer to show logically how he can know anything without faith of some sort. He also reaches a false conclusion when he says that it necessarily follows that faith is the believers response to a lack of evidence, and that it becomes truth. he does not lay out his logical reasoning for how that follows, he merely asserts it.

Truth is therefore defined according to a circular perception.

What is a "circular perception"? Since he did not define truth first, by which authority does he claim to know what truth is, and how one arrives at it? If you follow his logic, then he cannot know anything either. Why should his assertions be granted?

This is not a very impressive philosophical criticsim of faith. It is riddled with assertions, strawmen, bad logic and false premises.

i just had to laugh as u ripped it apart August, always makes me smile when some of you more educated people use logic to rip apart the arguments of people who really just try to sound SMART. LOL keep it up! God bless.


-Brigham

Even though we do have facts and evidence, we rely on faith. The facts are just bonus.