Evidence for God from Science

Im curious about one detail, which is about proof of God, which the shroud potentially could be.

If there is proof of God, then of what use is faith?


Depends on if you are defining faith as presumption or not while for others here, they define it differently and thus you have a cross cultural misunderstanding.

I think it would be best for you to actually define what you mean by faith and then go from there.
-
-
-

Audie wrote:Im curious about one detail, which is about proof of God, which the shroud potentially could be.

If there is proof of God, then of what use is faith?

The only proof for God we have is a metaphysical one. Faith is the result of absolulte metaphysical proof (from reason) coupled with physical evidence (from observation).

Audie wrote:Im curious about one detail, which is about proof of God, which the shroud potentially could be.

If there is proof of God, then of what use is faith?

Hi, Audie,

if there is a proof, then for some it will not be a proof and will always try to close their eyes.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Im curious about one detail, which is about proof of God, which the shroud potentially could be.

If there is proof of God, then of what use is faith?

The only proof for God we have is a metaphysical one. Faith is the result of absolulte metaphysical proof (from reason) coupled with physical evidence (from observation).

Oh, ok, I never actually heard of that! Could you tell me about metaphysical proof, and related physical observation?

People should never see proof or evidence as so how countering or making faith obsolete.
It doesn't, it strengthens faith.
Faith should be base don evidence and reason.

We have faith base don that all that time, faith on our doctors, in our spouses, in everything we do there is an element of faith.

Faith is NOT belief based on the absence of evidence.

faith
fāTH/Submit
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

1over137 wrote:

Audie wrote:Im curious about one detail, which is about proof of God, which the shroud potentially could be.

If there is proof of God, then of what use is faith?

Hi, Audie,

if there is a proof, then for some it will not be a proof and will always try to close their eyes.

True enough, there are holocaust deniers and so forth. But those are the last
people to have "faith", surely!

For the sane among us tho, it seems to me that if God were to announce himself in a loud clear voice, say, that would be proof, and thus no faith would be needed.

I've understood that faith is one of the cornerstones of Christianity, and one is not going to be provided with proof.

Did I get that wrong?

PaulSacramento wrote:People should never see proof or evidence as so how countering or making faith obsolete.
It doesn't, it strengthens faith.
Faith should be base don evidence and reason.

We have faith base don that all that time, faith on our doctors, in our spouses, in everything we do there is an element of faith.

Faith is NOT belief based on the absence of evidence.

faith
fāTH/Submit
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

I think a one line definition of faith is really inadequate, dont you?

Faith that the car will start / faith that spouse will be true / faith that
one will receive eternal life are way different, to me anyway.

On what evidence and reason would one place faith in the reality of God?

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:People should never see proof or evidence as so how countering or making faith obsolete.
It doesn't, it strengthens faith.
Faith should be base don evidence and reason.

We have faith base don that all that time, faith on our doctors, in our spouses, in everything we do there is an element of faith.

Faith is NOT belief based on the absence of evidence.

faith
fāTH/Submit
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

I think a one line definition of faith is really inadequate, dont you?

Faith that the car will start / faith that spouse will be true / faith that
one will receive eternal life are way different, to me anyway.

On what evidence and reason would one place faith in the reality of God?

Faith is the same in all those instances. The object of faith differs.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:People should never see proof or evidence as so how countering or making faith obsolete.
It doesn't, it strengthens faith.
Faith should be base don evidence and reason.

We have faith base don that all that time, faith on our doctors, in our spouses, in everything we do there is an element of faith.

Faith is NOT belief based on the absence of evidence.

faith
fāTH/Submit
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

I think a one line definition of faith is really inadequate, dont you?

Faith that the car will start / faith that spouse will be true / faith that
one will receive eternal life are way different, to me anyway.

On what evidence and reason would one place faith in the reality of God?

People tend to favour whatever definition suits them best.
I tend to favour the original understanding of a word, like compassion for example.
I had a discussion with an atheist about compassion, how the very definition of the word, heck the very epistemology of the word, means "to suffer with/together".
Me definition was the original, classical definition of the word, the way the word was developed and meant to mean.
He found another meaning based on "modern understanding' and voila, all of a sudden the original meaning meant nothing.

My point is that it doesn't matter IF my definition isn't the ONLY ONE, it only matter if it is a VALID one and it is.

Also, in regards to the history of Christianity, faith has always meant belief in something(someone) with reason behind it.

ST Paul:
Hebrews 11:1 “Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.”

Aquinas makes a more direct view, since He refers to Christ in specific and not just faith in general:

Faith and Reason
Aquinas sees reason and faith as two ways of knowing. "Reason" covers what we can know by experience and logic alone. From reason, we can know that there is a God and that there is only one God; these truths about God are accessible to anyone by experience and logic alone, apart from any special revelation from God.
"Faith" covers what we can know by God's special revelation to us (which comes through the Bible and Christian Tradition). By faith, we can know that God came into the world through Jesus Christ and that God is triune (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). These truths about God cannot be known by reason alone.

Faith builds on reason. Since faith and reason are both ways of arriving at truth -- and since all truths are harmonious with each other -- faith is consistent with reason. If we understand faith and reason correctly, there will be no conflict between what faith tells us and what reason tells us.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:People should never see proof or evidence as so how countering or making faith obsolete.
It doesn't, it strengthens faith.
Faith should be base don evidence and reason.

We have faith base don that all that time, faith on our doctors, in our spouses, in everything we do there is an element of faith.

Faith is NOT belief based on the absence of evidence.

faith
fāTH/Submit
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

I think a one line definition of faith is really inadequate, dont you?

Faith that the car will start / faith that spouse will be true / faith that
one will receive eternal life are way different, to me anyway.

On what evidence and reason would one place faith in the reality of God?

People tend to favour whatever definition suits them best.
I tend to favour the original understanding of a word, like compassion for example.
I had a discussion with an atheist about compassion, how the very definition of the word, heck the very epistemology of the word, means "to suffer with/together".
Me definition was the original, classical definition of the word, the way the word was developed and meant to mean.
He found another meaning based on "modern understanding' and voila, all of a sudden the original meaning meant nothing.

My point is that it doesn't matter IF my definition isn't the ONLY ONE, it only matter if it is a VALID one and it is.

Also, in regards to the history of Christianity, faith has always meant belief in something(someone) with reason behind it.

ST Paul:
Hebrews 11:1 “Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.”

Aquinas makes a more direct view, since He refers to Christ in specific and not just faith in general:

Faith and Reason
Aquinas sees reason and faith as two ways of knowing. "Reason" covers what we can know by experience and logic alone. From reason, we can know that there is a God and that there is only one God; these truths about God are accessible to anyone by experience and logic alone, apart from any special revelation from God.
"Faith" covers what we can know by God's special revelation to us (which comes through the Bible and Christian Tradition). By faith, we can know that God came into the world through Jesus Christ and that God is triune (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). These truths about God cannot be known by reason alone.

Faith builds on reason. Since faith and reason are both ways of arriving at truth -- and since all truths are harmonious with each other -- faith is consistent with reason. If we understand faith and reason correctly, there will be no conflict between what faith tells us and what reason tells us.

im afraid that Im more or less derailing the thread with my question about faith / proof in connection with the shroud.


Reason" covers what we can know by experience and logic alone. From reason, we can know that there is a God and that there is only one God; these truths about God are accessible to anyone by experience and logic alone

Id be interested how that works, but, i suppose its for some other thread, not one on the shroud. Thanks tho.

Since faith is NOT about taking something based on LACK of evidence then it means that any proof about the existence of God does not/should not impact faith in a negative way.
Does that answer your question then?

Audie,

You may continue discussing faith. I splitted the topic.

1over137 wrote:Audie,

You may continue discussing faith. I splitted the topic.

So i see, thanks!

PaulSacramento wrote:Since faith is NOT about taking something based on LACK of evidence then it means that any proof about the existence of God does not/should not impact faith in a negative way.
Does that answer your question then?

How does that go with this?
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

I see reference to evidence or proof of God, I am curious about that proof / evidence.

One could say in the presence of proof that gravity will hold you down, there is no place for faith.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Since faith is NOT about taking something based on LACK of evidence then it means that any proof about the existence of God does not/should not impact faith in a negative way.
Does that answer your question then?

How does that go with this?
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

I see reference to evidence or proof of God, I am curious about that proof / evidence.

One could say in the presence of proof that gravity will hold you down, there is no place for faith.

Your question was that if we have proof of God, where does that leave faith? ( or something along those lines):

If there is proof of God, then of what use is faith?

The answer is that faith is about having faith IN God, not just having faith that He exists.

Proof of God existence doesn't = faith in God by the way.
The demons and fallen angels ALL know that God exists BUT they have no faith in Him.

You can't keep thinking that faith = belief without need of evidence because it doesn't mean that (though it CAN mean that for some).

There is a faith that is based on divine revelation of the personal kind ( God makes Himself know to you personally) but even that faith has SOME evidence ( God making Himself known to you).
If you believe in God VIA the bible then your faith is based on the evidence IN the Bible.
If you believe VIA what you are told by other believers then your faith is based on the evidence THEY present to you.

In short, faith is ALWAYS base don some evidence and that is why absolute proof that God exists does NOT effect faith in a negative way but should strengthen it.