Probability of the existence of God

Hi iano, I think there is a difference in faith and belief. Give me your thoughts on the following.You can believe without having faith. But you can not have faith with out believing.Paul in telling his conversion story to King Agrippa in Acts 26: 13-19 states in verse 18 that Jesus said: "To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith THAT IS IN ME."Jesus said I am sanctified by the faith that is in Jesus. Faith comes to the individual when he hears and obeys (Because you have not heard it until you obey it.) the Word of God.Therefore the faith that gives me the 100% certainty that God exists was given to me when I heard the Word and received Jesus Christ as my personal Savior. Like Paul did on the road to Damascus when he met Jesus and said: What would you have me to do?"God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I'm trying to understand what you're saying. Let's see if I've got it. "Faith" can mean:(1) Belief in Something (in this case, God)
(2) Non-Empirical Evidence for the BeliefFirst off, it's completely unfair to use two definitions for a word that is in such hot contention on this forum (I mean "faith"). Second, it's unfair to use two definitions of the word "evidence," which, to scientists, only encompasses empirical evidence. Therefore, for the sake of the various discussions on this website, I submit that your second definition for "faith" is irrelevant, because, being immaterial, it fits better in a category with the "belief" definition of faith than it does in a category that includes empirical evidence. This has caused an inordinate amount of confusion on many "science is faith"-type discussions on this website, and has made a lot of mostly-sane people got bananas.But, that's not the point. This is:In the #2 definition, the "evidence" referred to is, no doubt, a spiritual witness or manifestation that lends credence to the definition-#1 type of faith.This brings up an interesting dilemma in my mind: I have such a spiritual witness/manifestation/conviction concerning the truthfulness of my specific religion, and you have the same for your religion. I assume that your "spiritual" manifestation was, essentially, an emotional experience (simply because that's what most believers claim). So, the type or "substance" (forgive the poor terminology) of our convictions is essentially the same. Yet, from our past discussions, the object of our convictions is clearly very different.Surely this must raise some sort of questions in your mind? How can our convictions or manifestations be the same, yet be about different (even contradictory) things? This must automatically lower the "probability" factor for the truthfulness of any given religion (and of the very existence of God) at least a notch? Doesn't the "evidence" just boil down to "my word against yours," anyway? How does this constitute evidence, then?Essentially, for any one of our spiritual convictions to be "true," we would necessitate millions of other peoples' spiritual convictions to be at least partially false. How could anybody be so sure of their personal emotional (or "spiritual," if you prefer) witness as to simply shrug off everyone else's essentially equal spiritual convictions as false?From the get-go, it is an assumption on my part that my feelings are more reliable than yours. I've seen, through your arguments, that your convictions are at least as solid as mine, so there is no reason for me to assume what I feel is superior. But, my entire argument for the veracity of my religion is that my own feelings trump yours, even though mine are clearly not superior to yours or, indeed, special in any particular way.How is this enough evidence for ICANT and Wumpini to declare 100% probability of God's existence?Edited by Bluejay, : Better wording in a few places

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

Hi Bluejay, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said: First of all my spiritual convictions are not due to my personal emotional witness. I just believe God. Jesus said He was the only way.I must believe Him and do things His way.I can not afford to be wrong because there is only one way.I am either 100% correct, or I am 100% wrong.Therefore I have spent some 60 years searching for the truth. I studied Greek, and Hebrew so I could understand the original texts. I study every day and ask the Holy Spirit to lead me in all truth.Jesus promised me if I would trust Him He would save me and give me eternal life. He promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide me in all truth.Jesus can not lie, therefore resting on His promises I am 100% sure I will see Him one day and He will say enter into the joys of thy Lord. Not because of anything I have ever done. If I received what I deserved He would say depart from me ye worker of iniquity. I am glad I will not get what I deserve but what He promised me for believing that He Is and that He Will do what He said He would do.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hello, ICANT. Then, what are they based on? My understanding is that the Spirit communicates through emotions (or something similar to emotions). Without the emotional content, what on Earth makes you choose to follow the Bible, instead of Webster's Dictionary or the Guinness Book of World Records?There is nothing of religious value in the Bible if there is no emotional witness of the Spirit. The only reason the Bible is worth anything is because of the witness people get from it. And, if you don't even have that witness, how can you be so certain that there is 100% probability of a God? But, why? And, how does this give you 100% probability of being right? How do you feel the Spirit, if not by your feelings? I don't want to mess with your beliefs (I agree with you on this), but we only know this because He told us. This is circular logic. We believe Him, because He can't lie, and we know He can't lie because He told us He can't, and we believe Him when He says this because... it won't stop.There's got to be something behind your belief in God, other than just a belief: otherwise it's completely foolish--you might as well base a religion on National Geographic as the Bible without an emotional conviction. And, if it's just a belief, with no supporting conviction, how could it possibly stand up to empirical evidence and manage even a couple percent probability of being right? Is this an admission that you might be wrong? If you might be wrong, you can't say the probability that you're right is 100% (as you did earlier in the thread).

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

I can't see how unfairness comes into the issue of a word having different meanings. Words very frequently do have different meanings. Since CS and I are discussing what the Bible has to say about faith and the Bible indicates (as least) two meanings for the same words ...- I'm afraid the scientists will have to get over it. The fact that evidence need not be empirical is established by the necessity to add the adjective ”empirical’ to the word in the case of that class of evidence.- That’s about the size of it. Evidence (of whatever kind) lends credence to a belief (of whatever kind).- First things first. If you look out the window right now and see a garden and I look out the window right now and see an industrial estate we can say we share a common evidence-transmission mechanism (that is: sight) but the evidence being transmitted is different. We might agree our convictions and manifestations aren't the same - but would agree that the evidence-transmission mechanism is the same (let’s call it "spiritual sight").There is no need for me to be concerned that you "see" different things to me. The Bible 'predicts' and explains the nature of other convictions and manifestations - meaning their occurance actually raises my confidence in the Bible.- There is nothing to stop God from evidencing himself to a person in a non-empirical way. Let's suppose he has done so with me. I would now know that God exists (if not in the minds of Philosophers of Knowledge perhaps - but let's wrest control of the English language from them). Let us also suppose that God reveals that a persons salvation is indeed by Gods grace apart from works. I get to know that truth too. Now to your question.My certainly would have arisen from something God has done - there being no reliance upon me in any of the proceedings which result in my being rendered certain or maintaining that certainty. If I were the only person in the world to whom God revealed himself and this truth, it wouldn't alter my being certain (assuming God maintained certainty in me > by faith = evidence). Because God is the one who is active and me passive there is no need for me to address non-sensical questions such as "how can you be certain it is God and not satan?"That's how I "shrug off" any belief system which would, for example, suppose a persons eternal standing before God/god to revolve around their own works - as false. That another would stand up and state themselves certain of something else by similar mechanism is neither here nor there to me. This is how I do the shrugging off - without doubt in my mind. What they do is their affair.- I don't think it's possible to argue ones religion to be objectively true or special or superior.. to be honest. So I don't really try too hard to do that. My purpose here is to trundle around on a Trojan Horse of intellectual discussion whilst leaking as much of the gospel of God as I can. I believe (with Paul) that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Not my arguments.- I can't see how either of them could state 100% probability. Probability would stand outside the realm of whatever pesonal conviction they may have. They could state themselves to be 100% personally convinced (as I do). That would be a different matter.

I knew I could count on you to deliver the goods. Now, if only I had the brains to understand them. This is true: I have no contention with this.My contention is that the "substance" of the term is more important in defining it than is its usage. I want to ask you this question: What is the difference between believing in something non-empirical based on non-empirical evidence, and just believing in something non-empirical?At their roots, both require me to believe in something non-empirical to begin with. That makes them more similar to each other than to "empirical evidence." But, I only see the necessity of putting an adjective before the word "evidence" when I'm talking about science with people who claim that faith is also "evidence." Outside of this circle, I never have to say "empirical" before "evidence." What you've got is a tautology: it uses your own argument (that faith is evidence) to validate your argument (that faith is evidence). There are actually three factors in this analogy though: the "information," the "mechanism," and the "source." The source is, of course, the thing from which the light is reflecting into our eyes. In your analogy, the reason we receive different information is because the information has two different sources, not because the information is different (if we had the same source, we would likely receive the same information).But, under the assumptions of our Western, dualism-based worldviews, there are only two possible sources of spiritual "information": God and Satan. In my analogy, we (all Christians) purport to share the same source (i.e. the Bible or God) and signal-transmission mechanism (i.e. spiritual manifestation), but get different information from it.The fact that we get different information could be because the information is coming from multiple different sources (God vs. Satan vs. Whatever Else). Maybe, the "spiritual" information's source is just a Hallmark tear-jerker movie (I'm man enough to admit I've been "touched" by one of those before--but, not man enough to admit it to my wife ).The point that I have is not that I think you're mistaken for your spiritual beliefs (I actually respect you for your conviction), but that this sort of "information" or "evidence" cannot be the basis of actual, solid "knowledge" about God (unless you have an alternate definition of "knowledge," too--which would also be a red herring), so it shouldn't be factored into any attempts at identifying probabilities.

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

The difference is about the same as the difference between believing in something empirical based on empirical evidence and just believing in something empirical. The former makes logical sense whereas the latter is a nonsense (to my mind) - no one believes empirical things without empirical evidence enabling the belief.To say you believe there is a computer screen on front of you without referring to the evidence of a computer screen on front of you in some way would be problematic... Most of what we talk about is empirical. Which is why we don't need to say empirical evidence all the time. But were one to question the evidence which leads a person to tell you of the dream they had last night we would quickly get into the non-empirical. But that's besides the point. That point is that ..Faith = evidence is a definition. Definitions are always tautological. Dog = {insert description of dog} vs. {insert description of dog} = Dog. I'm not so much arguing as pointing out the definition. My analogy took a baseline approach to the issue of different religions (as opposed to the people associated with those religions). In that sense I would certainly hold that anyone depending (in their heart - and I don't mean the fluid pump) upon own works for rightstanding before God is in for a nasty shock.There is much room for same source interpretation however. We would have to reckon upon tint of spectacles (if worn). Long/short vision etc. It gets complicated: will there be Mormons (your label) saved? I think so. Will there be evangelical Christians (my label) lost? I think so.- It's 'solid' that should have gotten the quotes. Knowledge is what you know. Solid, I suggest, is your word for describing a particular way of getting know particular things. Likely; empirical things ...I wouldn't dream of trying to assign (to another person) probabilities for Gods existance based on any class of evidence I could present. 1 and 0 - the only answers worth a damn - cannot be arrived at secondhand to my mind. Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I have no contention with this at all: this is not what bothered me. What bothered me was this: We only have to add the adjective because some people think there are other forms of evidence, so this statement does not establish the fact that evidence can be non-empirical: it only establishes the fact that some people think faith is evidence. That shouldn't have been word "non-empirical," because the phrase "empirical" refers to the way you get something, not to the something itself. I was trying too hard to keep uniform terminology, and it fell apart on me.I'll try again:What's the difference between believing in something immaterial based on immaterial evidence, and believing in something immaterial?It's the same thing. Just like believing in something material based on material evidence is the same as believing in something material. Since both definitions of faith describe things that are immaterial, they are more like one another than either is like "material evidence."

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

I would have thought that a thought is an obvious example of non-empirical evidence. That I find my non-empirical thoughts frequently turning to my wife-to-be evidences the empirical and non-empirical impact she has come to have on my life.The above is an example of the application of a simple dictionary definition of evidence: a thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment. There is no demand that the thing or things be empirical. (ps: I checked and 'thing' need not be empirical either )- If someone believes in something material they only do so because of evidence of some description. In that sense the statements are the same - the latter simply not mentioning the basis for the belief in the material thing.So to the case of immaterial belief. I cannot comprehend what kind of belief a person would be talking about were they to say that they believe something for which they have no evidence. I don't mean the evidence need to be direct. But there must be some kind of evidence supporting the belief. Granted. I'm not sure what point you are making here but to recap.I have faith/I believe that my brakes will stop me next time I press them. The reason I have faith/believe is because I have empirical evidence as to the good working order of my brakes.I have faith/I believe that Jesus Christ is lives. The reason I have faith/believe is because I have non-empirical evidence of his existance within me.Material belief on account of material evidence
Immaterial belief on account of immaterial evidence

At the moment I'm working of two meanings of faith. Which is not to say there isn't more. I'm not working off a dictionary definition of faith that would have the belief involved running around blind as a bat. My understanding of the word belief (whether spiritual belief or otherwise) requires that there be evidence available to support that belief. Onto your statement:- Definition #1 (faith = belief) has faith and belief meaning the same thing - clearly that definition can't fit either of your statements.Definition #2 (faith = evidence of a type) see's faith as the evidence underpinning a belief. In order for you to believe you must have faith (evidence) so you're first statement doesn't work. Your second statement doesn't work with this definition either. It is possible that a person can be in possession of evidence but not believe what that evidence points to. For instance, there is plenty of scientific evidence pointing to ToE but I don't believe in ToE.In the spiritual sense the Holy Spirit attempts to convict the world of sin righteousness and judgment. The attempt to convict involves his presentation of evidence to a person - yet many will not believe. They are described as perishing because they "refused to love the truth" revealed to them. That they had evidence sufficient is patent in the fact that they are also described as being without excuse.- How do you read "...by the faith that is in me"? Do you read it as the NIV puts it (which appears to read as per definition #1):

quote:

---

... so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'

---

If you agree that faith = belief in this instance then I read it that my belief in Christ is the entry ticket (as it were) to the process whereby I will be taken in hand and sanctified by God. The entry ticket itself isn't the thing which sanctifies - but without it I wouldn't get exposed to that which actually does the sanctification work.Elsewhere Jesus tells us that we are to be sanctified with the truth - God's word being truth. God's truth moving in to displace the lies and deception with which we are polluted would appear to me to be the pinpoint technical description of what sanctification itself involves. Thus, in the loose sense we are sanctified by our belief as entry ticket. And in the strict application sense, by Gods truth.- Same thing with me. Hallelujah!!It seems that both definitions of faith are employed here. You heard the evidence(=faith) when God arranged it so that you could hear it. That evidence (=faith) led to you belief (=faith) in a need for Christ. That belief(=faith) brought you to your knees. God subsequently gave you evidence(=faith) of his existance sufficient to raise your belief(=faith) to 100% - just as he did me.Perhaps the evidence/belief cycle that would explain this curious verse:

quote:

---

Romans 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith:

---

Re-reading: For therein (in the gospel) is the righteousness of God revealed from evidence (leading) to belief. Interestingly, salvation by faith would more accurately described as salvation by evidence. We are saved by our faith=belief but only because of God first supplying us with faith=evidence. Evidence precedes conviction.- Interesting verse. All them that believe what? From Pauls use of Abraham a couple of chapters on from here we might conclude that it is all who do as Abraham did, ie: believe... God.

Hi, Iano. First off, I apologize for the last message: I wrote it in an incredible hurry, and my mind was all over the place as I did. I promise to never again post something important while I'm in that much of a hurry.Somehow, these discussions always manage to get back to defining faith. The point that I had with this was that, when we get into those debates about "science is faith-based," and a scientist defines faith as "belief without evidence," they mean "empirical evidence." And, this always gets creationists in a tizzy. Then, the evolutionists try to correct their blunder by tacking "objective" or "empirical" before the word "evidence." Neither can I. But, ICANT said it just a few messages back (#108). I'm sure he's talking about something that simply doesn't fit in my mindset, rather than something that is completely nonsensical, but it still sounds strange to me. This was the way to tie it back into the topic. Since probabilities are assigned based on material evidence (I've never heard of immaterial evidence used for figuring probabilities--although they'd probably be good for determining immaterial probabilities ), I was trying to make the point that faith (of either definition) is not useful in determining the probability of God's existence (I'm not sure why I was trying to make it to you, though--maybe because you were the most liable to help me state it clearly ).Since most Christians seem to think of God as at least quasi-material, using immaterial evidence as proof is problematic. Since immaterial evidence is more akin to immaterial belief than it is to material evidence, it isn't equatable with material evidence. For this reason, I submit that material evidence trumps immaterial evidence when dealing with material subjects, just as immaterial evidence trumps material evidence when dealing with immaterial subjects.So, the only evidence that could realistically be considered as support for God's physical, material existence, would be material evidence, of which there is none.Maybe I should have directed this more toward Wumpini: I hope he's still reading this.

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

Hi jay, WHY?I studied the Bible.
I heard the Word preached. I came to the conclusions the Bible was true and I needed to obey it. I came to a decision in my mind not the carnal body, to take God at His Word.
When I did this the Holy Spirit came in and sealed my soul until the day of redemption. Then and only then did I have any emotional feelings in my physical body.The emotions come and go.The fact that I asked God to save me because His Son died for my sins on the Cross of Calvary and God saved me by His Grace and Unmerited favor because He said He would if I would believe in Him has never wavered and no man can take that away from me. We must believe that God is. We have no other choice.We must believe that He will do what He says He will do.It is impossible to be saved if you don't.When I asked God to save me He gave me all the faith I will ever need. Because it is His faith.That is why I can say I am 100% sure I will see God and hear enter into the joys of thy Lord.ABE I hope this also answers you questions in msg 116 If not express your exact concerns and I will try to clarify. There are too many people that have an emotional experience only.God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : Address concerns of Bluejay in msg 116.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

If non-empirical entities (such as thoughts) can be construed as evidence surely that means that we can all claim evidence for the existence of pretty much anything our imagination is capable of conjuring up?Winged horses, little green men that live in the wall, time travel, alternate histories ec. etc.
I can think of all of these things? Is that evidence for their existence?
How can we possibly divide that which is real with that which is the product of delusion and fantasy if we follow your view of "evidence"?Just because you think about your wife doesn't mean she actually exists. She could be an imaginary wife for all I know.
However I presume that other people have actually met her and that there is in fact empirical evidence for her existence including family, friends, dwellings possessions, physical life history etc. etc.?If nobody else had ever seen your wife, if not a single other person had ever witnessed any evidence for the existence of the person you call your wife, if we could find no physical evidence for the existence of this person at all - could we reliably say that she actually exists based on your thoughts and assertions alone? Or might we think your are a poor deluded individual desperately in need of companionship and therapy?Are thoughts really evidence for anything? If I beleieve something to be true are you really claiming that this is evidence for it being true?"Evidence" that can be considered reliable enough to actually justify that term "evidence" has to be material as only material evidence can be independently assessed and mutually corroborated in any way at all.Anything else is unreliable (but possibly accurate) at best, and dangerously delusional at worst with no way to tell the two apart.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You don't seem to have read the example given. Certainly this... ...doesn't deal with it. You seem to be overlooking the fact that if I am to suppose my wife-to-be not to exist I must also suppose everyone else not to exist. Which kind of renders the empirical currency you set so much stall by...worthless.I assume my wife-to-be exists. And deduce what I deduce from my thoughts. ...were it not for the fact that an simple, everyday example torpedos that notion below the waterline. The empiricists, thankfully, don't own the word evidence nor the dictionary in which the word is defined.

quote:

---

...doesn't deal with it. You seem to be overlooking the fact that if I am to suppose my wife-to-be not to exist I must also suppose everyone else not to exist. Which kind of renders the empirical currency you set so much stall by...worthless

---

So what you are telling us is that your ONLY reason for believing that your "wife-to-be" exists is that you think of her. You have never seen her with your eyes, touched her or heard her voice. And that you would rather deny the existence of everybody else than accept that this imaginary woman does not exist.Or perhaps your argument is in fact wrong and you just don't want to admit it. People can and do think of fictional and inaginary characters. Therefore simply thinking of someone is NOT evidence that they exist.