• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is the Relationship Between Faith and Evidence?

Daisy

"Make sure of the more important things."
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
55,124
Reaction score
16,380
Location
Down South
Gender
Female
I keep hearing comments about faith being blind...there is no proof...yet J Warner Wallace is able to make the connection between faith and evidence...faith is not blind but is based on good evidence...not complete proof but reasonable evidence...

J. Warner Wallace answers questions about Christianity in his “Think Like a Detective” series on RightNow Media, the “Netflix of Christian Bible Studies”. In this video, J. Warner talks about various definitions related to belief and faith. Is Biblical faith blind? What is the relationship between evidence and “faith”? What do we mean when we talk about “forensic faith”?

 
Wallace is a joke. The religious have no clue what evidence actually is. They think that anything they can rationalize to make them feel better about their pre-existing beliefs qualifies as evidence and nothing could be further from the truth. Just because you want it to be true, that's not evidence that it is true. Just because you can't dream up a better explanation doesn't mean the explanation that makes you feel good is the right explanation. Just because a particular religious book gives you a warm fuzzy, that's not evidence that the book is true. The religious have no clue what evidence is, which is why they wind up looking so ridiculous when they trot it out.

Maybe they should do better.
 
Why are Christians always trying to convince themselves that their beliefs are correct?
 
Wallace is a joke. The religious have no clue what evidence actually is. They think that anything they can rationalize to make them feel better about their pre-existing beliefs qualifies as evidence and nothing could be further from the truth. Just because you want it to be true, that's not evidence that it is true. Just because you can't dream up a better explanation doesn't mean the explanation that makes you feel good is the right explanation. Just because a particular religious book gives you a warm fuzzy, that's not evidence that the book is true. The religious have no clue what evidence is, which is why they wind up looking so ridiculous when they trot it out.

Maybe they should do better.

He makes a living at being a cold case forensic investigator...:roll:
 
Wallace is a joke. The religious have no clue what evidence actually is. They think that anything they can rationalize to make them feel better about their pre-existing beliefs qualifies as evidence and nothing could be further from the truth. Just because you want it to be true, that's not evidence that it is true. Just because you can't dream up a better explanation doesn't mean the explanation that makes you feel good is the right explanation. Just because a particular religious book gives you a warm fuzzy, that's not evidence that the book is true. The religious have no clue what evidence is, which is why they wind up looking so ridiculous when they trot it out.

Maybe they should do better.

They cannot do better. They cannot look at things with an open mind.
 
He makes a living at being a cold case forensic investigator...:roll:

Which doesn't stop him from being an irrational moron when it comes to religion. Are you going to answer the post or just appeal to authority?
 
They cannot do better. They cannot look at things with an open mind.

They can do better, but they couldn't have religious beliefs if they did, which is the point. Ultimately, all theist arguments come down to "because I really want it to be true" and then they use ad hoc rationalizations to cherry pick data points that they can interpret to support their side. They cannot start with a blank slate and follow the evidence to a conclusion, they start with a conclusion and ignore all of the evidence that shows them wrong. If they had evidence, they wouldn't need faith. They never think about that.
 
Which doesn't stop him from being an irrational moron when it comes to religion. Are you going to answer the post or just appeal to authority?

There was a question in that babble?:2razz:
 
Why are Christians always trying to convince themselves that their beliefs are correct?

Because ultimately, it's all about feelings, not about facts. It's why, if you'll notice, the overwhelming majority of religious apologists are only preaching to the choir. They aren't out legitimately trying to convert the heathens because they have nothing to do it with. If they make an attempt, no matter how badly they lose, they always run back to their side proclaiming victory. This isn't about finding the actual truth, it's about protecting their emotional comfort.

And these people think that's a rational thing to do.
 
I keep hearing comments about faith being blind...there is no proof...yet J Warner Wallace is able to make the connection between faith and evidence...faith is not blind but is based on good evidence...not complete proof but reasonable evidence...






There are several definitions of "proof". There is a mathematical one...and there is a legal one (beyond reasonable doubt).


Let's grant this guy the luxury of just having the legal definition.

Where is the evidence that god exists, beyond reasonable doubt?
 
There are several definitions of "proof". There is a mathematical one...and there is a legal one (beyond reasonable doubt).


Let's grant this guy the luxury of just having the legal definition.

Where is the evidence that god exists, beyond reasonable doubt?

Look in the mirror...you exist, don't you? How about your loved ones? You have air to breathe? Food to eat? You live in relative happiness? Life is good? You can thank God for that and much more...
 
Look in the mirror...you exist, don't you? How about your loved ones? You have air to breathe? Food to eat? You live in relative happiness? Life is good? You can thank God for that and much more...

I don’t really understand those kinds of assertions. No effort is made to connect the dots on why any of those things have anything to do with a god. They’re just big claims made on the God’s behalf.

Plus, if these things were good indications that there is a god, wouldn’t this mean if I wasn’t living in relative happiness, if I didn’t have enough food to eat and if life was a constant struggle, then I have good reason to believe there isn’t a god?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I don’t really understand those kinds of assertions. No effort is made to connect the dots on why any of those things have anything to do with a god. They’re just big claims made on the God’s behalf.

Plus, if these things were good indications that there is a god, wouldn’t this mean if I wasn’t living in relative happiness, if I didn’t have enough food to eat and if life was a constant struggle, then I have good reason to believe there isn’t a god?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Life itself is a gift...it's up to you what you do with it...some of the poorest people in the world are happy because they understand there is more to life than things...
 
There are several definitions of "proof". There is a mathematical one...and there is a legal one (beyond reasonable doubt).


Let's grant this guy the luxury of just having the legal definition.

Where is the evidence that god exists, beyond reasonable doubt?

It doesn't exist.
 
Look in the mirror...you exist, don't you? How about your loved ones? You have air to breathe? Food to eat? You live in relative happiness? Life is good? You can thank God for that and much more...

Look at the trees!

Welcome to the argument from ignorance!
 
Can you make a tree?

Nope, but I can make a god. So can anyone. And my made up god has every bit as much evidence for it as yours.
 
Nope, but I can make a god. So can anyone. And my made up god has every bit as much evidence for it as yours.

You can't make a god who makes a tree...:2razz:
 
You can't make a god who makes a tree...:2razz:

No, but I can make up stories about a god that made the trees, just like Christianity did.
 
Why are Christians always trying to convince themselves that their beliefs are correct?

Not me, and not most of my Christian friends either.

What amazes us is how shallow and narrow-minded atheists and agnostics are concerning the numerous evidences for Christ and Christianity. Very few of them have ever done any substantial investigations of the evidences of the New Testament. Usually it's at best a quick, superficial reading of the Bible, without digging deeper into the Gospels and other evidences.
 
Not me, and not most of my Christian friends either.

What amazes us is how shallow and narrow-minded atheists and agnostics are concerning the numerous evidences for Christ and Christianity. Very few of them have ever done any substantial investigations of the evidences of the New Testament. Usually it's at best a quick, superficial reading of the Bible, without digging deeper into the Gospels and other evidences.


I've read parts of the New Testament in ancient Greek. Been there, done that.
 
I've read parts of the New Testament in ancient Greek. Been there, done that.

It's always funny to watch the religious claim atheists don't know about their silly book of multiple choice when we know a lot more about it than they do.
 
It's always funny to watch the religious claim atheists don't know about their silly book of multiple choice when we know a lot more about it than they do.


I've read a lot of St. Thomas--and Aristotle who he called "The Philosophy." Also studied St Anselm. Read the entire Bible beginning to end at least once. Not against it, just never understood the whole conversion thing.
 
It's always funny to watch the religious claim atheists don't know about their silly book of multiple choice when we know a lot more about it than they do.

It's also funny to see an atheist claim he has read the Bible once, maybe twice, at most, when Christians spend their whole lives reading and studying the Bible too many times to count...
 
I've read a lot of St. Thomas--and Aristotle who he called "The Philosophy." Also studied St Anselm. Read the entire Bible beginning to end at least once. Not against it, just never understood the whole conversion thing.

Been there, done that, studied the Bible in depth from cover to cover. It's why I'm an atheist. Because reading it, not just picking the parts you like, but reading it all in context and studying what it says and where it came from, all of that will kill religious faith in no time flat.
 
Back
Top Bottom