6 ms·

So what evidence did you eventually find to turn to God if it's not a feelings/faith based thing?

sdegutis 13y ago
If it could be explained in a HN comment, I think there would be many more Christians in the world. That's why there are whole books written on the subject. The only one I still own is The Handbook of Christian Apologetics[1][2] so that's the only one I can recommend. But it does require some faith, just not blind or unreasoning faith, as most people seem to think. [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Christian-Apologetics-Peter-Kreeft/dp/0830817743 http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Christian-Apologetics-Peter-K...
- nbouscal 13y ago
  There's no other kind of faith. Faith literally means "belief without evidence."
  - sdegutis 13y ago
    That's not my definition of faith. But let's not get hung up on semantics and disagreements about definitions. The point I was making is that there is a good deal of evidence, but it also requires a little belief in something that you can't absolutely prove.
    - nbouscal 13y ago
      I don't want to debate with you; I've done more than my share of religious debates in my life and no longer find any joy in them. I also completely agree that debating definitions is rarely useful. I will point out, though, that nobody claims to have faith that the Earth revolves around the Sun, or that the sky is blue. "Faith" connotes a leap; I understand that as a leap from the evidence to the conclusion, covering a gap that cannot be covered by logical reasoning. It's that leap that I take issue with, regardless of which word you choose to label it with. You've repeatedly recommended a book of apologetics throughout the thread. If I could make a recommendation in turn: Critique of Religion and Philosophy, by Walter Kaufmann. I think it can give you much to think about, and from a reasonably friendly perspective.
belluchan 13y ago
I can't reply to you directly. Why is your faith not blind or unreasoning? Can you give me just one specific example of empirical evidence for God's existence? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm guessing you're going to give me some unverifiable testimony from people who died long ago and expect that to have a person question heaps of contrary empirical evidence. I don't think that works. And you are resorting to faith because the evidence isn't good enough. The evidence that explain the things that I believe in, like the existence of this computer in front of me, don't require any faith at all.
- sdegutis 13y ago
  I've found that you can reply directly by clicking the [link] link, which gives you a reply box. "The evidence that explain the things that I believe in, like the existence of this computer in front of me, don't require any faith at all." Not so. You have faith in what your parents told you about the circumstances of your birth. You have no memory of the first year of your life, so it could very well have been made up. But you believe it by faith mixed with reason.
  - belluchan 13y ago
    In this case that's not me using faith, that's using a heuristic. A heuristic is a decent substitute for empirical research, but it is not foolproof. We use heuristics to save time. If we had to do empirical research for everything in our lives we would never have time to do anything. A heuristic is a way to ascertain information quickly. In the case of my birth, there's all kind of evidence to back up my parent's stories including photos, the investment and time spent in raising me. None of this is foolproof evidence, but it's enough to pass my heuristic for this situation. And there are measures I can take to get physical empirical evidence, like a DNA test. The question of who my parents have can be phrased in this way and have an answer "the people who claim to be my parents are not actually my parents if a DNA test disputes their claims." Please I encourage you to phrase a question as I have for your belief in God. Something like "I would not believe in God if X were true." Fill in the X.
    - 13y ago

If it could be explained in a HN comment, I think there would be many more Christians in the world. That's why there are whole books written on the subject. The only one I still own is The Handbook of Christian Apologetics[1][2] so that's the only one I can recommend. But it does require some faith, just not blind or unreasoning faith, as most people seem to think. [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Christian-Apologetics-Peter-Kreeft/dp/0830817743 http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Christian-Apologetics-Peter-K...

nbouscal 13y ago
There's no other kind of faith. Faith literally means "belief without evidence."
- sdegutis 13y ago
  That's not my definition of faith. But let's not get hung up on semantics and disagreements about definitions. The point I was making is that there is a good deal of evidence, but it also requires a little belief in something that you can't absolutely prove.
  - nbouscal 13y ago
    I don't want to debate with you; I've done more than my share of religious debates in my life and no longer find any joy in them. I also completely agree that debating definitions is rarely useful. I will point out, though, that nobody claims to have faith that the Earth revolves around the Sun, or that the sky is blue. "Faith" connotes a leap; I understand that as a leap from the evidence to the conclusion, covering a gap that cannot be covered by logical reasoning. It's that leap that I take issue with, regardless of which word you choose to label it with. You've repeatedly recommended a book of apologetics throughout the thread. If I could make a recommendation in turn: Critique of Religion and Philosophy, by Walter Kaufmann. I think it can give you much to think about, and from a reasonably friendly perspective.

belluchan 13y ago

I can't reply to you directly. Why is your faith not blind or unreasoning? Can you give me just one specific example of empirical evidence for God's existence? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm guessing you're going to give me some unverifiable testimony from people who died long ago and expect that to have a person question heaps of contrary empirical evidence. I don't think that works. And you are resorting to faith because the evidence isn't good enough. The evidence that explain the things that I believe in, like the existence of this computer in front of me, don't require any faith at all.

sdegutis 13y ago
I've found that you can reply directly by clicking the [link] link, which gives you a reply box. "The evidence that explain the things that I believe in, like the existence of this computer in front of me, don't require any faith at all." Not so. You have faith in what your parents told you about the circumstances of your birth. You have no memory of the first year of your life, so it could very well have been made up. But you believe it by faith mixed with reason.
- belluchan 13y ago
  In this case that's not me using faith, that's using a heuristic. A heuristic is a decent substitute for empirical research, but it is not foolproof. We use heuristics to save time. If we had to do empirical research for everything in our lives we would never have time to do anything. A heuristic is a way to ascertain information quickly. In the case of my birth, there's all kind of evidence to back up my parent's stories including photos, the investment and time spent in raising me. None of this is foolproof evidence, but it's enough to pass my heuristic for this situation. And there are measures I can take to get physical empirical evidence, like a DNA test. The question of who my parents have can be phrased in this way and have an answer "the people who claim to be my parents are not actually my parents if a DNA test disputes their claims." Please I encourage you to phrase a question as I have for your belief in God. Something like "I would not believe in God if X were true." Fill in the X.
  - 13y ago