Can faith exist if there is proof?

I don’t think it is an either/or thing. It can be both.

Proof can be an acknowledgement that faith is, in fact, merited.

What would anyone consider “proof” of God?
Believers see “proof” in sunsets and babies. But not spiders.

It’s a hypothetical. Just roll with it.

Giant omnipotent jellyfish descends from the heavens raining manna. Whatever. :P

If she comes down, or, she reveals herself, and she can prove without a doubt that she is indeed God, then I will be flabbergasted, and probably going to follow her.
But not the church, or the book.
Just her.

@Dutchess_III For a vehement theist you sure seem to know what everyone else thinks

“Believers see “proof” in sunsets and babies. But not spiders. ” Some of us see more evidence of a cosmic force by observing spiders than by noting the diversity of opinions on fluther.

It was a joke ßZen.

Proof to me, via answered prayer or a miracle, may not be proof to you or anyone else. We take it on faith that it is God, and not random.

Believers do see God in unlikely places, like @Dutchess_III said.
But it’s not proof as in quantifiable results, that is faith.

“As I understand it, religion is currently based on faith.”
– No.
– “Faith” is a term and concept focused on mainly by some Christians, who have peculiarly chosen it as a central theme.

So for those people, particularly for Christian literalists who have doubts, proof would tend to be a big deal, and yes it would shift Christian discourse.

Of course, if there’s a clear appearance of a god and it’s NOT Christian, then Christian discourse would really shift… or at least, I’d hope it would. On second thought, the evidence that the Bible is not literally accurate, and that it’s mostly borrowed ideas from older more interesting religions, doesn’t seem to phase them, so other gods walking around would probably just be handwaved away as tests by the Christian God or Christian devils or who-knows-what.

Meanwhile, people who get actual spiritual and/or other value out of their religions, appreciate the reality of that value and of their experiences. Blatant displays of the supernatural tend to be unexpected and beside the point of the spiritual and wisdom content, though they’re interesting.

@KNOWITALL Hmmm…okay. I should rephrase that then.

Can faith exist with quantifiable results?

@Zaku Hmmm is the concept of faith a Christian-specific idea?

“…other gods walking around would probably just be handwaved away as tests by the Christian God or Christian devils or who-knows-what.”

Ha!

@elbanditoroso Proof can be an acknowledgement that faith [was], in fact, merited.

You mean, past tense?
Is faith still merited if there is proof?

@raum I’ll just post some reference material here, you can decide.

But as a scientist I set my standards for miracles very high. And I don’t think we should try to convince agnostics or atheists about the reality of faith with claims about miracles that they can easily poke holes in.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/one-of-the-worlds-most-powerful-scientists-believes-in-miracles/

Outcome Assessment
This argument or proof does not establish the actual existence of a supernatural deity. It attempts to argue for the existence of such a being by offering evidence that is highly questionable and for which there are alternative and often more plausible explanations. While the argument can not be used to convert a non-believer to a believer, the faults in the argument do not prove that there is no god. The Burden of Proof demands that the positive claim that there is a supernatural deity be established by reason and evidence and this argument does not meet that standard. The believer in god can use this argument to establish the mere logical possibility that there is a supernatural deity or at least that it is not irrational to believe in the possibility that there is such a being but the argument does not establish any degree of probability at all when there are alternative explanations for the reports of experiences offered. The veracity of the reports has not been established.

https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Miracles.htm

@raum Yes, though the other branches of the same (Abrahamic) religious tradition (e.g. Islam and Judaism) have some parallel focus, the main difference being they each want their own flavor to be accepted as the one true one.

However even that argument pre-dates the argument with materialist skeptics. There used to be few who questioned that a god or gods existed, and so the central question was actually about which god, or which flavor of the Abrahamic god, one insisted was the one true god. e.g. The Islamic flavor is like “There is no one worthy of worship but Allah.”

Not so much in other religions, at least from what I’ve seen.

Consider for example this advice by Siddhãrtha Gautama (Buddha):

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.

Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.

Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.

Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

There can be no 100% water tight proof that God exists. There is always the possibility that you are hallucinating the “proof” or that the proof is being staged by super advanced aliens. Faith will always have its place.

If there were proof positive that “God” did exist, we’d all be sucking up to him all of the time. We’d be killing each other to be first in line!

@kritiper Isn’t that the truth!

@raum

“Giant omnipotent jellyfish descends from the heavens raining manna. Whatever. :P”

▲ That gives me faith in HP Lovecraft, whom I know existed. ;-) ▲

If there is proof then.faith will have to change
But I doubt many people would have the courage to change.

Faith is the kind of thing cults invent to sell their flavor of bullshit. It’s actually the perfect example and whoever made that up was a genius. Religion is more or less that + time and success of selling said bullshit.

If a God is proven to exist, religious people will say it is because they had faith.

“Whoever made it up” was not a genius. They were a Huckster who saw a money opportunity.

I do not believe in anything.

@Caravan You believe in science, don’t you, doc?

If there was proof that God exists then there would be no need of faith.

@Dutchess_III The two are not mutually exclusive. Faith as a psychological hook was quite an innovation that some very smart huckster came up with.

Seems like you first need to define God. What does it take to be a god and what does it take to prove it. If you can change water into wine are you a god? Hell, any Las Vegas magician can do that. There has been a lot of discussion lately about UFOs and they seem to be able to defy the laws of physics, does that make them the hand of god? Or maybe they are just angels. No matter how you slice it, you first need to define what it is. Then you can go about proving it. How ever you define it, a certain amount of faith is required that the definition is correct and that the definition will not mutate like a virus.

@Blackwater_Park…faith comes about when you teach “You’ll burn in hell if you don’t believe this BS I’m feeding you. You’ll also burn in hell if you don’t give me 10% of your income.”
Faith is born of fear.

@KNOWITALL No. I do not “believe” in science. I accept results based upon the best available evidence of the time. If the evidence changes, then I will change my point of view.

@Caravan I could debate you on the semantics, but ppint taken. :)

@KNOWITALL You wouldn’t be the first. It would be a very frustrating debate. :-)

@Caravanfan Yeah, I don’t like when people say they “believe” in science. That’s just turning science into a matter of faith, which seems to undermine it. I know people mean well when they say it, but it rubs me the wrong way.

As for the OP, I think the whole point of faith is that there won’t be direct empirical evidence. Faith is the only alternative. I think for the Abrahamic religions, the bigger issue is free will. Free will fills in the gaps in doctrine: why there is evil, why there are multiple religions, why God doesn’t just “show himself”. The answer in all cases is “free will”. If there is “proof”, then the free will factor is taken away, which undermines the point of belief/faith in God.

@Dutchess_III

Atheism is your belief, your god. Seek below:

“Is atheism considered a religion?
A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being, (or beings, for polytheistic faiths) nor must it be a mainstream faith.” Thus, the court concluded, atheism is equivalent to religion for purposes of the First Amendment and Kaufman should have been given the right to meet to discuss atheism…”

Is Atheism a Religion? Recent Judicial Perspectives on the Constitutional…https://academic.oup.com › jcs › article-pdf

It is not my “god.” It is what I accept, based on the evidence.

@Demosthenes He actually said he believes in nothing, but he and I have had many conversations over the years regarding vaccines, Covid, etc.., thus I was really just teasing him by saying that. :)

It kind of hurts my heart to hear someone say they believe in nothing, and for some reason, @Caravanfan has made me care about him. Talk about miracles…there’s one, I can’t stand most people.

thanks @KNOWITALL!

@Dutchess_III Are you teasing me?! You know I like YOU!

I think in Real Life have more atheist/other friends than Christian friends at this point.

It’s interesting seeing so many churches close here, too. Too bad we can’t use them for the homeless or unsheltered.

Yeah, I’m teasing you!

Good idea. A lot of churches here are closing.too.

@Dutchess It will be interesting to see what’s left in 20–30 years.

@KNOWITALL I didn’t say I believed in nothing. I said I don’t believe in anything. There’s an important but subtle difference. Believing in nothing implies that I don’t care about anything. When I say I don’t believe in anything what I mean is that I need to see empirical evidence for something (or have trusted sources convince me) that something is true or not. (And, for the record, I think you’re great! One of my favorite online peeps. I like you better than @Dutchess_III anyway).

Now you’re in trouble @Caravanfan! See if I ask you about white baby poop ever again!

@Caravan Good, that felt emotionally bankrupt and in all conversations here you’ve been very open and caring. It confused me. :)
Haha @Dutchess_III now THAT is funny. No telling what the dov gets asked here!! So what was the answer?

It was on text, actually.
His answer was “I dunno.” Sigh. Guess I need a different doctor.

@Dutchess_III You sure as hell need a different doctor. I am really useless. Just ask @KNOWITALL

@Dutchess_III Besides I know shit about kids. (See what I did there?)

Haha! You know shit about grown up too!

@Dutchess_III You have no idea how literally true that is.

@Caravanfan Useless? Never!

I want you to come be our anti-vaxx coordinator for awhile. Ever been to the Midwest? Ha!