Evidence

The dictionary definition: “evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.” Our beliefs are formed by our views, accepted to varying degrees of strength, of how things really are. Even though we can always be mistaken, when we are 51-100 percent certain we favor it and begin to believe it. I don't believe we can be 100 percent certain, but what we do know leads to the strength of an argument and it's conclusion...a belief.

I believe that you can know God exists without external evidence. It's what philosophers call a "properly basic" belief. That is the subjective evidence that we can each experience in our soul, if we attend to it. I believe that's what the Bible means when it says, "For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So, they have no excuse for not knowing God."

I would add that, if there is no God who issues moral commands in a way that is understood by His creation, then moral values are only invented or imagined. Meaning they're subjective feelings, which can't be disputed in any reasonable way. Although I believe that experiential relevance (or resonating, if you will) is part of the equation, it isn't the whole problem, nor is it a binding value that we can all agree on as a singular standard or piece of evidence for knowing and basing a belief on.

Although I don't doubt that we believe many of the same things, outside of Judeo-Christian revelation and teachings, I'm not sure how we would have the same concept of a "Heavenly Father" or the objective foundation for certain moral responsibilities and duties. The things that we as groups say are objectively "right" or "wrong" or that we "ought" to do or "ought not" do, like murdering babies or hurting people or sleeping around or lying to people when we disagree, greed, etc. One may not like or want various behaviors or criminal activities, but that doesn't make them wrong or evil in any morally objective sense, but merely social contracts that can change tomorrow.

There are many who would say there's nothing really wrong or evil, and they would be right without any divine moral commands. There are some who have very warped ideas of morality. As a Christian, I base my statement "warped' on the standard of Judeo-Christian values, not my subjective inner feelings.

I heard it said that "we kill and eat animals, so why are humans special? The strongest survives." What objective moral ought should we appeal too in that issue? After all, animals rape and kill other animals all the time, and we don't call it wrong or evil, so why should we think it's wrong or evil without a divine command directly from God.

Once you get past your personal feelings, how do we objectively know anything? One needs more to go on when evaluating objective moral responsibilities and duties. Just saying, "yes I think there's a God and it resonates with me" doesn't provide objectivity--especially when others may claim that another religion or something we would consider "evil" resonates with them.

The nature of my Heavenly Father is purely good. He's not part of a divine universe that includes evil. He created it the universe and allowed evil through human free-will. I know what evil is in relation to his revealed good and perfect nature and who and what I believe God is: the greatest conceivable being. That maximal meaning means that he would communicate with us in time and history. It is within that range of thought that we evaluate other information via rationality, in the areas of metaphysics, anthropology, theology, epistemology, and ethics-- to see what is most coherent and corresponds most closely with reality. That's how we zero-in on truth. The most important questions come up when people hold to truth claims that conflict or are illogical--given the basic rules of logic.

That's when we try to fairly listen, learn, and evaluate. Sometimes evaluating people as mentally ill when they're thoughts don't correspond to reality. In my evaluations the only religions well supported philosophically, historically, scientifically, and theologically are monotheistic, Judaism, and specifically Christianity. Although there's much respect and important discussions concerning the Messiah between the two.

Although many beliefs have overlapping values, they all teach conflicting things and can't all be true. I won't go into it all here, since that's such an obvious statement. Buddhism isn't really a religion at all. Pantheism and its New Age offshoots aren't well supported philosophically, nor historically. Even though Islam has historically made some great arguments for the existence of God, they undermined themselves through the Koran's historical and theological claims. I listen and read, because I want to know the truth, not to reinforce what I think.

Yes, I believe evidence is important; logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and experiential relevancy. There is metaphysical evidence to weigh as well in the scheme of things; Near-Death Experience, the Resurrection of Jesus, and any paranormal communication that can be measured, etc. We know that NDEs don't support particular religion, but they're pretty solid evidence of an afterlife.

The issues boil down to logically discerning other types of beliefs and communication related to our moral duties and responsibilities. Who's right, who's wrong, and why do we think so? Epistemology. So, when I boil it down as a properly basic spiritual belief, supported with the most data, I would have to believe in the Judeo-Christian God and all the philosophic, scientific, theological support it had or merely on what is subjectively resonating in me at the moment. All of the collective evidence resonates with my soul.

Perhaps you fancy yourself as intuitive or instinctive. That's great. But Intuition isn't formulated it isolation. It draws from your deep memory well to inform your decisions going forward. In other words, intuitive decisions are based on data, in a way. When we subconsciously spot patterns, the body starts firing neurochemicals in both the brain and gut. So, it is based on reasoning, but just not reasons we've consciously thought about.

We're all intuitive in some ways. Some more than other, but we also look for reasons in everyday life. We reason, even subconsciously, as to how to approach a subject or communicate are more effectively, relationally, or lovingly. We adjust our communication methods depending on the circumstances and environment and the behaviors of others. The intuition often founded on deep memories of been there done that--here's how I'll approach this situation. You may not think it through like that but you do it instinctively--even with beliefs that you consider most valuable to your meaning and purpose.

One can hold a properly basic belief without an argument for it. And I mean academic argument-debate. We learn about Jesus and Christianity from the NT. I believed it as child but see that the Bible calls us to grow in wisdom and knowledge and accept God’s salvation. We learn about it and test it from the Bible and reality—so we should test it’s validity if we think it is the truth. It meets the challenges well. And although you may not challenge it teachings and authority, many do. Also, when I read the Bible I learn about God and who Jesus is. And I see how Jesus, Paul, and the disciples behaved and defended the teachings—and how we are called to live. Christians are always suppose to “be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you, to give a reason (warrant) for the hope that you have…with gentleness and respect.” 1 Peter 3:13-14. 1 Cor 15:2-4. Debating isn’t necessary but offering God’s word and explaining it’s eternal benefits is what all Christian’s are called to.

When I discuss religions on my social media pages, I'm not saying anyone who follows a certain path is a bad person. Most of them are very good people, IMHO. Whether In religion or politics, you can't always know what motivates the other person's position. I'm merely discussing my view and it's explanatory power, scope, etc. always realizing that I could be wrong. Nothing ad hominem. I don't argue, as in being argumentative, I make academic arguments and debate when engaged. In the engagements I often learn a lot, and sharpen my positions.