There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[PearlSeeker]

What about teleology in nature?

 

[Sheldon]

I have heard this same statement from a lot of people about the gods of a lot of different religions. Both mono and polytheistic. Also about spirits spirits and astrology.

Is that evidence that all of their gods and entities are real?

It seems more like evidence that the belief doesn't need to be true, motivating oneself to make a profound change takes discipline, obviously there are all manner of tricks for instilling discipline into your life, and a strong belief is an obvious one, but interestingly the belief itself quite evidently need not be true.

 

[Sheldon]

What about teleology in nature?

It's your claim, so you should be creating an argument for it, and what you think it means. What purpose are you claiming exists in nature, what are you claiming you think this means, and what objective evidence can you demonstrate to support whatever claims you are making?

 

[ElishaElijah]

"Explaining away" demonstrates that one does understand it. And no, no one "knows that there is a spiritual realm". That is the problem with it. No one can properly define it. No one can provide reliable evidence for it. That does not mean that it does not exist but it does mean that know one "knows" that it exists.

Except I do know the spiritual realm exists

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Except I do know the spiritual realm exists

Hearsay to me, since I don't know it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except I do know the spiritual realm exists

The fact that you cannot rationally support that claim tells us that this is not so. As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words.

I will grant that you believe that one exists. But to know it you have to be able to show it.

 

[Sheldon]

Sounds like you totally missed the point of the story.

On the contrary, he has nailed the fundamental flaw in Paley's watchmaker fallacy, it has been comprehensively debunked. Firstly complexity does not indicate design , this is a begging the question fallacy that Paley assumes, secondly design is indicated by sufficient objective evidence, we can show designs for watches and designers creating them, and finally in every instance where we have this objective evidence of design, they never never occur in nature. It's also worth mentioning that Paley missed the irony of the contradiction of claiming everything is designed, then claiming a designed watch seemed out of place" in a natural setting, on a beach, why would it if everything is designed. Indeed if everything is designed why would one assume complexity was an indicator of design? It just fails on multiple levels.

Paley gets a 0/10...anyone using his now long debunked fallacy gets a -1/10.

 

[nPeace]

Nope, he said that faith was "evidence of things unseen", it was a logical extrapolation.

Right, but the illogical unreasonable response is to say the things unseen refer to anything, where the Christian is concerned.

Christians don't have faith in unicorns. They have faith in God, and God's promises. Why? There is evidence of God, and the reliability of his promises.
There is no evidence of unicorns.

If one says, I have faith in unicorns... without evidence, they do not have the faith described at Hebrews 11 and Hebrews 12.
They have what some refer to as "blind faith"... which is not faith at all.

Evidence for God is seen. Romans 1:19-20

 

[Polymath257]

What God has done in my life is not hearsay when I share it. If my kids tell their friends my testimony it would be considered hearsay, except the testimonies they were part of and witnessed themselves.

Think of it like this. Suppose I told you that I went to the store today. That would not be hearsay.

Suppose I told you that a friend of mine baked a cake and left it at my house when I was not there. That would be hearsay.

If I told you I believe my friend baked a cake and left it at my house, that would NOT be hearsay (it is me stating what I believe).

In your case, your stating your belief that God helped you out is not hearsay. But your stating that God helped you out *is* unless you specifically saw God do what you believe He did.

So, did you *see* God do things, or do you believe God did those things? is it an observation or is it an interpretation?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right, but the illogical unreasonable response is to say the things unseen refer to anything, where the Christian is concerned.

Christians don't have faith in unicorns. They have faith in God, and God's promises. Why? There is evidence of God, and the reliability of his promises.
There is no evidence of unicorns.

If one says, I have faith in unicorns... without evidence, they do not have the faith described at Hebrews 11 and Hebrews 12.
They have what some refer to as "blind faith"... which is not faith at all.

Evidence for God is seen. Romans 1:19-20

Sorry, but that is just an empty claim from the Bible. That believers cannot support that claim refutes it.

 

[Sheldon]

Just because you’re blind to the evidence doesn’t mean there isn’t any. I have plenty of evidence for myself.
I would say the fantasy is what you posted on the theory of the origin of life, which is impossible to have happened like that.

You have not presented any objective evidence of course, only subjective claims, and assumptions.

I would say the fantasy is what you posted on the theory of the origin of life, That’s what I call a pipe dream.

Since you've made this up, and I posted no such thing, who knows what bizarre straw man you're knocking over here.

 

[Sheldon]

I have first hand testimony about my relationship with God.

It's hearsay, all you are offering is a subjective claim, the effect you are insisting is the result is again an unevidenced claim you're making. You don't seem to understand no one is disputing that you believe it to be true. However as has been explained innumerable times, other people make the same claim for the same profound effect, citing wildly different religions and deities. You seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge what context this places your testimony in.

All you do is repeat the claim endlessly, as if this lends it credence.

 

[nPeace]

@Five Solas Dude. I like you.

 

[Sheldon]

Hearsay would be if I said I know a friend who had a spiritual experience that changed their lives.

Oh dear...

hearsay
information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.

We are receiving an unsubstantiated claim from another person YOU, it is by definition hearsay.

 

[Sheldon]

What God has done in my life is not hearsay when I share it.

You might be able it substantiate the change of course, though please not no one is obliged to take your word for it, that is a courtesy they are extending you, but since I am getting the claim from another person (you), and it is not substantiated, it is by definition hearsay.

The claim that your belief in a deity caused this profound change is of course a subjective claim, and I am receiving this unsubstantiated claim from another person (you), it is hearsay by definition.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So you consider the multiverse ridiculous, but a god perfectly reasonable, do you

I consider that there's actually evidence for a designer and no evidence for multiple universes, not that it would change the need for a creator.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yes, they are blind as best we can tell, as

Lol, atheist talk out both sides of their mouth on this. Do you know how many times you all have told me evolution isn't blind chance?

 

[Sheldon]

Right, but the illogical unreasonable response is to say the things unseen refer to anything, where the Christian is concerned.

So things doesn't refer to anything, you're kidding right?

Christians don't have faith in unicorns.

Straw man fallacy, I never claimed they did. I was extrapolating the claim to make a point.

There is evidence of God,

Yet no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, we just have this claim, and then when asked another subjective unevidenced claim.

There is no evidence of unicorns.

Straw man fallacy, no has said there is.

If one says, I have faith in unicorns... without evidence, they do not have the faith described at Hebrews 11 and Hebrews 12.

Firstly religious faith is defined as strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. His assertion said faith was confidence in things unseen, unicorns are unseen, ispos facto the claim can be rationally interpreted to mean that. I am not claiming anything about unicorns, so you seem to have missed the point entirely.

They have what some refer to as "blind faith"... which is not faith at all.

Which is how religious faith appears to me, and will continue to until or unless someone can offer something beyond subjective anecdote or approaching objective evidence for any deity.

Evidence for God is seen. Romans 1:19-20

There is no objective evidence in that quote, none, just claims?

"19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

 

[Wildswanderer]

then claiming a designed watch seemed out of place" in a natural setting, on a beach, why would it if everything is designed

Oh good grief... because human design is lame compared to God's design. To believe that the watch was designed but the ocean and beach were an accident takes an imbecile.

 

[Sheldon]

the need for a creator.

Begging the question fallacy.