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

[Sheldon]

Oh good grief... because human design is lame compared to God's design.

You have failed to understand the point, and Paley's watchmaker fallacy, well done.

To believe that the watch was designed but the ocean and beach were an accident takes an imbecile.

Again then since you have ignored it, we know watches are designed because we have sufficient objective evidence, and can demonstrate it, and like all other designed things, they don't occur naturally.

I think you have accidentally placed the word imbecile in the wrong place there, as it must be for someone who thinks sand is designed, and not formed when rocks break down from weathering and eroding over thousands and even millions of years.

 

[ElishaElijah]

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?

It was an observation, but you can’t see or hear God with your physical eyes and ears. The power I have over my addictions and the sin that used to control me came from God and not myself. I tried from 1983-1987 to quit on my own. You could see the dramatic change even in my language and writing before and after.
Whether people believe me now is up to them but I will tell you that I’ve talked to people when all is well and they’re proud but then life gets tough and people get to a place where no human solutions work and it’s there that God shows up when people cry out for His help. Others like my friend never strayed from God and He has a solid relationship with God and it’s different than mine, I always looked up to that guy, steady and solid. Generous and full of joy.

 

[Sheldon]

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?

Involving chance events is not remotely the same as evolution being entirely down to blind chance. It makes me smile when creationist try to understand evolution using creationist propaganda, bless em.

<CITATION>

"most people don’t really understand evolutionary theory, but creationists have a particularly poor understanding. Their problem goes beyond generic scientific illiteracy. They primarily learn about evolution from secondary hostile sources – other creationists. What they learn is creationist made-up nonsense about evolution, which they confuse for the science of evolution. This condemns them to mostly attack pathetic straw men rather than what scientists actually claim about evolution."

 

[KWED]

Another person who builds a strawman to criticise. You concoct your own definition and then make fun of it.

Definition of faith

1 : strong belief or trust I have faith in our leaders. 2 : belief in God. 3 : a system of religious beliefs : religion people of all faiths. 4 : loyalty to duty or to a person or thing The team's true fans keep the faith.

Faith: Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. (Oxford English Dictionary)
Of course, you may not consider the OED to be an acceptable source for the definitions of words.

Please substantiate your statement. I'm not the one denying the facts.

You seem confused. You said...
"There is evidence of God. Christians believe God reveals Himself through His deeds – like, for example, the created universe."
That god created the universe is not only merely a claim, it is also circular logic - it is assuming the conclusion (that god exists).
Pretty simple stuff.

 

[ElishaElijah]

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.

I already gave you the definition of hearsay evidence in an above post. My personal testimony is not hearsay when I tell it to people, it’s first hand, me. Look up the definition. Eye witness is someone who was at the scene, hearsay is when the person wasn’t. So simple

 

[Polymath257]

It was an observation, but you can’t see or hear God with your physical eyes and ears. The power I have over my addictions and the sin that used to control me came from God and not myself. I tried from 1983-1987 to quit on my own. You could see the dramatic change even in my language and writing before and after.
Whether people believe me now is up to them but I will tell you that I’ve talked to people when all is well and they’re proud but then life gets tough and people get to a place where no human solutions work and it’s there that God shows up when people cry out for His help. Others like my friend never strayed from God and He has a solid relationship with God and it’s different than mine, I always looked up to that guy, steady and solid. Generous and full of joy.

First of all, let me state that I believe that *you* believe in what you say. I am not disputing that you had an incredible experience and that you are giving your perspective on what happened.

But I would say that a change in your life, no matter how dramatic, simply cannot be up to the task of showing there is a God. The type of evidence is simply too different than the claim being made. You simply cannot know that you were in contact with a supernatural being, let alone know that you were in contact with God. And yes, again, I firmly believe that you believe you were.

From my perspective, all that means is that you managed, finally, to change your life by a trick of psychology: you convinced yourself that God talked to you and that was enough for you to change. Good for you.

But it is *always* going to be a simpler explanation for your change that you self-deluded that it is that a deity interacted with you and changed your life. Especially if there is no other way to show that deity actually did anything.

Ultimately, feeling a presence is simply not enough to prove the claim you make. It is not enough to know that you were in conversation with the designer of the universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

And it isn't. But I doubt if you are ready to learn.

 

[nPeace]

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



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



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



Straw man fallacy, no has said there is.



Firstly religious faith is defined as strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

That's your definition. I haven't referred to your definition, but the one that came before. Hebrews 11:1.

Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant. while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence.

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.

I explained.
If there are things unseen, faith is required to have confidence in them, but once there is evidence.

For example, faith is required to have confidence in Dark Matter. It cannot be seen, but there is evidence it is there. Thus scientists are confident about it.

It's still faith, in that sense, but it's not what Hebrews is referring to.
Paul is addressing Christian believers, who have their confidence in the living God.
Not Dark Matter. Not unicorns... speaking of strawman.

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.

There is objective evidence of God, which has been presented to you time and again, and you have dismissed it time and again... as was mentioned in the text I also referenced, in Romans 1.
...and I keep

I don't know why I keep doing that, but maybe I am a hard head. One more time.
The evidence that the Bible is accurate, and reliable (historically, scientifically, prophetically, practically), and demonstrated to be so, both internally and externally, is evidence it is of Divine origin.
That is objective evidence.

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."

It is a claim, which is backed up by objective evidence. So are the more than 100 claims it makes elsewhere.

Question. Why do you believe in the origin of life claims, and, or the origin of man claims, when there is no objective evidence for them?

Let's do one at a time.
Please provide the objective evidence for the origin of life, and the universal common ancestor.

 

[ElishaElijah]

First of all, let me state that I believe that *you* believe in what you say. I am not disputing that you had an incredible experience and that you are giving your perspective on what happened.

But I would say that a change in your life, no matter how dramatic, simply cannot be up to the task of showing there is a God. The type of evidence is simply too different than the claim being made. You simply cannot know that you were in contact with a supernatural being, let alone know that you were in contact with God. And yes, again, I firmly believe that you believe you were.

From my perspective, all that means is that you managed, finally, to change your life by a trick of psychology: you convinced yourself that God talked to you and that was enough for you to change. Good for you.

But it is *always* going to be a simpler explanation for your change that you self-deluded that it is that a deity interacted with you and changed your life. Especially if there is no other way to show that deity actually did anything.

Ultimately, feeling a presence is simply not enough to prove the claim you make. It is not enough to know that you were in conversation with the designer of the universe.

A trick of psychology, man you need to go to a rehab and share that insight.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And it isn't. But I doubt if you are ready to learn.

Lol, like I said you want it both ways.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol, like I said you want it both ways.

Oh no, I am quite willing to learn and you seem to have forgotten that I used to be a Christian. I probably understand the Bible better than you do. You will only cherry pick parts that seem to support you, but I can understand what the writers meant without bias since it does not really matter to me.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Again then since you have ignored it, we know watches are designed because we have sufficient objective evidence, and can demonstrate it, and like all other designed things, they don't occur naturally.

A simple mechanism according to you, has to be designed, but the almost infinity complex universe just happened, well, because ( and quit asking us how, we don't have a clue.)!

 

[Wildswanderer]

Oh no, I am quite willing to learn and you seem to have forgotten that I used to be a Christian. I probably understand the Bible better than you do. You will only cherry pick parts that seem to support you, but I can understand what the writers meant without bias since it does not really matter to me.

That's not even what I was talking about. Atheist want to claim the universe is the result of blind causation while at the same time claiming it's not blind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A simple mechanism according to you, has to be designed, but the almost infinity complex universe just happened, well, because ( and quit asking us how, we don't have a clue.)!

There you go with the "just happened" falsehood again. That is not how life evolved. There are well understood reasons for evolution. that does not mean that there was some set goal for evolution. Survival is the only "goal" that one can find.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's not even what I was talking about. Atheist want to claim the universe is the result of blind causation while at the same time claiming it's not blind.

Oh so now you have shifted the goal posts to the formation of the universe. You are still wrong. What atheists will say is that we have evidence for . . . And then the processes supported by evidence are laid out. We will also note that there is no evidence for a God nor indication that one is needed. And lastly we will readily admit to what is not understood right now.

No advocacy for anything blind there.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That is not how life evolved

I don't care how life evolved if you can't explain why there is life.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Oh so now you have shifted the goal posts to the formation of the universe. You are still wrong. What atheists will say is that we have evidence for . . . And then the processes supported by evidence are laid out. We will also note that there is no evidence for a God nor indication that one is needed. And lastly we will readily admit to what is not understood right now.

No advocacy for anything blind there.

Of course not:
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't care how life evolved if you can't explain why there is life.

Sorry, but you don't get to play that way. If you cannot understand evolution then there is absolutely no way that you can understand abiogenesis so it would be pointless to try to explain to you. Also, moving the goalposts is just another way of admitting that you are wrong since we know that evolution occurred regardless of how it started.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course not:
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

Rhyme and reason will play a role, but why on Earth would justice? Justice is a human invention. (Well not really. Many animals have a sense of justice too) Okay so justice is an evolved sense.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Sorry, but you don't get to play that way. If you cannot understand evolution then there is absolutely no way that you can understand abiogenesis

People who study abiogenesis for a living don't understand it. Because it's not anything close to a proven concept.