100% lack of evidence to God

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. I wrote "Name one thing in the known universe outside religion that nearly everyone believes despite contrary evidence."

There is near-universal belief in one or more deities. Now name anything else in the known universe, as stated.

If you think "religion" is just one thing, then I trust you'd be fine with abandoning your particular religion for a random religion of my choosing.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Name one thing in the known universe outside religion that nearly everyone believes despite contrary evidence."

Is this part of an argument for the existence of your deity? I doubt that you would be arguing for the existence of the deities that these other people who don't believe in yours worship. If you're going to use numbers in support of your belief, they only support theism, not your brand of it.

Have I ever told you that I used to be a messianic Jew? My parent were Jewish atheists. It wasn't until about age 7, when my mother married a rabbinical school dropout that Judaism came into our home, complete with kosher dishes, seders. menorahs, synagogue on the High Holy Holidays, and eventually a bar mitzvah for me.

But I didn't believe in God, nor did I identify with Judaism.

Several years later, in the military, I found Jesus. I know how special you are in your Christian congregation, where you are considered a completed Jew.

How can you be right if you contradict everyone else?

By them being wrong.

The Bible has explanations of why many people refuse to trust Jesus for salvation.

But not the commonest reason they don't believe.

most people when encountering moral challenges/trials/tests speak of/appeal to/think of God.

There's a better way to approach moral theory, rational ethics. One begins with a moral intuition and uses reason to decide how to effect that vision. If you like near universality, you find that in the moral intuition of humanists, namely, utilitarianism for societies, and the Golden rule for individuals. The rest follows perforce.

It IS hard to argue against skeptics since I know the Bible far better than they do or even attempt to do

So you say, but I don't accept the interpretations of the Bible from believers, which mostly disagree with mine. That's because the believer looks at the Bible from the perspective that it is true and its god good. That's a faith based confirmation bias, and it distorts understanding by making conclusions that aren't consistent with those faith-based beliefs off limits. Critical thinkers will assess what they read there dispassionately, open-mindedly, and according to the rules of reason wherever that takes them, which is not where the believer goes.

You surely believe that Old Testament messianic prophecy and the story of Jesus in the New Testament are consistent and prophetic, but no non-believer would come to that conclusion. So who should one ask about that, a believer or an unbeliever? Who will give a disinterested reply consistent with the facts, and who will just give dogma and rationalization why this all represents prophecy fulfilled whatever it says?

 

[Muffled]

I love that answer. It is as simple as that for me

Since I received My Master as LORD and Savior my life is full of "magic" (experiences beyond physical experiences)

I believe that proves the spiritual presence. The next question is: Is that presence , good?

 

[Muffled]

If it is not genuine, then nothing happens. What about the contrary?
If nothing happens, can we infer it was not genuine?

ciao

- viole

I believe you can't reverse it. For instance another explanation for nothing happening is that there is something happening but no perception of it or as Scrooge did, state that it must have been something he ate, that didn't agree with him.

 

[Muffled]

How can you genuinely receive Jesus as Lord and Savior when you don't think that he is either?

I believe you are right. Your unbelief would always find another explanation. From what I have heard there are those who didn't believe but were desperate enough to try anyway and found God that way. Of course those people were hoping that God was real.

 

[night912]

I'd like respond but don't understand your comment, "those who believed and followed Jesus were wrong fewer than the ones who opposed them".

Those who believed and followed Jesus were wrong because there's fewer followers than the ones who opposed them. Of course, I'm just going by your reasoning.

An ad hom is "directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining". The fact is a very new Bible reader/born again Christian would have said your question was uninformed regarding Bible knowledge. I was being factual. It IS hard to argue against skeptics since I know the Bible far better than they do or even attempt to do (general) and in your specific case, you asked a quite facile question.

Yes, an ad hominem is towards a person and not their argument/position. Here's a good example of an ad hominem.

It's hard to argue the Bible with you since you lack elementary knowledge of it.

 

[Polymath257]

There are near universals, including opposing forces to God inside humans and external agents!

How is that anything close to a universal? It wasn't held by the ancient Greeks and Romans, for example. It is not held today by Buddhists.

It's not "cultural deity" as much as "I'm morally accountable," so that most people when encountering moral challenges/trials/tests speak of/appeal to/think of God.

Not necessarily or universally. God is a concept in *certain* religions and philosophical systems, but not in all of them. A great many people, when confronted with moral challenges, think of the consequences of their actions and what would promote the best outcome. Deities simply don't appear in the evaluation.

In fact, it seems to be limited to the Abrahamic religions. other religions don't have a universal deiiy in the same way and morals are not dictated in the same way.

So, no, these are NOT universals. They are predominant in certain religious traditions, but not all. Once you step outside of the Abrahamic faiths, things are much different.

 

[Polymath257]

I believe you can't reverse it. For instance another explanation for nothing happening is that there is something happening but no perception of it or as Scrooge did, state that it must have been something he ate, that didn't agree with him.

And so how would it be possible (in theory) to show no deity exists?

 

[BilliardsBall]

How is that anything close to a universal? It wasn't held by the ancient Greeks and Romans, for example. It is not held today by Buddhists.



Not necessarily or universally. God is a concept in *certain* religions and philosophical systems, but not in all of them. A great many people, when confronted with moral challenges, think of the consequences of their actions and what would promote the best outcome. Deities simply don't appear in the evaluation.

In fact, it seems to be limited to the Abrahamic religions. other religions don't have a universal deiiy in the same way and morals are not dictated in the same way.

So, no, these are NOT universals. They are predominant in certain religious traditions, but not all. Once you step outside of the Abrahamic faiths, things are much different.

You're right, I shouldn't have said "near universal across thousands of cultures and peoples for millennia are spiritual forces that oppose God" since the Greeks and Romans only had gods with foibles and Buddhists teach that we have to overcome challenges like the deceptive nature of reality [rolls eyes].

You're right, most people don't appeal to God in trenches. [Rolls eyes].

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're right, most people don't appeal to God in trenches. [Rolls eyes].

Even if this were true, the idea that people appeal to God when they're at their least rational and most desperate wouldn't be the sales pitch for theism that you think it is.