• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

circumstantial evidence to Gods existence

Thumper

Thank the gods I'm an atheist
I Disagree.
There are many theists who use the exact logic they use in a lab to explain their theism.

Cheers ;)


It was rational for you at the time.
Its irrational for you today because you lost your beliefs to a different kind of rationalism.
For some people it is completely rational that love is something more than chemicals.

So Although i share your rationality, I can't rule out other peoples' rational.
Could you be confusing the thinking process (i.e., rational) with the foundation this process is based on? In the "lab" the scientist is using observable and measurable data. But in their religious beliefs, there is no physical data, that's why it is called "belief on faith."

What seems reasonable to you doesn't seem reasonable to them.
What I hope is, that theist will try and understand the atheistic p.o.v and that atheist will understand the theistic p.o.v better.

This will make the discussions much more valuable to all sides.
The longer I have been an atheists, the harder it is to remember how I ever believe such stuff. It has become hard for me to even consider religious belief beyond thinking of it as nonsense.

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." - H. L. Mencken
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Okay, then present this evidence. And please only present real evidence that is observable and measurable and would be accepted by a disinterested 3rd party. Reproducibility and falsifiability would be good too.

That is the type and quality of evidence which you would accept as proof of Shiva, or something along those lines.

Okay, let's define terms. The issue isn't evidence, the issue is response.

Say I tell you a favorite restaurant in town has free dessert with an entree purchase (eyewitness testimony). You have several ways to verify this evidence (call the restaurant, visit the restaurant, etc.)

If you bother to verify the evidence you have motivation (dessert) and either trust (BB tells me truth) or distrust (catch BB lying about a restaurant).

The vast, overwhelming majority of people in this world say knowledge of God is self-evident and that God reveals Himself to those who seek God.

Is it that you distrust most people or that you lack motivation that prevents you from "checking in on the restaurant"? We're talking about truth, answers to existential questions, Heaven, Hell...
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I stand by my original claim, there is no evidence for the existence of a god.

You are making several mistakes:

I am not claiming "proof" of no god.

In the sciences, the burden of proof falls to the one proposing a hypothesis.

It doesn’t matter what the hypothesis is:
  • If you want to propose that god exists, the burden of proof falls to you.
  • If I want to propose that god does not exist, the burden falls to me.
Either way, the person proposing a hypothesis needs to provide evidence for it by using the scientific method (i.e., making a prediction based on the hypothesis and then seeing whether the prediction is fulfilled when a test is run).

You are proposing the existence of a god, I am simply requesting evidence for your claim.

Since you are claiming that the existence of God is provable, then you need to formulate a testable prediction based on the hypothesis that God exists and then run the test and see if the prediction is fulfilled. In the same way, if I were claiming that the non-existence of God is scientifically provable then I would need to formulate the same kind of testable prediction, run the test, and see if the prediction is fulfilled. Either way, the test would need to be well-designed, replicable, etc., etc., for the matter to be considered scientifically proved.

But I am not claiming that there are no gods ... I am simply stating there is no evidence of any god(s) ... all you need do to falsify my statement is to stack your evidence up ... which you have failed to do.

I believe the issue doesn't lie merely with evidence under discussion but responses to the evidence.

If I say the local movie theater is showing first run films for $1, you can respond by ignoring me, calling the theater and/or enjoying a cheap film showing.

Involved are motivation (liking films) and trust (BB tells me truth) or distrust (BB lies, I'll call the theatre and catch his lie.)

For example, not only do I offer anecdotal encounters with God, but the vast majority of persons in this world agree--God is self-evident to them.

I take you at your word (trust, motivation) that you have never encountered God, if that is your stance. However, if you want to not take me at my word, how would you propose to test whether something is self-evident to me? I don't ask my wife to provide testable, falsifiable evidence that she loves me--and when I ask why, she's even said, "I simply do love you."

However, IF you are motivated, there are tests you can run.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Material evidence for the existence of a god-thing:
-Biological: Never heard or read of biological evidence for a godthing. Are there some biological godremains somewhere I don't know of?
-Cosmological: has some astronomer seen some gods floating around in the universe? I'm curious, why hasn't NASA told us yet?
-History: even stranger. I know a bit of history but I've never read of historical facts proving a godthing walking around performing supernatural acts or whatever a god does. There are many religious books claiming a lot that hasn't been confirmed by independent sources. That a person like Descartes existed who wrote a book is confirmed by a hundred independent sources. If that wasn't so anyone would be right in doubting his existence or his words. For the veracity of supernatural claims there is no historical 'evidence', no or not enough reliable independent sources. In other words: no historical evidence.
-Prophecy: show me one real prophecy that has come true. Please do, you'll get world-famous for it. Not a typical astrology one that's so vague it could be in any year, in different places etc. A specific date (day/month/year), a unique name, a city, a clear event (not 'violence' or 'catastrophy' but 237 people died or a train was derailed; a Boeing airplane crashed would be a good prophecy in the year 1837)
-Biblical accuracy: have you read the Bible? Apostles even have different versions of events they were supposed to have been present at! Before any present-day court they would be scrapped as witnesses

Foetuses in a womb? Extremely bad example.

The Bible predicted the restoration of Jewish Israel would occur on May 15, 1948.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Is it that you distrust most people or that you lack motivation that prevents you from "checking in on the restaurant"? We're talking about truth, answers to existential questions, Heaven, Hell...

For me it's a distrust in "self evident truths". The sub-conscious mind is quite capable of convincing the conscious self of something we desire to be true. Ideas of God, heaven and prayer are not even close to being as self-evident as checking a restaurant for free ice cream. I might even believe you since I've seen for myself restaurants giving free desserts. There is nothing extraordinary about such a claim.

What I distrust is the ability of the conscious mind to know what is going on in the subconscious mind. If there is a real devil, it's the subconscious mind. See, I don't doubt that people have real religious experiences. That they talk to God, their prayers are heard and answered. They experience miracles. The problem is in knowing the subconscious can provide all this and the experience can be as real as any other aspect of reality can seem to you.

So I don't necessarily distrust what you feel is the truth of your religious experience. I certainly don't lack the motivation to test things for myself. The problem is, I know what the subconscious mind is capable of.

This is why science avoids the anecdotal experience. Why it tests, retests and requires the same repeatably, verification/validation from other folks.

Consciously, we know nothing about what going on in our own subconscious mind even though it occupies more than 90% of our brain. We rely on the subconscious mind for our perception of reality. How can you fully trust something you know nothing about?

So I don't doubt your experience of God. What I don't trust is your experience or my experience without the means of being able to scientifically validate it.
 

Thumper

Thank the gods I'm an atheist
Okay, let's define terms. The issue isn't evidence, the issue is response.

Say I tell you a favorite restaurant in town has free dessert with an entree purchase (eyewitness testimony). You have several ways to verify this evidence (call the restaurant, visit the restaurant, etc.)

If you bother to verify the evidence you have motivation (dessert) and either trust (BB tells me truth) or distrust (catch BB lying about a restaurant).

The vast, overwhelming majority of people in this world say knowledge of God is self-evident and that God reveals Himself to those who seek God.

Is it that you distrust most people or that you lack motivation that prevents you from "checking in on the restaurant"? We're talking about truth, answers to existential questions, Heaven, Hell...
So you have no real evidence, just your word. There are countless religious beliefs in the world, all claiming ultimate truth based solely on their word for it. But yours, yours is the only one that's right? Not without real evidence.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
So you have no real evidence, just your word. There are countless religious beliefs in the world, all claiming ultimate truth based solely on their word for it. But yours, yours is the only one that's right? Not without real evidence.


Thumper :Thank the gods I'm an atheist :Religion:Humanism
What gods one is thanking above? Please
What Humanism has to do with Atheism?Please

Regards
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
For me it's a distrust in "self evident truths". The sub-conscious mind is quite capable of convincing the conscious self of something we desire to be true. Ideas of God, heaven and prayer are not even close to being as self-evident as checking a restaurant for free ice cream. I might even believe you since I've seen for myself restaurants giving free desserts. There is nothing extraordinary about such a claim.

What I distrust is the ability of the conscious mind to know what is going on in the subconscious mind. If there is a real devil, it's the subconscious mind. See, I don't doubt that people have real religious experiences. That they talk to God, their prayers are heard and answered. They experience miracles. The problem is in knowing the subconscious can provide all this and the experience can be as real as any other aspect of reality can seem to you.

So I don't necessarily distrust what you feel is the truth of your religious experience. I certainly don't lack the motivation to test things for myself. The problem is, I know what the subconscious mind is capable of.

This is why science avoids the anecdotal experience. Why it tests, retests and requires the same repeatably, verification/validation from other folks.

Consciously, we know nothing about what going on in our own subconscious mind even though it occupies more than 90% of our brain. We rely on the subconscious mind for our perception of reality. How can you fully trust something you know nothing about?

So I don't doubt your experience of God. What I don't trust is your experience or my experience without the means of being able to scientifically validate it.
"What I distrust is the ability of the conscious mind to know what is going on in the subconscious mind."
"This is why science avoids the anecdotal experience. Why it tests, retests and requires the same repeatably, verification/validation from other folks."


Are Conscious mind and the subconscious mind just expressions to understand a psychological phenomenon or are these physically tested material facts proved by making physical experiments? Please
Regards
_____________
The Unconscious Mind
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
For me it's a distrust in "self evident truths". The sub-conscious mind is quite capable of convincing the conscious self of something we desire to be true. Ideas of God, heaven and prayer are not even close to being as self-evident as checking a restaurant for free ice cream. I might even believe you since I've seen for myself restaurants giving free desserts. There is nothing extraordinary about such a claim.

What I distrust is the ability of the conscious mind to know what is going on in the subconscious mind. If there is a real devil, it's the subconscious mind. See, I don't doubt that people have real religious experiences. That they talk to God, their prayers are heard and answered. They experience miracles. The problem is in knowing the subconscious can provide all this and the experience can be as real as any other aspect of reality can seem to you.

So I don't necessarily distrust what you feel is the truth of your religious experience. I certainly don't lack the motivation to test things for myself. The problem is, I know what the subconscious mind is capable of.

This is why science avoids the anecdotal experience. Why it tests, retests and requires the same repeatably, verification/validation from other folks.

Consciously, we know nothing about what going on in our own subconscious mind even though it occupies more than 90% of our brain. We rely on the subconscious mind for our perception of reality. How can you fully trust something you know nothing about?

So I don't doubt your experience of God. What I don't trust is your experience or my experience without the means of being able to scientifically validate it.

For me it's a distrust in "self evident truths". The sub-conscious mind is quite capable of convincing the conscious self of something we desire to be true. Ideas of God, heaven and prayer are not even close to being as self-evident as checking a restaurant for free ice cream. I might even believe you since I've seen for myself restaurants giving free desserts. There is nothing extraordinary about such a claim.

So you more readily accept truths and facts making non-extraordinary claims? I do, too.

Now that we agree that credulity can be tied to non-extraordinary claims, let’s return to trust. You said “you might even trust me if I told you about a dinner special.” I would trust you. Why would you lie to me?

The sub-conscious mind is quite capable of convincing the conscious self of something we desire to be true.

If that is true, how do you know that is true of theists only but not of atheists?

Ideas of God, heaven and prayer are not even close to being as self-evident as checking a restaurant for free ice cream.

Actually, in this case, they would be more self-evident. It is the restaurant claim, the claim you hear from a third party, that requires effort unto verification. When you tell me of a restaurant special, I don’t feel a check for or against your assertion in my spirit. Restaurants don’t answer my prayers or heal people of diseases.

Regardless, the issue here is trust. Do you understand you are implying that most people are not trustworthy regarding self-deception but that atheists only are not self-deceived in this regard?

So I don't necessarily distrust what you feel is the truth of your religious experience. I certainly don't lack the motivation to test things for myself. The problem is, I know what the subconscious mind is capable of.

This is why science avoids the anecdotal experience. Why it tests, retests and requires the same repeatably, verification/validation from other folks.

First, think of the largest controlled experiment you can recall. A study of 50,000 cancer patients? A look at 100,000 butterfly specimens? Etc.

Second, understand you are saying you want to avoid anecdotal confirmation and go with mass confirmation from other folks. Nearly everyone who has ever lived, ancient or modern, is a theist, Billions Of Other Folks. Where do you propose I get the control group from? Mars?

Consciously, we know nothing about what going on in our own subconscious mind even though it occupies more than 90% of our brain. We rely on the subconscious mind for our perception of reality. How can you fully trust something you know nothing about?

So I don't doubt your experience of God. What I don't trust is your experience or my experience without the means of being able to scientifically validate it.

Is your statement true only for theism? Do you ask a loved one to scientifically validate the love for you they claim is self-evident, inherent to their character? When a parent says “Son, I’m telling you the truth,” do you reject their anecdotal claims and ask them for scientific verification?

It has to do with trust, again. It has to do with putting god-ideas in small boxes and ignoring most people as self-deceived. Not fair. Not consistent.

I don’t doubt you if you claim you have never experienced God. After all, not all atheists are in staunch denial. Some just haven’t met the Lord yet. However, how do you expect me to scientifically validate you have never encountered God?

I can’t. I rather have to take your word for it, right? Be consistent.

It isn’t an extraordinary claim that we were designed or created. You’ve been told it is, but it’s a logical conclusion.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
"What I distrust is the ability of the conscious mind to know what is going on in the subconscious mind."
"This is why science avoids the anecdotal experience. Why it tests, retests and requires the same repeatably, verification/validation from other folks."


Are Conscious mind and the subconscious mind just expressions to understand a psychological phenomenon or are these physically tested material facts proved by making physical experiments? Please
Regards
_____________
The Unconscious Mind

The mind is the flow of information through the nervous system. It is what it is by definition. Like software running on a computer. For a computer to work it requires both the hardware, brain in the case of humans and the flow of information through the nervous system, the mind.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Or did belief in the Bible cause it.

The date was discovered in the scriptures AFTER Israel became a nation the second time in the modern era.

Did belief in the Bible cause the Jews to be persecuted everywhere they went for 2,000 years, as the Bible predicted?

Did belief in the Bible cause the Jews to be extraordinary intellects everywhere they went, as the Bible predicted?

Etc.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
So you have no real evidence, just your word. There are countless religious beliefs in the world, all claiming ultimate truth based solely on their word for it. But yours, yours is the only one that's right? Not without real evidence.

My word only would be anecdotal evidence, yes. I'm curious how you discount the word of most persons, alive or dead, ever.

My statement is regarding theism/atheism and not "my word says my religion is right". Please stay on topic.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
The mind is the flow of information through the nervous system. It is what it is by definition. Like software running on a computer. For a computer to work it requires both the hardware, brain in the case of humans and the flow of information through the nervous system, the mind.
Please answer exactly. Has one tested Sub-conscious Mind and the Conscious Mind physically with a physical experiment. When did one perform this experiment physically? Please
Regards
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Kindly quote it from Bible? Please
Regards

I find this webpage handy. I can show you a more precise calculation to the day if you have an interest. Thanks:

On the 14th day of Nisan, Passover, the Lord made a covenant with
Abraham for the Promised Land. God also prophesied that Abraham's
descendants would be in affliction and bondage for precisely 430
years. "And he said unto Abraham, know of a surety that thy seed
shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve
them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years" (Genesis
15:13).

This "affliction" began 30 years later with the hatred expressed
to Isaac by Ishmael's mocking attitude (Genesis 21:8-10). This
affliction of Abraham's seed in Canaan eventually ended in the
bondage in Egypt. "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel,
who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. And it
came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years,
even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the
Lord went out from the land of Egypt" (Exodus 12:40-41). On
Passover, 430 years later, the captivity ended. The Apostle Paul
confirmed that the captivity lasted precisely 430 years
(Galatians 3:17).

Israel's Second Captivity and Return

When many of the kings of Judah began to rebel against God,
numerous people turned to idol worship and pagan gods despite
God's warnings through His prophets. The 10 northern tribes of
Israel were conquered by the Assyrians in 721 B.C.E. (2 Kings
17:6). Then, Jeremiah prophesied that the Kingdom of Judah would
also be removed for precisely 70 years from the Promised Land
beginning in 606 B.C.E. because of their sins. "And this whole
land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these
nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years" (Jeremiah
25:11). Precisely 70 years later on the first day of Nisan, 536
B.C.E. King Cyrus of Persia released the Jews, just as Jeremiah
had prophesied. Despite the royal permission, only a small
remnant of the Jews left Babylon and returned to Israel. The vast
majority never returned, choosing rather to reside in the nation
of their captivity.


The Third and Worldwide Captivity

The Bible contains numerous prophecies of a final return of the
exiles to the Promised Land in the "last days." In light of the
precision of the prophecies about the duration of the earlier
captivities, it seemed probable to me that the prophets must
have revealed when the Jews would return from their final
captivity to establish their nation. The prophet Ezekiel was
given a vision concerning the final return of his people. "This
shall be a sign to the house of Israel. Lie thou also upon thy
left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it:
according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it
thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have laid upon thee the
years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days,
three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of
the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie
again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the
house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a
year" (Ezekiel 4:3-6).

Ezekiel declared that each day represents one biblical year.
Israel would be punished for 430 years (390 years and 40 years).
At the end of the 70 years of prophesied captivity in Babylon, in
Nisan 536 B.C.E., only a small remnant of the house of Judah
returned to Jerusalem to fulfill the prophecy. The vast majority
of the Jews remained in the Persian Empire as colonists.
Therefore, when we deduct the 70 years in Babylon that ended in
Nisan 536 B.C.E. from Ezekiel's 430 years of punishment, Israel
still had 360 years of further captivity due following the end of
the Babylonian Captivity.

Despite the precision of Ezekiel's prophecy there was no return
to the land, either 430 years or 360 years after 536 B.C.E. The
solution to this mystery is found in Leviticus 26. The Lord
established promises and punishments for Israel based on her
obedience and her disobedience. God told Israel four times in
this passage that if, after being punished for her sins, they
still would not repent, the punishments previously specified
would be multiplied by seven (the number of completion). "And if
ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish
you seven times more for your sins" (Leviticus 26:18; also
Leviticus 26:21, 23-24, 27-28). In other words, if the Israelites
did not repent, the punishment previously promised (360 years)
would be multiplied seven times (360 years x 7 = 2,520 biblical
years) to reach a total of 2,520 years. Therefore, as of 536
B.C.E., the final restoration to the Holy Land would occur only
after 2,520 biblical years.


The Biblical Year of 360 Days

When we refer to biblical/prophetic years we refer to the ancient
Jewish year of 360 days. While our modern calendar year contains
365.25 days and the modern Hebrew calendar has 354 days, the
biblical year of ancient Israel was lunar-solar and contained
only 360 days. The solar calendar year of 365.25 days was not
used by Israel. According to articles in the Encyclopedia
Britannica and Smith's Bible Dictionary on chronology, Abraham
used a year of 360 days consisting of 12 months of 30 days each.
The Bible's account of the flood confirms the ancient biblical
year of 360 days describing a five-month period as consisting of
precisely 150 days between the 17th day of the second month to
the 17th day of the seventh month (5 x 30 days = 150 days). Sir
Isaac Newton declared that "all nations, before the just length
of the solar year was known, reckoned months by the course of the
moon, and years by the return of winter and summer, spring and
autumn; and in making calendars for their festivals, they
reckoned thirty days to a lunar month, and twelve lunar months to
a year taking the nearest round numbers, whence came the division
of the ecliptic into 360 degrees." The book of Esther (1:4)
reveals this 360-day year in its description of a six-month-long
feast that lasts precisely 180 days. The prophet Daniel also
confirms this fact by describing one-half of the 70th week
(Daniel 9:24-27) as containing exactly 1,260 days (3.5 x 360
days). Sir Robert Anderson, the brilliant head of Scotland Yard
in 1895, described the 360-day year in his book The Coming
Prince.

The Calculation

The Babylonian captivity ended in the spring of 536 B.C.E., 1st
Nisan. This date is the starting point for our calculations. The
period of worldwide captivity would last 2,520 biblical years x
360 days = 907,200 days. Converting this figure into our calendar
year we divide the 907,200 days by 365.25 to reach a total of
2,483.8 calendar years. (Remember that there is only one year
between 1 B.C.E. and 1 C.E.; there was no Year Zero). The end of
Israel's worldwide captivity would occur after a total of 2,483.8
years had elapsed from the end of the Babylonian Captivity in the
spring of 536 B.C.E.

End of Babylonian Captivity: Spring 536 B.C.E. + the duration of
Worldwide Captivity: 2,483.8 Calendar Years = When the Worldwide
Captivity would end: Spring 1948.
 

Thumper

Thank the gods I'm an atheist
Thumper :Thank the gods I'm an atheist :Religion:Humanism
What gods one is thanking above? Please
What Humanism has to do with Atheism?Please

Regards
Well atheism is just a general category for everybody who is not a theist. Within this general category there are numerous philosophical disciplines. Buddhism, Jainism, Humanism, etc. are all atheistic disciplines.

Humanism is a belief system which focuses on humans as the ultimate arbiter of our future. Humanism does not rely on supernatural answers which makes it an atheistic philosophy.

My byline is a humorous take off on Salvador Dali's quote ”thank God I'm an atheist."
 

Thumper

Thank the gods I'm an atheist
My word only would be anecdotal evidence, yes. I'm curious how you discount the word of most persons, alive or dead, ever.

My statement is regarding theism/atheism and not "my word says my religion is right". Please stay on topic.
I did not know majority decided reality. If so, you should pray to Shiva. The Bagavad Gita says that Shiva answers all prayers. So why don't you worship Shiva?

However even this may change - Allah is gaining converts much faster that Christianity or Hinduism.

Again, I await real evidence.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
So you more readily accept truths and facts making non-extraordinary claims? I do, too.

Now that we agree that credulity can be tied to non-extraordinary claims, let’s return to trust. You said “you might even trust me if I told you about a dinner special.” I would trust you. Why would you lie to me?
If that is true, how do you know that is true of theists only but not of atheists?
Actually, in this case, they would be more self-evident. It is the restaurant claim, the claim you hear from a third party, that requires effort unto verification. When you tell me of a restaurant special, I don’t feel a check for or against your assertion in my spirit. Restaurants don’t answer my prayers or heal people of diseases.

First point is I haven't made any distinctions between atheist and theist. I assume what is true for one is also true for the other.

Regardless, the issue here is trust. Do you understand you are implying that most people are not trustworthy regarding self-deception but that atheists only are not self-deceived in this regard?
I've no idea about other atheists. They are as capable of being "trick" by the subconscious mind as anyone. I am as well, but being aware of it I try to take step to guard against it.

First, think of the largest controlled experiment you can recall. A study of 50,000 cancer patients? A look at 100,000 butterfly specimens? Etc.

The size of the control group though important, is not as important as documented, repeatable, consistent results.

Second, understand you are saying you want to avoid anecdotal confirmation and go with mass confirmation from other folks. Nearly everyone who has ever lived, ancient or modern, is a theist, Billions Of Other Folks. Where do you propose I get the control group from? Mars?

It's not mass confirmation. It's repeatable results. For example lets say you believe you have spoken to God and believe you know God's will. I've also spoken with God and believe I know God's will. If this is true, any number who have spoken with God and know God's will should all have the same consistent message.

Is your statement true only for theism? Do you ask a loved one to scientifically validate the love for you they claim is self-evident, inherent to their character? When a parent says “Son, I’m telling you the truth,” do you reject their anecdotal claims and ask them for scientific verification?

I hope it obvious I'm making no distinction between atheists and theist by now. Yes, I tell my kids to not trust anything I say but verify it for themselves. Research it, get various opinions, test it if possible

It has to do with trust, again. It has to do with putting god-ideas in small boxes and ignoring most people as self-deceived. Not fair. Not consistent.

It has to do with having a method to validate these experiences.

I don’t doubt you if you claim you have never experienced God. After all, not all atheists are in staunch denial. Some just haven’t met the Lord yet. However, how do you expect me to scientifically validate you have never encountered God?

I have had these experiences. No need to validate an experience you haven't had yourself.

I can’t. I rather have to take your word for it, right? Be consistent.

Actually I'd advise against taken my word for anything. To be consistent with what I tell my kids.

It isn’t an extraordinary claim that we were designed or created. You’ve been told it is, but it’s a logical conclusion.

It's a logical conclusion based on your starting premise. We all have to accept that premise and be comfortable with it before we get into the logic of it.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
The date was discovered in the scriptures AFTER Israel became a nation the second time in the modern era.

It be a lot more believable if this happen before the correct answer was known. Always wondered what good is prediction if the actual event that is predicted is not known until after the event happens.

Did belief in the Bible cause the Jews to be persecuted everywhere they went for 2,000 years, as the Bible predicted?

Possibly, they were the culprits in the Bible.

Did belief in the Bible cause the Jews to be extraordinary intellects everywhere they went, as the Bible predicted?
Etc.

Sure, through persecution, in order to survive folks have to develop extraordinary intellect. Those that did survive. Obviously not all did. Supports the theory of evolution anyway.
 
Top