Evidence

[Secret Chief]

You have no evidence it's the carbs.

Could be too much dairy.

Don't get onto evidence!

 

[leroy]

Nature does it by subjecting undirected genetic variation to natural selection.

.

Yes that is the hypothesis that darwinist propose......how do you know is true?

How do you know for example that the eye is a result of that mechanism?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Easy peasy, even though I am dead tired given I got very few hours of sleep last night.
I know that God exists because God has sent Messengers to tell me that.

I give up. You simply do not know the difference between knowledge and belief, and apparently are not ever going to. In this way, at the very least, some religious minds do not operate rationally.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You are using that argument by popularity fallacy again. It's invalid. It doesn't matter how many people anything, what matters is if they have a rational basis for their conclusion. As it is no theists decides a God exists using reason via facts..

Yes, they do.
We employ reason, in deciding that the Bible is true, for example.

Some people might say that the Bible is inerrant, whilst others do not believe that.
They follow the discourse contained therein, and decide BASED ON REASON, that Jesus taught the truth about God, and that he is indeed the Messiah.
These same people do not believe every claim of being "a messiah" or prophet. They evaluate each claim on its own merit. That is employing reason.

..just because it cannot be categorically proved that God exists, does not in itself mean, that a person does not use their powers of reasoning to determine what is true and what is not.

Irrelevant. They will believe whatever their religious tradtion..

Some people might .. some people might be content with following tradition.
Others take more interest in religions, and embark on a spiritual journey, choosing to follow whatever they see fit, for a variety of reasons.

The history of religion does support his conclusion. And religions are still used to control the masses to this day..

Some people might attempt to control others .. but why would 50% of the population allow themselves to be "controlled" in some way?
No .. most believers see the argument of their Lord .. that sin is against our own souls, and that of the whole community.

There is no God coming forth with rules. There are books, and middlemen to God that claim they have authority in their religious tradition..

Almighty God guides whomsoever He wills.
One does not get to "choose" in the context of which religion is the most accurate.
We choose to completely submit ourselves to God, and then God guides us.
It is possible to submit to God, but hold reservations.
Almighty God knows everything about us.

Are you OK with the Islamic leadership killing people just for protesting their rule?

No, of course not.
However, civil disobedience needs to be controlled.
Recently, here in the UK, some people decided to pull down statues, due to their being involved with slavery.
There should be a democratic process for deciding these things, and not mob-rule.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There are tens of thousands claiming to be messengers of God. I met several of them during my psych rotation at Sheppard Pratt hospital, in fact..

Yeah .. and a person with sound religious knowledge, can tell you why their claims are false.

In fact, most people without religious knowledge can probably tell you why.
..particularly if they are detained in a psychiatric hospital.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then we agree its unknown. I rest my case. See how easy that was to come to an agreement

What "case"? You used a strawman argument. How does being corrected help you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah .. and a person with sound religious knowledge, can tell you why their claims are false.

In fact, most people without religious knowledge can probably tell you why.
..particularly if they are detained in a psychiatric hospital.

The term "religious knowledge" appears to be an oxymoron.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..I think all organized religions use guilt and fear to keep people believing..

No .. you said yourself, that many people are driven away from faith, on account of depictions of hell.

It is not about forcing people to believe, it is a warning that if we disobey God, there will be consequences of our own making.

In other words, the fear of God is part of faith .. it saves .. it is part of our salvation.
It is a personal thing, until our deeds affect other people in a negative way .. then it becomes a community issue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No .. you said yourself, that many people are driven away from faith, on account of depictions of hell.

It is not about forcing people to believe, it is a warning that if we disobey God, there will be consequences of our own making.

In other words, the fear of God is part of faith .. it saves .. it is part of our salvation.
It is a personal thing, until our deeds affect other people in a negative way .. then it becomes a community issue.

Are you sure about that? To me it looks as if you are using empty threats to keep people believing. One does not need to believe to be good. In fact I usually see worse behavior from believers than unbelievers.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Are you sure about that? To me it looks as if you are using empty threats to keep people believing..

How so?
Have the "threats" in scripture convinced you to believe?

They certainly didn't have that effect on me.
I was raised in Church of England, and the subject of hell rarely came up.
When I first read the Qur'an I was appalled by the depictions of hell .. I discarded it .. didn't believe it to be true.

However, I eventually came to understand it.
Life can be very harsh.
People in war can suffer greatly.
It is part of reality, and so is the life after death.

I do not envisage "burning in fire" as a literal "God person" torturing us, but a simile for the pain of suffering that we bring upon ourselves.
It is as serious, as the pain that we might inflict on others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How so?
Have the "threats" in scripture convinced you to believe?

They certainly didn't have that effect on me.
I was raised in Church of England, and the subject of hell rarely came up.
When I first read the Qur'an I was appalled by the depictions of hell .. I discarded it .. didn't believe it to be true.

However, I eventually came to understand it.
Life can be very harsh.
People in war can suffer greatly.
It is part of reality, and so is the life after death.

I do not envisage "burning in fire" as a literal "God person" torturing us, but a simile for the pain of suffering that we bring upon ourselves.
It is as serious, as the pain that we might inflict on others.

For many it did have that effect. Especially before the internet when it was much more difficult to fact check claims. Those threats are actually highly problematic for almost any religion. Unless one wants to claim that God is unjust and evil those threats are self refuting.

 

[Balthazzar]

The Evidence for God, is only the evidence provided by God to us since time began.

There is the Prophet (also known by other designations), there is their Revelation that they come to us with and then there is the Message.

Contained in all 3 of those aspects is all the Proof that God has provided to us, for us to know and Love God.

So.

1)The Person - Known as a prophet, or, messenger, or manifestation
2) The Revelation they give - Given to transform society, changes the direction of humanity
3) The Word - The Message given becomes the standard and guidance for the growth of humanity.

That is the evidence, which is provided to each individual to decide upon.

Regards Tony

Interesting - People, individual insight, and the articulation provided by them? I'd suggest you're correct in this assessment. Typically speaking, people lean on others as well as an individual pov. What we accept as true and just is ultimately up to us. This does not negate the messages provided by others - We csn accept others as "teachers/guides" or we can choose not to. Proof of God? I guess that depends on how a person defines "God".

 

[Valjean]

Yeah .. and a person with sound religious knowledge, can tell you why their claims are false.

In fact, most people without religious knowledge can probably tell you why.
..particularly if they are detained in a psychiatric hospital.

I'm not so sure. The claims of the established religious founders often seem no more or less evidenced than those of cult leaders or madmen.
Whether or not the teachings of a Shoko Asahara, Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ, Sun Myung Moon, or Muhammad take off to form major religions or not seems largely a product of luck -- military, political, financial, &c.

 

[Valjean]

Yes that is the hypothesis that darwinist propose......how do you know is true?

Boatloads of observable, testable, consilient, productive, reproducible, objective evidence.

How do you know for example that the eye is a result of that mechanism?

As above.
Moreover, we have living examples of each stage of eye development, from a light sensitive spot of pigment on a single celled protozoan, to a complex mammalian or cephalopod eye. Each step is functional.

Why would a step by step series of small, natural changes be less believable than a fully formed eye magically appearing out of nothing?

 

[Polymath257]

No, that is not a good reason to disbelieve.
Everybody knows that we cannot prove that God exists .. but 50% of the population believe despite that.

Conclusion: they don't believe for a good reason.

They acknowledge that this life is a test, and that they will return to their Maker.

But to do that, they have to believe in the 'Maker' *first*. And that belief isn't supported.

 

[Polymath257]

..to control others?
..or is it that you just want to follow your desires, and ignore what God has forbidden?

We all have to live together in a community. We need each other.
We need rules. Without rules, there is chaos.

But do those rules need to go to the extent that they do? Do they need to include beliefs?

The *natural* rules are those that promote human well being. No God is required to know those.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you not understand its evidence for "them"!

Its not about you or what you accept. Its about them and what they accept.

No, the question is what it is reasonable to accept.

 

[Polymath257]

And is there evidence and proof of people believing religious and spiritual things that are definitely not true? Even Baha'is would agree with that and one of the main religions they say that about is the world's largest religion, the Christians. The biggest error that Baha'is say about Christians is that many of them believe Jesus is God. Why? Because they are told the Bible teaches that? And those Bible verses are the "proof".

I would say that *all* spiritual beliefs are not true.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure I do. But a good debate isn't just about saying you are wrong because I disagree.
We all see the world and everything in it differently. What is beautiful to me may be ugly to you.
Which one of us is right?

In that case, neither view is 'true'. Both are opinions.

It seems to me that there are many people who want to consider their opinions to be true.

 

[Polymath257]

"According you you she is just making "So what" arguments"

BS! She is stating what she believes for herself. She is not telling you to be like her or you have to accept her beliefs. She is sharing her beliefs. You are attacking her for sharing her beliefs.
There is a difference.

No, the question is whether those beliefs are *justified*. That is required to call them knowledge. Otherwise, we call those beliefs *opinions*.