Just Believe

[PruePhillip]

I just can't believe it.
How does a person believe in something for which they have no evidence?
.

Wasn't this issue of falling from a high place and expecting God to save you
addressed by Jesus?
What evidence do you have that all who believe in God have no evidence
for God's existance?

 

[blü 2]

Understanding the Miracles of the Bible
To satisfy the inquiring mind on the question of miracles requires that the evidence in connection with them point to (1) a superior power,

No, not a superior power. That would assume the existence of something whose existence is the very issue.

(2) their possibility from a scientific point of view

That line of enquiry would equate God with a superscientist, no? And I haven't heard such a claim from any believer (though I'm open to correction). As I've mentioned at times in the past, if the difference between us and God is knowhow, why don't we have dedicated centers of research trying to get their hands on that knowhow? Why isn't some large fraction of the world's many defense budgets devoted to defense against supernatural attack?

The answer is, surely, because God is magical, not a superscientist, just wishes and IT IS SO!

and (3) the reason for or purpose of the miracles.

Once again the idea of a purpose presupposes the purposeful being whose existence is the issue.

A miracle, amazing to the eye of the beholder, is something beyond his ability to perform or even to understand fully. It is a work requiring greater power or knowledge than he has. But from the viewpoint of the one who is the source of such power it is not a miracle. He understands it and has the ability to do it.

That again equates God with a superscientist. Rather, a miracle is a subset of magic, the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality, usually just by wishing ─ Let there be light! ─ but sometimes with magic objects, places, animals, entities or people.

Skeptics who accept such laws view a miracle as a violation of these laws, which they accept, reasonably, as irrevocable, inexorable

I know what you mean, but it isn't really so in science. All conclusions of science are tentative, never protected against unknown unknowns. The justification for science is not that it obtains absolute truths (there are none) but because it works.

Whereas perhaps there's a sense in which each of the world's hundreds or thousands of religions, while not possessing absolute truths either, work in the sense of fulfilling a particular function in the human psyche and in human societies.

therefore, they say, a miracle never occurs.

It seems fair to say that, since the number of authenticated miracles is still zero,

‘if it is not understandable and explainable to us as far as we discern these laws, it cannot happen.’

That's not the attitude of science. If there's a real phenomenon that doesn't comply with our standard scientific theories, then we examine the phenomenon and try to find the explanation.

The trouble with this as an analogy for religion is that religion can offer no phenomena that need an explanation from physics.

However, capable scientists are becoming increasingly cautious about saying that a certain thing is impossible.

As I said, that's not true of phenomena that can be demonstrated.

But it's correct to say, for example, that as our understanding of physics stands in 2021, we have no way of building a craft that can travel faster than light, or even any evidence-supported hypothesis of how we could go about such a thing. (For example, if Einstein is correct then to reach c, our craft would require infinite energy ─ and at present Einstein appears to be correct.)

So if we detect an object moving faster than c through our solar system, we'll say, Gee, didn't see that coming! [joke]

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What evidence do you have that all who believe in God have no evidence for God's existance?

The fact that none who say they believe can produce any evidence that favors belief in a god. What do they offer as evidence for a god? Scripture. Or they point to reality and say, see, this is just too complex to have come to be without an intelligent designer. Not a convincing argument at all. The universe, like scripture, is evidence that it exists, not that it exists because of a god. For that, you need scripture that no man could have written, or an observation like irreducible complexity in biological systems.

 

[PruePhillip]

The fact that none who say they believe can produce any evidence that favors belief in a god. What do they offer as evidence for a god? Scripture. Or they point to reality and say, see, this is just too complex to have come to be without an intelligent designer. Not a convincing argument at all. The universe, like scripture, is evidence that it exists, not that it exists because of a god. For that, you need scripture that no man could have written, or an observation like irreducible complexity in biological systems.

The bible states often that if you don't prove God's word for youself
then you don't understand. This is the private, personal experience,
not the materialist, corporate proof which as we know is necessary
for making sense of the physical world.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Nothing is wrong with the book. I just didn't want that to be the focus of the arguers. As there is so much more for one to see evidence of God, besides religious connections.

Well there's the universe of course.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If the evidence for God is overwhelming to you, the God is proven. Why did you then add that you don't need it proven?

No, evidence doesn't equal proof. I can find evidence for all kinds of things I can't actually prove if one is determined to see things a different way.

 

[Brian2]

Can you elaborate why you say faith is good for people?

Also, how do you see the role of faith when we see people refusing to accept solid evidence that happens to challenge or run contrary to their beliefs about one thing or another? Do you see a difference between one's faith and their beliefs? Can a believer in God change their beliefs, and still be said to be being true to faith itself? Or if they do change their beliefs, do you see that as the same as losing one's faith?

Faith is good because God has said that those without faith cannot please Him and that He will reward those who believe and that He will reward those who sincerely seek Him. (Heb 11:6)
Faith can be evidence enough even in the face of what some call solid evidence against that faith.
Faith I see as incorporating trust in God and belief can be just an intellectual thing. Seeing beliefs crumble can mess up one's faith in God or it can more firmly establish it if the crumbling of beliefs leads to the opening up of better beliefs.
Some times people put their faith in a group of people instead of in God and I think that can make it more devastating when beliefs crumble.
I cannot really judge people who change beliefs and go to what I see as worse beliefs, I'll leave that to God.

 

[Brian2]

Can you give us one example, please.

Some people just believe the Bible even if scholars start tearing it down in front of them. They may not have the knowledge or intellect to defend their beliefs but stick to them anyway.
Then again some people have put their faith in a group of teachers who teach differently to what the Bible does and when they see what the Bible says and that it is different to what their teachers say, they keep their faith in the group of men. That is an interesting one and happens for various reasons and I cannot judge them.

I suppose that person probably might believe we can't breath underwater, because we were raised believing that too.

Could be, I don't know how far her beliefs stretched.

 

[Brian2]

...and all of the other religions claim the same. Now what?

I don't think they do all claim the same.
Buddha lived and decided he was enlightened and started teaching.
Hinduism seems to be based on just stories not associated with history and I don't know about hundreds of prophecies in it that have and keep coming true.
Some try to tag themselves with history and prophecy but miss the mark when the history and prophecies are checked out.

 

[Windwalker]

Faith is good because God has said that those without faith cannot please Him and that He will reward those who believe and that He will reward those who sincerely seek Him. (Heb 11:6)

I think I'd like to know why you think it's good. Just simply believing God thinks it's good, doesn't say to us how it is good for us. In what ways? What positive things come from it?

I tend to think faith is something which both precedes and transcends beliefs, and that doubts are actually servants of faith to keep it from losing its way in our becoming wedded to our beliefs about God through our religious trainings.

To doubt our beliefs, exercises faith to 'trust', or better said to 'rest' in unknowing. That it's not our beliefs and ideas about things, or God, that gives rest or comfort to our minds. It's not about knowing with the mind and having no doubts. It's not about that at all. Faith rather is knowing Peace, even in great doubt in everything we normal look to to make us feel secure in life. Faith is surrender, not grasping for solid ideas to cling to.

So I make a distinction between belief and faith in this way. Beliefs are supports for faith, but they are more like scaffolding for a free-standing building, and not the structure itself. They are not structural in nature. Faith is structural. Faith is foundational. And beliefs are tools which aide and assist. Sometimes, we all need to upgrade our tools when the need arises.

Faith can be evidence enough even in the face of what some call solid evidence against that faith.

How so? What solid evidence against faith, as I have defined it above? That's a subjective, intuitive knowing in the face of uncertainty and unknowing. Though I can doubt all things, faith gives rest and assurance of security and peace in itself alone, even when everything we believed to be true is in question.

So I don't see how anyone can find evidence against something that is subjective in nature like that? What? "No, you are mistaken to feel peace? You should feel terrified about being wrong about something?" I would be amused hearing that as a said challenge to faith.

Faith I see as incorporating trust in God and belief can be just an intellectual thing. Seeing beliefs crumble can mess up one's faith in God or it can more firmly establish it if the crumbling of beliefs leads to the opening up of better beliefs.

I agree. But where it strengthens faith is more in exercising resting and being at peace, now that you can't rely upon your beliefs to give you a sense of security anymore. That is exercising faith. Resting it it, instead of your beliefs. Exercising, in a real sense, "no mind". It's just being open, rather that inside our heads and our belief systems.

"Better beliefs", I would exercise some caution here. What we find after an earlier view about God had to be let go of because it hindered rather than helped, is that there is a temptation to say what we have found now is the real truth, and before we were wrong. "I'm so glad I have the real truth now!", is a trap that imprisons our own hearts and minds. "Beliefism" is a cheap substitute for exercising actual faith itself.

Some times people put their faith in a group of people instead of in God and I think that can make it more devastating when beliefs crumble.

Speaking from my own history with this, what is lost is the community and friends. It's not really about faith in them and their beliefs, but about meaningful social contacts and community. That becomes a real sacrifice that has to happen sometimes in the service of faith.

I cannot really judge people who change beliefs and go to what I see as worse beliefs, I'll leave that to God.

Could you recognize that someone who changed those beliefs actually benefits and is possibly better of with those new ways of looking at things? I've found that beliefs, are really simply just ways of looking at thing, and there can be more than one right way of looking at things. Would you agree with that?

 

[ecco]

Is the absence of evidence also evidence of absence ________
So, yes I have faith (confidence) in what Jesus taught.

Either you erroneously believe that the Gospel accounts are first-hand, or you believe on blind faith. Which is it?

Jesus was very-well educated in the old Hebrew Scriptures that is why the could explain or expound Scripture for us.

How do you know that? Where is it written that Jesus was very well educated in the old Hebrew Scriptures?

It is far more likely that the references to old Hebrew Scriptures were based on the knowledge of the anonymous writers who put words into Jesus' mouth.

 

[PureX]

What reality of God's existence?

The reality of existence, itself, and the many indications of source, sustenance, and purpose that such exhibits. You can choose to deny it, and to ignore it, but the vast majority of your fellow humans recognize it as a fundamental aspect of reality.

It turns out that all we have are such claims to consider and rebut, possibly because this reality of which you speak isn't actually real.

It is real to the vast majority of humans, both currently and throughout the history of mankind. Meanwhile, you have no evidence nor logical reason to reject their theistic perception of existence, at all. None. Zippo. Yet you demand that everyone else must produce undeniable physical evidence for you, when you clearly are quite happy to maintain your current position based on no evidence at all.

 

[ecco]

Faith=trust that you'll win a hundred by working. Evidence=paycheck

Blind faith=trust you'll win a hundred by belief
Evidence=none

That's another very poor example.

You didn't win $100 by working. You earned $100 by working. If you need to conflate terns, you have already lost the argument.

So, your airplane pilot example didn't work. Your "winning" argument doesn't work.

Care to try again?

 

[ecco]

You are confusing the conceptual representations of God invented by men, with the reality of God's existence.

You are proposing that all gods were created by man EXCEPT your god. You have no evidence to support that. Muslims and Hindus believe exactly the same about their gods.

Before you enter the theism/atheism debate, you need to clear up this confusion in your own mind.

I'm not the one confused. You want to pretend that your god is the only real god from thousands of gods that man created.

Otherwise all you're gong to do is argue endlessly and pointlessly about how the mythology IS mythology.

It is somewhat pointless to try to present evidence to people who refuse to evaluate it.

And the people arguing back will be, and remain, just as confused as you are.

I'm sure you believe that Hindus and Muslims and Scientologists are as confused as I am. I'm sure you believe that only the people who believe in your god, and the way you believe in and worship him, are not confused. Does that soothe your ego?


Other than telling me that I am confused, you really haven't been able to address the following.
There is extensive evidence that gods are the creations of man's imaginings.

• Do you believe Thor is anything but the creation of man's imaginings?
• Do you believe Shiva is anything but the creation of man's imaginings?
• Do you believe Allah is anything but the creation of man's imaginings?
• Do you believe The Christian God is anything but the creation of man's imaginings?

If these gods are not the creations of man's imaginings, then they all must be real gods. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[ecco]

There is so much against the process of creation of the universe and the advent of humans which the scriptures mention - the six day creation and creation of Adam from mud and creation of woman from ribs (or from baculum - penis bone, as some have opined. That is why baculum is mising in humans).

"The first recorded attempts to explain the lack of baculum in humans might be more than two thousand years old: the Biblical 'rib' that was 'taken' from Adam may actually be the baculum." Baculum - Wikipedia

Considering that the stories in ancient religions were based on oral traditions (campfire stories) passed down for thousands of years before writing...

Curious human: Oh, Wise One, the dog has a bone in his penis, we do not. Why is that?

Wise One: When the Great-God-Entity made a helper for first-man, he did it by taking the penis bone from first-man and from it, created first-woman.


This was later cleaned up by the do-gooders.

 

[F1fan]

OK, so I take from that you have no thought or hope of a good future for yourself beyond that.-- ?

He didn't bring up hope, just the probability based on averages.

Since I believe and it is clear to me that God made the earth habitable for man and other living things, mankind eventually to live forever, I believe He has the power to cause life to continue as He wills, including the stability of the sun.

None of this is factual. You believe it based on a tradition of belief, and because your brain evolved in a way that seeks to soothe anxiety and fear with beliefs that offset reality and promote a fantasy. This behavior becomes a habit, and an emotional dependency.

The Bible says that star differs from star in glory. 1 Corinthians 15:41 states, "The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, one star differs from another star in glory." Based on that, I conclude that each star is different from another. Since He can make humans live forever according to His will, He can also cause the sun remain forever, if that is His will.

This isn't factual. Why are you actively seeking conclusions from sources that are not factual? Have you no self-awareness of your own thinking and how it traps you to false conclusions and beliefs?

 

[ecco]

However, an atheist comes to the end of their life and realizes they've spent most of it working, that they haven't done enough, that they aren't enough. They are a loser who didn't get the girl or are still living with their parents. And they are trapped in a world of no hope. So who has been talked into jumping off a cliff here? This is a very picture of being stuck on a spiritual ledge.

Can you actually name any atheist who feels that way?

I have seen none here on RF that would agree with you in the least.

If you must build silly strawmen to make a point - you lose, every time.

 

[F1fan]

The bible states often that if you don't prove God's word for youself
then you don't understand.

What objective method does it provide so the person can make an accurate and factual realization?

This is the private, personal experience,
not the materialist, corporate proof which as we know is necessary
for making sense of the physical world.

So it is subjective to whims of the person, and they are pressured to make a conclusion that the Bible/religion suggests or otherwise be outcast. How does a material being like a human understand the non-material and be accurate?

 

[PureX]

You are proposing that all gods were created by man EXCEPT your god. You have no evidence to support that.

I have made no such claim. Please pay attention to the posts, and not just to your own bias.

It is somewhat pointless to try to present evidence to people who refuse to evaluate it.

Why are you even bothering to argue with people who will not or cannot recognize the difference between mythical representation and reality? They have already rejected any argument you could possibly offer.

I'm sure you believe that Hindus and Muslims and Scientologists are as confused as I am.

Anyone who can't understand that myths are semi-fictional representations of reality, and not reality, itself, I consider to be quite confused, yes.

I'm sure you believe that only the people who believe in your god, and the way you believe in and worship him, are not confused. Does that soothe your ego?

I make no such claim or assumption. This is completely a figment of your own bias.

Other than telling me that I am confused, you really haven't been able to address the following.
There is extensive evidence that gods are the creations of man's imaginings.

OF COURSE THEY ARE. But this has nothing whatever to do with the actual existence of God/gods. Which is what you seem to be profoundly ignorant of, and confused about.

 

[nPeace]

.. and what is that if you could mention?
Kindly mention some from this 'so much'.

There is evidence of design in the universe. Where there is design, there is a designer.
There is purpose in design. Where there is purpose, there is planning. Design involves planning.
There are laws governing the universe. Laws require a law maker.
More later.
Which of those statements do yu not agree with?
The evidence seen in the world around us points to an intelligent creator. Romans 1:20 ; Hebrews 3:4

Professor John R. Brobeck was not a physicist.

Physicist are not God.
Do you think they are? Then what's your argument?
I hope you are not going to tell me that their beliefs about nature are right.

********************************************************

Easily done as many humans are not strictly rational creatures.

Jumping off a cliff is idiotic because it has disastrous results. By comparison beliefs are not necessarily disastrous, which is where your analogy fails.

That's pretty much what He did.

Nah, people who came after Him added claims of miracles to help the story sell.

So the claim goes, yet the overwhelming majority of Jews were never impressed.

In my opinion.

Oh. You were there? What name did you go by then?
What reasons do I have for believing you, as opposed to those who claim to have actually witnesses these events first hand, and whose story checks out by secondary sources?

The Jews were wayward - a rebellious stiff-necked lot.
It says so in their own book, which they live by, so why would you accept the claims of a people whose priest were so corrupt they and the people suffered numerous times at the hands of their enemies, and by 70 AD, they still did not change their attitude, and again suffered terribly for it?

It seems to me if I were rebellious, I too would take their side. You know what they say, "Birds of a feather...".

And even if he were (he is not as you pointed out correctly), saying something is improbable but not impossible therefore it is evidence it occurred is ridiculous, which is the wool @nPeace appears to be trying to pull down over our eyes.

In my opinion.

Is that what you got from reading that article?
Then may I suggest you give considerations to why it was posted, because you jumped to the wrong conclusion.
The reason the article was quoted, has nothing to do with evidence, but rather to show that calling an act that involves something beyond one's limited understanding, magic, is neither reasonable, nor logical. It does not fit the facts.

Man in his limited understanding, cannot claim to know all the laws governing nature, and how those laws can be utilized.
Man harnesses energy. he uses it to accomplish amazing things. he is not doing magic. He is simply using elements in a way he understands.
Someone more advanced than man can do far more, beyond man's understanding... and scientist have not ruled our intelligence far greater advanced than man.

So have you pulled the wool over your eyes, and are desperately trying to pull it over other's eyes?

Yes I would.

No, the majority is not always right, but in this particular case the majority appears to be correct in the assumption that Jesus did not use the scriptures to teach with authority, as He may have taught from the scriptures, but in their eyes He was heretical and thus had no authority.

In my opinion.

"In their eyes". Yes. Thanks for that.
What kind of eyes did they have, according to their holy book?
Jesus said, ". . .if your eye is wicked, your whole body will be dark. If in reality the light that is in you is darkness, how great that darkness is!" (Matthew 6:23)

Did the Tanakh describe the jews that way? Yes. I don't need to quote from Exodus to Malachi for you.
I have looked at this people and here it is a stiff-necked people. . . (Exodus 32:9)

********************************************************

Well, there was no evidence in your post.

Then I suggest you don't know what constitutes evidence.

********************************************************

Classic. You talk of evidence being in a book, but I cannot address the book.
Is that really what is left to theists to make an argument?
Where did I talk about evidence in a book please? Exact quote please.

So, let's have a look. Hoping I may do that.

Romans 1:20: For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Here Paul made something up, hoping nobody noticed. Like those salesman of oil snake talking to an audience needing some magic at any cost, and therefore not asking too many critical questions. How on earth can you infer from creation alone, say the trees, the bees, cancer, parasitic wasps, the rainbow, the stars, etc. that the creator has a Son who sort of died for something called sin, and the rest of that theological shebang?

Unless you tell me how that process is intended to work, those guys that know nothing about all that myth, have a pretty thick excuse.

Please viole. Just get your head off the book for a minute. Please.
Romans 1:20 says nothing about God having a son. It simply is pointing out that the evidence is clear for one to perceive that there is a creator, and that evidence is being denied.
Can you tell which was painting by an artist... for a certainty?

Would you say someone looking at one of those paintings and saying that someone painted it, is making it up?
They simply are making observations, and coming to a reasonable conclusion.
Likewise, reasonable, rational people, are making observations of the world around them, and coming to a logical conclusion that the design in nature, did not accidentally get there, like the paint on paper made by a cat, which is illustrated in the bottom image. They reasonably concluded that like the above image, the design is nature testifies with certainty, that it was brought about by an intelligent designer.

Hebrews 3:4: For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.

That is another statement that has no evidence whatsoever. Sounds deep, but it is just what Paul made up. Actually, it is even logically contradicting since that would entail that God is the builder of God, if God is part of everything. Again, that has all the landmarks of being a sales argument to people craving to buy some hope coming from some magical Dad in the Skies. To people with too much heaven on their mind, like A.L. Webber would say, and are therefore blind to even the biggest logical contradictions, and utter absence of evidence. of the claims exposed.

Ciao

- viole

Paul made up that every house requires a builder, is a logical conclusion. Hence every designed object requires a designer? Is that what you really believe?
Well He did say that men are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way.

The beginning need not have a beginner. Even scientists recognize this, as some propose a cyclic multiverse generator.
The beginning can produce, but is not produced.
God is not made. He thus was not designed. because of our limited understanding, we have every reason to acknowledge that to reason that the same principle we apply to created objects, must be equally applied to the creator, is simply flawed thinking, and a pride that is beyond imagination.

********************************************************

From your own words in the OP. Did you not say: "However, Jesus performed great signs, and used the scriptures to teach with authority, giving people evidence - reason to believe, and exercise faith. Is that not so?"

Yes. Those are my exact word.
Key words : giving people evidence - reason to believe, and exercise faith
Who was it that got the evidence? Am I talking about you and I, or anyone alive today, Or am I talking about people living in Jesus' day who saw the evidence with their own two eyes... or one?

********************************************************

Wasn't this issue of falling from a high place and expecting God to save you
addressed by Jesus?
What evidence do you have that all who believe in God have no evidence
for God's existance?

Not sure what you are asking. I did not say that all who believe in God have no evidence for God's existence.
Where did you read that in the OP?

********************************************************

@blü 2

That's not the attitude of science. If there's a real phenomenon that doesn't comply with our standard scientific theories, then we examine the phenomenon and try to find the explanation.

The trouble with this as an analogy for religion is that religion can offer no phenomena that need an explanation from physics.

Thank you.
Scientist find explanations for phenomenon.
What makes their explanation better than another who explains design in nature as the product of a designer?