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

[YoursTrue]

Fay-eth?

Uh, let's see how you can figure this out. What's the outcome of -- anyone's life? Guess...

 

[ElishaElijah]

Nope, neither the text of the gospel nor that of the letters bears John’s name, or any name. Second and Third John are from the pen of “the elder,” who is not identified. The letters and gospel are anonymous....

Maybe according to some views and yours but I’m shocked you accept your views with no evidence and just hearsay from your unbeliever sources, you might as well ask Satan himself what he thinks.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, is a vacuum 'nothing'? Even if it has space? and duration?

Do you have any evidence that 'nothing' ever existed? For that matter, what would it even mean to say 'nothing' existed?

There are more subtleties in this topic than you may have considered. And they go far beyond grade school.

There is an amusing history book by Edward Grant entitled 'Much Ado About Nothing' that discusses medieval notions of the vacuum.

So before the big bang, you have evidence that the mass that caused it existed? Did something exist before that mass that you believe existed?

 

[Sheldon]

I don’t know what all your yapping is about. I don’t recognize any of those names you list. God already knows your and GF names and where you both live. I don’t care to know. I’m not out to prove to you that God exists. You asked me to answer one of your questions and I did. You either care to believe in and develop a relationship with God, or you don’t……and ….. you don’t. Not my problem.

Maybe a debate forum, is not the forum for you?

FYI no one cares what you believe, or how passionately you blindly believe it.

 

[Sheldon]

So far ove seen your post about you saying something like Paul had a different message than
Jesus Christ which isn’t true.

Paul never knew or even met Jesus, any clams he makes about anything Jesus is purported to have done or said is pure hearsay.

 

[ppp]

In answering my question you will get your answer.

That dodge will never work for you. Answer my question directly or drop it

 

[Sheldon]

Maybe according to some views and yours but I’m shocked you accept your views with no evidence and just hearsay from your unbeliever sources, you might as well ask Satan himself what he thinks.

What on earth are you talking about? Neither the text of the gospel nor that of the letters bears John’s name, or any name. Second and Third John are from the pen of “the elder,” who is not identified. The letters and gospel are anonymous, did you really not know this either?

 

[Sheldon]

So before the big bang, you have evidence that the mass that caused it existed? Did something exist before that mass that you believe existed?

What created your deity, what existed before your deity, what is your deity made of...?

You don't want to play the argumentum ad ignorantiam game, when you are the one believing in inexplicable magic from an unevidenced deity.

 

[ElishaElijah]

What on earth are you talking about?

You make a lot of assumptions that are wrong about who wrote the books of the Bible, according to ancient manuscripts 1John is unanimous in naming John as the author, also John if you read it, then it’s obviously John the apostle and written AD 70 at the end of John’s life.

Hold on a sec let me check my spelling and punctuation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My answer was clear, Disciple John wrote John, 1John, 2John and 3John. He was an eyewitness. One of many

Nope. John the disciple is not thought to be the author of those works.

John was a rather common name even back then. It is an error to assume that "John" was the disciple John.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You make a lot of assumptions that are wrong about who wrote the books of the Bible, according to ancient manuscripts 1John is unanimous in naming John as the author, also John if you read it, then s obviously John the apostle and written AD 70 at the end of John’s life

Any reliable sources? The sources that I can find only say that 1 John was written by John the evangelist, and that is not thought to be the apostle John. Plus writing styles are different between 1John and the Gospel of John. They are no longer thought to be by the same authors:

First Epistle of John - Wikipedia.

 

[Polymath257]

So before the big bang, you have evidence that the mass that caused it existed? Did something exist before that mass that you believe existed?

We have no evidence that it even makes sense to talk about 'before the Big Bang'. We have no evidence that the BB was caused and some strong suggestions that it was not (a quantum fluctuation is one possibility).

There is every indication that whenever time existed, so did space, matter, and energy. So there was never a time when there was no matter.

 

[YoursTrue]

We have no evidence that it even makes sense to talk about 'before the Big Bang'. We have no evidence that the BB was caused and some strong suggestions that it was not (a quantum fluctuation is one possibility).

There is every indication that whenever time existed, so did space, matter, and energy. So there was never a time when there was no matter.

Well now let's see. Many believe that the universe started at a certain point, don't they?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well now let's see. Many believe that the universe started at a certain point, don't they?

Trying to ninja @Polymath257

Can you guess what else started then?

 

[Polymath257]

Well now let's see. Many believe that the universe started at a certain point, don't they?

Yes, many do. And those that do also think that time started at that point (and for good theoretical reasons based in general relativity). So, there was no 'before'.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, many do. And those that do also think that time started at that point (and for good theoretical reasons based in general relativity). So, there was no 'before'.

There was no 'before' what? The big bang? Can you specify what was 'not before' the Big Bang, if that's what you mean? Thanks.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Yes, many do. And those that do also think that time started at that point (and for good theoretical reasons based in general relativity). So, there was no 'before'.

According to some theories there was before.

 

[Polymath257]

There was no 'before' what? The big bang? Can you specify what was 'not before' the Big Bang, if that's what you mean? Thanks.

For those that believe the universe began at a specific time, they also believe that time did not exist before that. So there was literally no 'before the Big Bang'. Strictly speaking, the phrase 'before the Big bang' is meaningless in those models.

 

[Polymath257]

According to some theories there was before.

Yes, and in those theories, time, space, matter, and energy all exist infinitely far into the past.

 

[nPeace]

Give evidence that is anywhere close to the evidence we have for dark matter.

Saying you have 100% confidence is tantamount to saying you aren't interested in testing your ideas. A good scientists isn't 100% confident about *any* general theory. There is *always* the possibility that something isn't perfectly correct and might need to be modified.

Anywhere close?
I haven't seen your evidence for Dark Matter. I read that there is a phenomenon that is observed through effects produced by forces.
I have already given evidence surpassing that. The invisible God and his power is detected by more than questioned forces.

I disagree. It is evidence that matter has properties. it shows nothing about the existence of an intelligent designer or creator.

Huh? Translation please.

I disagree. I think that case is *way* overstated. The moon has almost nothing to do with the seasons, for example. That is solely due to the tilt of the Earth's axis. And that is not greatly affected by the moon or other planets.

Where did you read that the moon is what affects seasons?

Many of the claims of tine-tuning disappear when looked at closer.

By all means, please lend me your lens... in other words present your arguments, please.

Which is why we have confidence in the dark matter explanation.

That you haven't investigated God? You seem to be speaking in riddles, because I can't connect what you are saying with what I said.

You don't. You need evidence that is repeatable and public.

Yes. Even if it is denied.

Except that you don't have a better explanation at all. What *precise* observations have you managed to explain?

Precise observation? You mean like God suspending the earth on nothing?

Can you explain the details of the cosmic background radiation?

...and why do I need to do that?

Can you explain the details of why blood types among different species are similar in the way they are?

Not that I need to, but yes. It's also in your text books though.
They can't be sure, they say, since genes can look similar for various reasons... including being due to HGT, etc.

Also, it has been repeatedly explained. Why does the baker's different types of bread have similar ingredients? Easy question.
It's not because one came from the other.