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

[Subduction Zone]

Another deity existed before and formed my deity. My deity is made of flesh, bones, and spirit.

If he is unevidenced to you, that is a shame.

I have found that many believers do not understand the concept of evidence. "It convinced me" does not necessarily means that what one has is evidence. Or to be more precise reliable evidence..

 

[joelr]

I don’t know what all your yapping is about. I don’t recognize any of those names you list.

Many Christians are not aware of Biblical historicity, have no idea where the myths and theology actually came from and assume they were created when the scripture was being written. Of course the church isn't going to teach that or people studying Theology are only touching on it but historians do learn it. Which is why scholar Bart Ehrman (for one) went from a full fundamentalist Christian to atheist.

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.

Which question did you answer? I didn't see any answers? You claim to have communications with God? I don't have communications with God? I tried as you stated. I have gotten no answer? So if YOU have this communication then why don't you ask God any of these questions and then tell me? If you are "not out to prove God exists" then why are you posting all this preachy stuff? Kinda sounds like you ARE out to prove God exists but when tasked with an actual solution to prove he exists that is beyond what you can do (because you are not really getting any communications at all I suspect) you are all "hey I'm not trying to prove anything...?

You either care to believe in and develop a relationship with God, or you don’t……and ….. you don’t. Not my problem.

Uh...nope, I said I would try. I tried and I have gotten no answer? Why are you twisting my words?
I also know folks who claim to have personal relationships with Allah and Lord Krishna. Personal relationships that they are 100%. convinced of. They also are convinced that their version of religious truth is the correct version. Through their personal relationship they have gotten confirmation that they have the correct religion.
So either Lord Krishna is also real or people can create this fantasy in their minds through belief.
Which strongly suggests you have also created this fantasy.

 

[joelr]

On what basis do you claim the Bible to be fiction... other than denial?

All of the myths are re-writes of earlier myths. Christianity is the most egregious in this. Heaven, souls, savior demigods who resurrect in 3 days, Revelation, baptism, eucharist, Satan vs God, every single theology is borrowed. Borrowed from people who occupied the Hebrew nations for centuries.

Mark is written as fiction. No sources, improbable events without explanation, ring structure, triadic cycles, Markan sandwiches, chiasmus, Jesus scores as high as King Arthur on the Rank Ragalin mythotype scale. This is literally as fictive as books get. Mark also uses the OT verbatim at times and rewrites Kings, Psalms, Elija.
Not only is the writing fictive but the entire concept of a dying/rising demigod who rises in 3 days was already being done by regional religions. All religions who were Hellenized.

We touched on this twice and you went into denial. Then you pretend to not know and claim all we have is denial?

 

[joelr]

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.

Not the opinion of Christian scholarship

John reached its final form around AD 90–110,[7] although it contains signs of origins dating back to AD 70 and possibly even earlier.[8] Like the three other gospels, it is anonymous, although it identifies an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions.[9][10] It most likely arose within a "Johannine community",[11][12] and – as it is closely related in style and content to the three Johannine epistles – most scholars treat the four books, along with the Book of Revelation, as a single corpus of Johannine literature, albeit not from the same author.[13]

 

[joelr]

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

"Like the three other gospels, it is anonymous,"Gospel of John - Wikipedia


Why You Should Not Believe the Apostle John Wrote the Last Gospel


Why You Should Not Believe the Apostle John Wrote the Last Gospel • Richard Carrier

That John is responding to Luke is actually a growing consensus in Johannine studies; likewise that John has been multiply redacted, such that our version is not the one originally written. … External evidence placing the Gospel of John’s appearance in history is also the scarcest [relative to the previous three Gospels]. It could have been written as late as the 140s (some argue even later) or as early as the 100s (provided Luke was written in the 90s [which a growing consensus now considers its earliest likely date]). I will arbitrarily side with the earlier of those dates. John was redacted multiple times and thus had multiple authors. (This is already the consensus of Johannine experts.) Nothing is known of them. John’s authors (plural) claim to have used a written source composed by an anonymous eyewitness (21.20-25), but that witness does not exist in any prior Gospel, yet is conspicuously inserted into John’s rewrites of their narratives (e.g. compare Jn 20.2 with Lk. 24.12 [likewise his insertion into the fishing story and last supper story and crucifixion story and his replacement of the resurrections at Nain and Gerasa]) and so is almost certainly a fabrication (as I show in Chapter 10, §7).

I cover the evidence and scholarship on all this in the most detail in Chapter 10.7 (Ibid., pp. 487-506). But one of the most important points I develop there is that the original authors of John clearly intended their unnamed “beloved disciple,” the one they claim as their source, to be none other than Lazarus. Who is most definitely a made-up person, invented by the authors of John to reify and reverse the teaching of Luke’s Parable of Lazarus (pp. 500-05), which Luke designed as an argument for why people should believe without direct evidence of any resurrection (thus, Luke knew of no Lazarus or Doubting Thomas tale to cite instead; to the contrary, his Parable was in fact an attempt to explain why there wasn’t any). Well, that argument the authors of John despised (pp. 489-90), and thus replaced by fabricating evidence for resurrections, not only through John’s ridiculously trumped up narrative of Jesus’s resurrection—complete with a Doubting Thomas fondling the open wounds in Jesus’s risen body, a story found nowhere in any prior Gospel or the Epistles of Paul, despite it being the most powerful and informative tale one could ever have attested and thus could never have been omitted by four prior authors (it also lies at the end of a long process of gradually exaggerated fabrication, starting with a merely missing body in Mark, then moving to the feet the women touch in Matthew, to the hands and feet grabbed by the Apostles in Luke, to the wounds fondled in John)—but also in John’s completely fabricated resurrection of Lazarus, which John depicts as so incredibly famous it was the reason the Sanhedrin started plotting to kill Jesus (and even Lazarus), another detail no previous author could have overlooked. Thus the authors of John converted a fictional person who wasn’t raised from the dead to prove the faith into a real person actually raised from the dead to prove the faith. This is so obviously fiction that it is astonishing anyone would be so foolish as to believe it.

 

[Firelight]

Which question did you answer? I tried as you stated. I have gotten no answer? So if YOU have this communication then why don't you ask God any of these questions and then tell me? If you are "not out to prove God exists" then why are you posting all this preachy stuff?

You asked me to answer one of your questions in your post #1572 on page 79.
I answered your 4th question in my post #1574 on page 79. In your post #1840, you said that you tried, and got no answer, and claimed God isn’t real. You gave yourself less than 24 hours from the time I answered your question to “try” before you claimed God isn’t real. You also told me that God is just my imaginary friend.

My prayers concern my own spirituality and relationship with God, not someone else’s. I don’t and will not challenge God for other people. You must exercise and use your own hope and faith in God, not mine. Your own attitude is a huge blocker to your faith.

I am not posting all this “preachy stuff.” I’ve answered questions with short answers, that is not preaching, that is answering questions.

Which strongly suggests you have also created this fantasy.

Why ask me questions if you think it’s a fantasy? Stop asking me questions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You asked me to answer one of your questions in your post #1572 on page 79.
I answered your 4th question in my post #1574 on page 79. In your post #1840, you said that you tried, and got no answer, and claimed God isn’t real. You gave yourself less than 24 hours from the time I answered your question to “try” before you claimed God isn’t real. You also told me that God is just my imaginary friend.

My prayers concern my own spirituality and relationship with God, not someone else’s. I don’t and will not challenge God for other people. You must exercise and use your own hope and faith in God, not mine. Your own attitude is a huge blocker to your faith.

I am not posting all this “preachy stuff.” I’ve answered questions with short answers, that is not preaching, that is answering questions.



Why ask me questions if you think it’s a fantasy? Stop asking me questions.

What do you mean by this: "The theory of evolution is false"

 

[Wildswanderer]

You have been presented with one piece of evidence for it. But you denied it. Here it is again:

There's no evidence for life coming from non life there.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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

Yes, and this doesn't affect a whit cosmological arguments and teleological argument.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, and this doesn't affect a whit cosmological arguments and teleological argument.

No, but skepticism about the limits of rational claims do.

 

[Sheldon]

You make a lot of assumptions that are wrong about who wrote the books of the Bible,

I made no assumptions whatsoever.

 

[Sheldon]

You make a lot of assumptions that are wrong about who wrote the books of the Bible,

Nope it is a widely accepted fact.

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

Well, there you go.

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

So it was @ElishaElijah making incorrect assumptions, and not me.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

More specifically, by gravity. You know, the force that is produced by mass.

If we look at the way stars orbit galaxies, the stars farther away from the center usually move faster than what is expected based on the mass in the galaxies that we can actually see. Because of this, it was proposed that there was 'extra matter' that could not be seen whose gravity affects those stars. That was the first piece of evidence.

In clusters of galaxies, the motions again are not what would be predicted based on the mass we actually see. Instead, it fits if we hypothesize extra matter that cannot be seen.

When modeling the formation of galaxies, it is found that unless extra matter is included the galaxies do not form into what we actually see, but if extra matter is included, they do.

We know that gravity affects the path of light by bending it. When we look at the amount of such bending for light that goes past larger galaxies, we find that the visible matter is not enough to explain the observed bending. If, instead, the extra matter required to explain the motion of the stars is used, the correct amount of bending is found.

When we look closer at light going past galaxies, we can use the amount of bending to determine exactly where the extra mass should be. The amounts found are in agreement with the previous predictions.

When we look at the cosmic background radiation, there is a detectable influence that is from the total amount of mass and another that is due to only 'ordinary matter' (that which is made from protons and neutrons). These effects differ and the amount of difference matches that from galaxy data.

When studying subatomic particles, there are various extensions of the standard model that propose particles that are massive, stable, and do not interact strongly with light. These particles have the properties required for the extra matter from galaxy studies.

Now, all of these are very general observations. Detailed measurements can be given for all of these and the different lines of evidence all agree.

Furthermore, alternative descriptions of gravity have been proposed that would negate the need for the extra matter to explain the motions seen. The problem is that these proposed changes to the theory of gravity do not explain the data from the bending of light.

This is what s known as evidence. And it is why we have a high degree of confidence that there is extra matter, which we call Dark Matter.

Notice that *nderstanding* the evidence in detail requires knowing the specific mathematical description of gravity and how to appply it in various situations.

I have already given evidence surpassing that. The invisible God and his power is detected by more than questioned forces.

That is what you have stated, but you have actually supplied nothing even close to the detail seen above.

Exactly which observations have given the detection? What alternatives were tested? How were the observations verified by other lines of evidence?

Huh? Translation please.

The fact that different matter has different properties is why there are natural laws: the properties explain why matter interacts the ways it does. The natural laws are what describe the patterns of those interactions.

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

That claim was made in the source *you* gave. I was debunking it.

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

Well, for example, the claims of fine tuning in the Earth are dispelled when we actually look at the Earth and solar system and what is required for life to exist here. I have seen it claimed that if the Earth were any closer or farther away from the sun, that life would be impossible. As a matter of fact, there is a fairly wide 'habitable zone' extending tens of millions of miles on either side of the Earth's orbit for which life as we know it would be possible.

I have seen it claimed that a certain resonce between carbon nuclei and helium nuclei needs to be finely tuned in order for carbon to be formed, allowing life as we know it. Again, the actual degree of fine tuning was overstated and differences of up to 20% would actually be allowed.

I can go for other specific claims I have seen made, but they *all* amount to a form of the sharpshooter falacy: they see what life is like under the conditions we have and assume those are the only conditions that could lead to life.

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.

Maybe that is because you haven't studied science to any degree. Some explanations actually require study to understand.

Yes. Even if it is denied.

Funny that is doesn't convince people of other faiths.

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

No, that is a vague claim where the words are interpreted in the best light instead of in the context of the time they were written. So, the Earth does NOT 'hang' on nothing. Hanging implies being at rest or at most swinging back and forth. That is NOT what happens to the Earth. But it *does* match the views of the time that had the Earth *at rest* at the center of the universe.

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

Because the details need to be explained as well. In fact, many seemingly wonderful ideas crash on the shore of details. vague generalities are easy. But having enough detail to be able to test and then passing the tests is much harder.

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.

Which is fine, again, if all you want is glittering generalities. But if you want to get into the specifics of how the similarities are distributed among species, this general statement falls flat.

 

[Polymath257]

There you go. No different to believing in fairies waving magic wands... and voilà... We have a unicorn.

The question is answered reasonably with an intelligent designer, and the evidence supports that.

Except that the assumption of an intelligent designer offers no explanation at all. You would still need to give the specific mechanisms that designer used, which would lead to *exactly* the same research being done for abiogenesis.

It's funny because you are using the designer in place of the fairies: you wave your wand and think no further explanation is required.

 

[leroy]

There is no Theory of Abiogenesis. Only hypotheses.

However, any hypothesis based on natural processes is superior to a hypothesis based on magic, because we have mountains of evidence for natural processes but zero evidence for magic.

@Sheldon

How do you know there is no evidence for magic if any attempt to present such evidence is discarded by default ?

Any argument in favor of magic would be discarded because "there is no prior evidence for magic"

 

[ElishaElijah]

I made no assumptions whatsoever.

Sure you do, there are 2 sides to the views of who wrote the Gospel of John. The apostles, all of them were eyewitnesses who wrote the books of the Bible. Pail was also an eyewitness, so whether people believe what’s written or not is up to them.
I received from God and after that He gave me understanding of the Scriptures which I live out and know that He is ultimately the author of the Scriptures through the Holy Spirit. This is shown all through Scripture.

 

[Sheldon]

The question is answered reasonably with an intelligent designer, and the evidence supports that.

Only if the question is what's an unevidenced archaic superstition. There is no objective evidence at all, and the claim has no explanatory powers whatsoever. Goddidit is the very definition of an appealing to inexplicable magic.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, and this doesn't affect a whit cosmological arguments and teleological argument.

Actually, it does affect the cosmological (kalam) argument by allowing for an infinite regress and noting that it is possible for something to begin and not be caused.

 

[Sheldon]

How do you know there is no evidence for magic if any attempt to present such evidence is discarded by default ?

You seem to have asked a question, then answered with your own straw man. Nothing is discarded by default, and I have explained that magic by definition is an appeal to mystery that has no explanatory powers whatsoever, by definition. If you think you have objective evidence for magic then demonstrate it, instead of pretending you have it, when we both know it will be an unevidenced claim.

Any argument in favor of magic would be discarded because "there is no prior evidence for magic"

Like buses look, two straw men at once, but again you are misrepresenting my position, amply explained above for you. There also is no objective evidence for magic, but by all means demonstrate the best you have. Lets take a look....

 

[Polymath257]

The newspaper you read, name real people, and events.
If you go to the comics, you will know the difference.
You don't claim the newspaper is fiction, just because comics exist.

To make an argument like that is to me, the silliest argument I have ever heard. The silliest 19th century argument.

On what basis do you claim the Bible to be fiction... other than denial?

how about conflict with archeology and other historical sources? How about getting the science wrong about the dome over the Earth (the firmament)? Or the fact that it claims the Earth 'hangs on nothing' when it doesn't hang, it moves? How about the story of Earthquakes and darkness when Jesus died that appear in no other records from that time even though such would have been very interesting to other people?

I can go on.