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

[Sheldon]

All of the Apostles plus many more were eye witnesses,

The gospel authorships are unknown, the names Mathew Mark Luke and John were made up by early Christians, first appearing in the second century, and were assigned arbitrarily in 325 by the first council of Nicaea.

Paul was one abnormally born as he said, met Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus

Paul never knew nor met Jesus, invoking hearsay claim about unevidenced magic doesn't change this.

I gave you a list of biblical scholars

Your subjective list of believers from a biased apologist website has zero relevance.

so you could do some checking on their scholarships.

It is you and not me who has failed to fact check this. It is you and not me who is resorting to biased emotional attachment to belief over the facts. This is your choice of course, but this does not change the fact the gospels are of unknown authorship, or that the names Mathew Mark Luke and John are fictional names, made up centuries later and assigned at the first council of Nicaea over three centuries later. The earliest written records are in Greek, did the people you are claiming were eye witnesses speak and write in Greek? So hearsay then.

 

[ElishaElijah]

The gospel authorships are unknown, the names Mathew Mark Luke and John were made up by early Christians, first appearing in the second century, and were assigned arbitrarily in 325 by the first council of Nicaea.



Paul never knew nor met Jesus, invoking hearsay claim about unevidenced magic doesn't change this.



Your subjective list of believers from a biased apologist website has zero relevance.



It is you and not me who has failed to fact check this. It is you and not me who is resorting to biased emotional attachment to belief over the facts. This is your choice of course, but this does not change the fact the gospels are of unknown authorship, or that the names Mathew Mark Luke and John are fictional names, made up centuries later and assigned at the first council of Nicaea over three centuries later. The earliest written records are in Greek, did the people you are claiming were eye witnesses speak and write in Greek? So hearsay then.

I have checked all this, don’t share your view. OT and NT compliment each other perfectly.

 

[Sheldon]

Millions and millions throughout history have asked and received answers and guidance. Do you discount them?

This is an argumentum ad populum fallacy, though the irony of this claim ignoring the fact that those who share your beliefs, being a titchy tiny minority, is palpable.

 

[Polymath257]

Isn’t that what I said “ heresy and false teaching”?

But how do you know that the Arians were the true heretics and not the followers of Athansius? How do you know that the Nestorians weren't right in their theology?

Gentile believers were represented at the Council but then you mention more Gentiles, why? Has nothing to do with the Jewish believers that weren’t represented.

I was pointing out that it was more than the Jewish believers that were excluded. Believers of other views were as well.

This is a problem and if they were then maybe the pagan festival names wouldn’t be used now but the Feasts of the Lord instead and how Jesus fulfilled those instead.
The Jews were entrusted with the Scriptures from the beginning, so to exclude them was wrong and as you can see a problem with current understanding of the OT and the fulfillment of the Feasts now in the Church even to the point where people somehow think it’s weird when a Jewish person receives Christ when the Gospel is to the Jew first and then to the Gentile.

And yet, even the Jews that heard Jesus disagreed with Paul's message. I wonder why.

 

[Polymath257]

[

The stats I've seen say that the single-celled organism has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism still has 1,308,759 base pairs of DNA. It's not unlikely, it's impossible.

Why? Do you think it was formed randomly, as opposed to in chucks?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why? Do you think it was formed randomly, as opposed to in chucks?

What do wood chucks have to do with this conversation?

 

[Sheldon]

I have checked all this, don’t share your view. OT and NT compliment each other perfectly.

I don't believe you have objectively scrutinised this, but it remains a fact, nonetheless.

 

[Sheldon]

Ok, demonstrate life coming from something that's not alive... and no nonsense about food or compost...we know that in every case the seed of life is required prior to nourishment.

We don't have a single case of life coming from inexplicable magic, this doesn't seem to bother the superstitious.

Objective evidence is overwhelming that life exists, and that natural phenomena exist, but unevidenced deities using magic....well now not so much...

 

[Sheldon]

Only it's never happened that we know of.

Take a look around, life exists, and once it did not.

And the odds against it make it impossible.

Argument form incredulity fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

I agree with God on this in Romans:
I agree with the Scriptures on the evidence:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭1:18-22‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Notice “Clearly Seen”

Agreeing with an unevidenced assertion is not evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

You have faith in something you have read in a book or on the internet. I don't.

Oh dear...

 

[Sheldon]

I have checked all this, don’t share your view. OT and NT compliment each other perfectly.

I don't care what you subjectively believe, it is a fact that the authorships of the gospels are unknown, and that the names Mathew Mark Luke and John are fictional, and were added centuries later, and there are no eyewitness testimonies for anything Jesus us alleged to have said or done, only claims. Your second claim is simply risible, were it remotely true your imaginary deity wouldn't have needed a second testament.

 

[Polymath257]

I'll just zero in on your statement... This is what s known as evidence
Evidence of what?
What are you describing?

What Is Dark Matter?
Dark matter possibly could be brown dwarfs, "failed" stars that never ignited because they lacked the mass needed to start burning. Dark matter could be white dwarfs, the remnants of cores of dead small- to medium-size stars. Or dark matter could be neutron stars or black holes, the remnants of large stars after they explode.

Dark matter may not be made up of the matter we are familiar with at all. The matter that makes up dark matter could different. It may be filled with particles predicted by theory but that scientists have yet to observe.

Feel free to read the short article.
However, the article makes the point that since scientists can't see dark matter directly, they have found other ways to investigate it.
The article also says that scientists at NASA think they have a direct way to detect dark matter, but these scientists do not have enough data to form conclusions.
Dark matter they say, is still one of the great mysteries of science.

So when you say 'understanding the evidence', what do you mean by that?
According to this, Dark Matter may not exist, and that is quite likely.
What is the identity of dark matter? Is it a particle? If so, is it a WIMP, axion, the lightest superpartner (LSP), or some other particle? Or, do the phenomena attributed to dark matter point not to some form of matter but actually to an extension of gravity?

Again, we do not know what it is made of. We just have very high confidence it is there. The only alternative to it being there is that we have the thoery of gravity wrong. But all attempts to make a different theory of gravity fit have failed.

The observed phenomenon may be gravity, or debris, or...
You just don't know. ...but alas it must be Dark Matter, because of all that "evidence" you presented, right?

What problem do you have with evidence for God, again?

Yes, it is gravity. But the gravity *of what*? We know *something* is producing gravitational effects. We also know that it *cannot* be white dwarfs or brown dwarfs because we know it is NOT made of 'baryonic matter', in other words matter made of protons and neutrons.

Oh yes I have.

Sigh One last time. I will not do this again, for you. Okay?

1. The marvelous design in creation. The testify to an intelligent designer whose qualities are clearly seen in his works.
2. The truthfulness, and reliability of the Bible, seen in its overall harmony, historical accuracy, scientific accuracy, prophetic accuracy, timeless practical value, and candor of those who penned it.

Give *specifics* of the first. What, precisely, points to the existence of an intelligent designer? If anything, it seems to me the evidence points strongly *away* from such a possibility.

Do you really think a single line like this amounts to evidence?

What you have just given is a vague, general claim with no actual evidence. You *claim* that there is 'marvelous design' without giving any actual examples that cannot be explained easier by the simple action of impersonal laws of nature.

As for the second, that has also been debunked by actual historical accounts and archeology. And, again, you have failed to give *specifics* as opposed to vague, general claims with no actual support.

The silly idea that designed objects of far more intricacy than the greatest human design, requires no intelligent designer, but undirected processes are capable of purposeful design of these intricate systems.
In other words, ludicrous ideas were tested, and they do not stand up.

No *purposeful design*, but yes, natural processes that are not directed by any intelligence (only the inherent properties of the materials themselves).

Where were these demonstrated not to stand up?

The other lines of evidence supports what we observe, including the power of God's word and his spirit, to effect lives, and activities of those of God's people.

Any actual examples that cannot be explained easier in other ways?

So you think this matter, and their properties always existed? What scientific evidence supports that idea?

All the evidence points to matter, energy, and space existing whenever there was time.

Could these properties have been designed? Do you think the 'information' to direct processes, and create and manage systems could not possibly have been created?

So, essentially a deist viewpoint? Sure. I can come up with scores of other possibilities that have no evidence to back them up. Possibility does not imply likelihood.

Let's take a look...
Scientists have discovered a great deal about earth’s position in our solar system as well as the perfect orbit, size, and mass of our large moon. The arrangement and interrelationship of these heavenly bodies makes possible the beautiful and regular change of seasons. Also, much has been learned about the fine-tuning of natural forces in the universe. Thus, in an article entitled “The Designed ‘Just So’ Universe,” a professor of mechanical engineering observed: “It is quite easy to understand why so many scientists have changed their minds in the past 30 years, agreeing that it takes a great deal of faith to believe the universe can be explained as nothing more than a fortuitous cosmic accident. Evidence for an intelligent designer becomes more compelling the more we understand about our carefully crafted habitat.”

I have read it several times, and it seems evident to me that in your haste to disagree, you failed to read the article properly.

Oh, I read it. I just find it to be ignorant trash not supported by the facts as we know them.

Again, the 'perfect mass, size, and orbit of our moon' has nothing at all to do with the seasons. You had asked me where I read that and you repeat it once again.

The arrangement of the other planets has very little to do with life on Earth. There is some suggestion that a large planet like Jupiter can clean up asteroids and make the bombardment period shorter, but there is no reason such would be necessary for life to develop.

"The arrangement and interrelationship of these heavenly bodies" does not refer to the moon, but the arrangement and interrelationship of the heavenly bodies in our solar system... taking into consideration "earth’s position in our solar system".

So which heavenly bodies are so important and HOW are they important? What bearing do they have on life developing on Earth?

Answer: absolutely none. The orbit of the Earth could be very different, the orbits of the other planets could be very different, the sizes of the other planets could be very different, the size of the Earth could be very different and NONE of that would affect whether life developed here.

You erred in your understanding.
Maybe you interpreted it according to your thought processes, at that time. As you admitted, you were out to debunk.
That explains it.

I attempted to make sense of nonsense. I got the interpretation slightly different, but what was given is still nonsense. it is factually inaccurate.

 

[Polymath257]

So this information as well as this, is false?

Misleading. The Goldilocks zone is wider than this article suggests. it ranges from about the orbit of Venus to almost that of Mars. In other words, the Earth is about 93 million miles from the sun. Anywhere from about 75 million to 130 million would be no significant problem for life.

And, as stated in the article, we know of several other planets in the Goldilocks zones of their stars. It isn't that unusual.

So things like this, are not really necessary for the life to exist on earth? What would have happened if things were different?
What about the rate of expansion of the universe... That didn't matter?

It the rate of expansion was half as much or double as much, it would have had no effect on the formation of the Earth or life on it.

It is true that we do not know why there was more matter than anti-matter in the early universe. We have several speculations, but nothing definite yet.

And yes, if all the matter annihilated with all the anti-matter, life as we know it wouldn't exist.

But what's interesting is that isn't an example of 'fine tuning' as much as it is 'inaccurate tuning'. If the tuning had been precise, there would be no matter left.

That's not accurate, as far as I know.
If there was no evidence of God, or a creator, people would not just assume that. I think we would be like you, and other Atheist - believing whatsoever they tell us... even if it doesn't make sense.

On the contrary, people like to think they are important and that some father figure is watching out for them. It gives them comfort so they believe in it. Science is harder to understand and takes more discipline, so most people don't bother.

Or maybe you don't know how to make what you say clear enough to be understood by any layman.
However, it has nothing to do with studying and understanding science. It has to do with coherency.
You said... "Which is why we have confidence in the dark matter explanation." in responce to a statement about people just concluding there is no God without investigating.
I don't understand how your statement relates to what I said. I need to study science in order to know when something isn't coherent? Why?

Maybe what you thought I was answering isn't what I was answering.

Sounds exactly like scientists.
Dark matter is the elusive, invisible substance that appears to make up more than 80 percent of the total mass in the universe — far more than accounted for by the "regular" matter that makes up things like stars, planets and everything astronomers can directly observe. A new study makes the bold claim, however, that perhaps dark matter doesn't exist at all.
But scientists aren't convinced that the study holds water.

Of course not. They have to first verify that study was done correctly (many of these surveys are technically difficult and mistakes are easy to make). Then they have to see how that relates to the *other* cases where dark matter was detected to see what the new study says about them.

Dark matter IS real despite recent discovery of galaxies that appear to exist without it, scientists argue in new study they claim 'removes doubts on the existence' of the elusive material

Yes, some smaller galaxies don't seem to have dark matter. yes, that is a puzzle. But it doesn't show that no dark matter exists because the *other* evidence for dark matter around *other* galaxies is enough to show that.

This study isn't showing that dark matter doesn't exist at all. it is showing that it doesn't exist in some very specific cases. That is interesting and even possibly a clue as to what dark matter is.
I hope nobody loses their life over that... or even a button.
I can find more on almost every subject believed by scientists.

Interestingly, you think your interpretation count, while you insist others interpret the Bible to make it say what they believe.
Your interpretation is not important here. I said what I had to say on that before.... to you.

But it is not just my interpretation. it is also the interpretation of historians and Biblical scholars.

Like I said before, you are not qualified to understand spiritual things - the things of God.
I have given details in my first post of this thread, as well as in many threads previous.

If you need to have faith before the evidence is convincing, you are just experiencing confirmation bias.

I am not obligated to see that everyone accepts the evidence, or truth.
I'm obligated only to share, and declare.

If a person is able to ignore miracles, because he is not convinced, and he believes he has the natural explanation for any phenomenon, why would I be interested in trying to sway his position.

if someone claims they have an example of a miracle, but it is easily explain by ordinary means, why should it be taken seriously as a miracle?

 

[Polymath257]

Actually no ..if life comes from God it comes from another life. And since you have no evidence that abiogenesis ever happens, it's no more viable than a God creating life.

No, it would NOT come from another life *via biological means*, which is the only way we know of that life comes from other life.

Life isn't a 'thing' that can get transferred and make something else alive.

 

[Polymath257]

You mean the previous scholars that walked with Jesus and wrote the Bible or scholars closer to the events weren’t the answers they wanted to hear so they got answers from their own bias.

Information wasn't as readily available 2000 years ago. Writing was expensive and oral traditions don't lead to truthful exchange.

So looking at the documents we have now, from a variety of sources, can actually give a better understanding than what was conveyed by the eyewitnesses. This is as true of the Biblical stories as it is of the wars of Caesar.

It really doesn’t mean much to me what unbelievers say other than I can spot the lies easy enough. It’s easy to spot a fraud who doesn’t know and never has met the Lord Jesus Christ.

What you spot is where they disagree with you. You then label the disagreements as lies. Paul never met Jesus either, but you take his word for what Jesus said.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, it would NOT come from another life *via biological means*, which is the only way we know of that life comes from other life.

Life isn't a 'thing' that can get transferred and make something else alive.

It's still life coming from a pre existing life no matter how it happened.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So, essentially a deist viewpoint? Sure. I can come up with scores of other possibilities that have no evidence to back them up. Possibility does not imply likelihood.

Oh the irony!

 

[joelr]

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.

Oh this -
"He doesn’t want to convince you that He is real." Well that is highly suspect. Kind of looks like you just chose the only question that you could manipulate and use as an answer without admitting you are not speaking to a deity?
There is a whole religion, the most evangelizing religion, and you claim this God doesn't want people believing in him?

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.

First there is definitely no good evidence for any God. Yes like those who claim they are having a relationship with Lord Krishna or Allah I do believe you also have an imaginary deity.

You said to try. It doesn't take that long to meditate, slow breathing, quiet your mind and listen for some type of communication beyond my subconscious mind. Are you suggesting that repeated attempts are needed? I am already familiar with meditation and praying. It shouldn't take a long process?

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.

No, faith is not a path to truth. Hindu have faith they are speaking to Lord Krishna, Muslims have faith they are in contact with Allah. White Supremacists have faith that their race is superior. The Nazi party had faith that the Germanic race was superior. Since faith can be demonstrated to be unreliable evidence is needed. A God of the universe would not be unaware of this basic fact. No God would be that basic and rely on tools that are known to be extremely faulty.

I didn't ask you to challenge God, I asked for an answer to a few simple questions? Of course I expected the same old apologetics that you are now giving but it's always worth a try?
Now what's odd here is you did say you can prove God - "believe because God can prove to me that He is real in a matter of seconds, "
You said he gives you information that is beyond your intellect. Super! Please ask God how can we quantize gravity?

Wow it's funny that God gives you information beyond your intellect but all these religious people working in the medical field on things like cancer drugs, he doesn't want to give that one away?

" I know full well it’s not my own thoughts answering because I don’t possess the kind of intelligence that I receive. "

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

If you come in with claims about communication with a deity then you are going to be asked about evidence. If you claim the answers are "beyond your intelligence" than we should in fact be getting some good information.

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

Because for one I'm always open to new evidence. If someone makes a claim, a rather extraordinary claim about answers being above your intelligence then we should see some extraordinary evidence. Not defensive behavior. If you are coming to a forum (a debate forum none the less?) what are you expecting? If you just want praise or like-minded people why would you go to a debate forum?

Of course it's a fantasy. When people provide evidence then it might be something more.

 

[KWED]

Actually no ..if life comes from God it comes from another life.

If you claim that god is a living thing, then it must have come from no-life.
If you then claim that life can just exist without any explanation, then there is no need to explain where life on earth came from. It just exists. QED.

And since you have no evidence that abiogenesis ever happens, it's no more viable than a God creating life.

Complete non sequitur.
That's like saying that because I have no evidence I misplaced my keys, pixies stealing them is a better explanation.

Also, you are fundamentally wrong.
Abiogenesis would be a natural process (for which there are a variety of workable hypotheses). We have mountains of evidence for natural processes causing things to happen.
There is no evidence whatsoever for gods, the supernatural or magic of any kind. Therefore claiming it as an explanation for anything is irrational.