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

[Five Solas]

Well it can be shown it's adapted from Hellenism.

Nonsense. Read Hebrews 11.

 

[Five Solas]

Religious faith has a specific definition, as opposed to the primary definition of the word, all you need do is look in any dictionary.

Nope. Read Hebrews 11 with attention to see how saving faith works.

A study of the various characters mentioned in this chapter shows that they all had good reasons to trust in God. Their faith was based on what God had done in the past. That makes it evidence-based faith. All faith works like that

Then try again...

 

[ElishaElijah]

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?


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



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

The early Church was all Jewish then the Gentiles came in, The Jewish Apostles Peter and James agreed with Paul concerning the Gospel and how a Gentiles should live and is recorded in Galatians. Some Jews thought in order for Gentiles to be saved they needed to follow the Law which isn’t true and explained why in Hebrews.
Also, Jesus Christ instituted the “New Covenant” in His blood at the last Passover before He was crucified, buried and rose from the dead.

 

[ElishaElijah]

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.

How did we get the canon of Scripture? Not from a movie, seems that’s where your ideas come from.
How and when was the canon of the Bible put together? | GotQuestions.org

 

[ElishaElijah]

Hebrews 11:1 NIV. Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.


It’s terrible to see how people use and abuse this verse without bothering to understand the context. Please refrain from quoting it if you are too lazy to understand the correct meaning of it.


This text speaks of real, saving faith in God. Each example of biblical faith in this chapter demonstrates trust, based on what that person knew about how God acted in the past and the reassurance that God would act in the same way now or in the future.


That is evidence-based faith!!!!


The "assurance" of saving faith is, therefore, not blind belief. It is based on the proof found in history. It is the belief that God cannot change and can be trusted to on doing what He had done in the past.


A study of the various characters mentioned in this chapter shows that they all had good reasons to trust in God. Their faith was based on past experiences.


We find the same thing many times in Scripture – the confidence that God will make good on His promises.


The great figures of the Old Testament, such as Abraham, Moses, and David, all lived according to this type of faith. This is saving faith that inspires real Christians towards a more confident faith.


In this context: Faith accepts things that are promised by God but are still unfulfilled.

I’ve heard a lot of people say it took the proverbial 2x4 across the head before they could understand this.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Carrier only decided Christianity was a myth AFTER reading the entire Bible. I don't know how being a "skeptic" would in any way be a negative point to raise? Skeptic doesn't mean you don't believe things, it means you don't fall for nonsense that lacks evidence? I'm sure you are fine with scholars who are skeptical of Islam, Hinduism or any other competing claim at being the one true religion.
And yes, he is un-biased. He believes things that demonstrate good evidence? That's all it takes? A reasonable argument with evidence? Do you consider historians who don't literally believe in Islam to be biased? Or is that ok? It's just your bunch of ancient myths that if scholars don't buy into they are "bias"? As if it's Carriers fault that your religion is easily debunked on every front?

The Biblical historicity field has a consensus, the Gospel Jesus is a myth. There may have been a man who the Greek/Persian legends were put onto but those tales are fiction. Carrier and Lataster also agree with Mythicism but Ehrman, Pagels, Crossan, Thompson, Purvoe, Price and so on do not believe the supernatural tales are anything but mythology.






You didn't read it. If you did you would have immediately noticed this isn't his work for one:

"Principal peer-reviewed sources I rely on in this article are C.L. Seow’s Daniel by Westminster Knox Press (2003) and John Collins’ Daniel by Fortress Press (1993), part of the excellent Hermeneia commentary series. See also The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, vols. 1 and 2 (Brill, 2002), edited by John Collins and Peter Flint. This is all mainstream scholarly consensus now."



He just pulls several sources into an article. Second, yes it IS the consensus in Biblical historicity. A peer-reviewed PhD historian is literally saying it here?

"Only biblical fundamentalists and similarly desperate believers still hold out hope that Daniel was actually written by an actual Daniel when it purports to have been. Mainstream scholarship has long since left them behind."

Carrier does a debate on youtube with Sheffield on Daniel. Sheffield is a theologian and a believer and desperately tries to study the historicity and make arguments. He is a nice guy and he tries but he isn't a historian and he didn't make any good arguments. If he had one he would write a paper and submit it for review.
Daniel is a forgery. This isn't a big deal. Half of the Epistles are considered forgeries by Christian scholarship. There are 38 other Gospels considered herecy by the Church. The Acts of Peter almost made the original Bible in 367 AD when it was put together. It's ancient apocryphal writings but got cut and is considered inauthentic. Even by Christian standards there are a lot of forgeries.

A lot of debate on the issue and a person’s eternal destiny is at stake so everyone has to be convinced in their own mind.
The Authenticity of the Book of Daniel: A Survey of the Evidence - Jonathan McLatchie | Writer, Speaker, Scholar

 

[Polymath257]

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

But not in the way verified via observation. We have seen no example of 'life coming from life' by that method.

So it is observationally unsupported, just like you claim abiogenesis is.

The difference is that abiogenesis is based on the actual chemistry, while 'deity touched' is based on no mechanism at all.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Carrier only decided Christianity was a myth AFTER reading the entire Bible. I don't know how being a "skeptic" would in any way be a negative point to raise? Skeptic doesn't mean you don't believe things, it means you don't fall for nonsense that lacks evidence? I'm sure you are fine with scholars who are skeptical of Islam, Hinduism or any other competing claim at being the one true religion.
And yes, he is un-biased. He believes things that demonstrate good evidence? That's all it takes? A reasonable argument with evidence? Do you consider historians who don't literally believe in Islam to be biased? Or is that ok? It's just your bunch of ancient myths that if scholars don't buy into they are "bias"? As if it's Carriers fault that your religion is easily debunked on every front?

The Biblical historicity field has a consensus, the Gospel Jesus is a myth. There may have been a man who the Greek/Persian legends were put onto but those tales are fiction. Carrier and Lataster also agree with Mythicism but Ehrman, Pagels, Crossan, Thompson, Purvoe, Price and so on do not believe the supernatural tales are anything but mythology.



You didn't read it. If you did you would have immediately noticed this isn't his work for one:

"Principal peer-reviewed sources I rely on in this article are C.L. Seow’s Daniel by Westminster Knox Press (2003) and John Collins’ Daniel by Fortress Press (1993), part of the excellent Hermeneia commentary series. See also The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, vols. 1 and 2 (Brill, 2002), edited by John Collins and Peter Flint. This is all mainstream scholarly consensus now."



He just pulls several sources into an article. Second, yes it IS the consensus in Biblical historicity. A peer-reviewed PhD historian is literally saying it here?

"Only biblical fundamentalists and similarly desperate believers still hold out hope that Daniel was actually written by an actual Daniel when it purports to have been. Mainstream scholarship has long since left them behind."

Carrier does a debate on youtube with Sheffield on Daniel. Sheffield is a theologian and a believer and desperately tries to study the historicity and make arguments. He is a nice guy and he tries but he isn't a historian and he didn't make any good arguments. If he had one he would write a paper and submit it for review.
Daniel is a forgery. This isn't a big deal. Half of the Epistles are considered forgeries by Christian scholarship. There are 38 other Gospels considered herecy by the Church. The Acts of Peter almost made the original Bible in 367 AD when it was put together. It's ancient apocryphal writings but got cut and is considered inauthentic. Even by Christian standards there are a lot of forgeries.

For what you call a forgery sure is accurate of your comments and our current system of affairs. This has been foretold in Matthew 24, which also confirms Daniels Vision and dreams which are explained in the book, even the last kingdom before Jesus returns, unless the whole world is in on the conspiracy. And your comments too:

“Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”
‭‭II Thessalonians‬ ‭2:3-12‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.”
‭‭II Timothy‬ ‭4:3-5‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[Polymath257]

Oh the irony!

Yes, the irony of proposing a supernatural being in order to explain what is basically organization of chemistry and then saying abiogenesis is unsupported by observation. The irony of saying that one particular story with *no* scientific basis is to be adopted as opposed to numerous ones with essentially the same (no) support over at scientific research area that has made an amazing amount of progress over the last century.

 

[Polymath257]

Like those people "miraculously" cured of cancer after surgery and a course of chemo.

or where the cancer simply goes into remission, like happens with some frequency.

 

[Polymath257]

Hebrews 11:1 NIV. Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.


It’s terrible to see how people use and abuse this verse without bothering to understand the context. Please refrain from quoting it if you are too lazy to understand the correct meaning of it.


This text speaks of real, saving faith in God. Each example of biblical faith in this chapter demonstrates trust, based on what that person knew about how God acted in the past and the reassurance that God would act in the same way now or in the future.


That is evidence-based faith!!!!

I have no idea how you see that as evidence-based. it sounds to me like it is simply mind washing.

The "assurance" of saving faith is, therefore, not blind belief. It is based on the proof found in history. It is the belief that God cannot change and can be trusted to on doing what He had done in the past.

That isn't evidence. It really *is* blind faith that it was God involved at all.

A study of the various characters mentioned in this chapter shows that they all had good reasons to trust in God. Their faith was based on past experiences.

We find the same thing many times in Scripture – the confidence that God will make good on His promises.

The great figures of the Old Testament, such as Abraham, Moses, and David, all lived according to this type of faith. This is saving faith that inspires real Christians towards a more confident faith.

In this context: Faith accepts things that are promised by God but are still unfulfilled.

Once again, how that is evidence-based is beyond me. That is simply choosing to believe that the stories are factual for no good reason.

 

[Polymath257]

Nope. Read Hebrews 11 with attention to see how saving faith works.

A study of the various characters mentioned in this chapter shows that they all had good reasons to trust in God. Their faith was based on what God had done in the past. That makes it evidence-based faith. All faith works like that

Then try again...

No, it *claims* they had good reasons. it does not *show* they have good reasons. it was based on what *they accepted* as having been God doing things in the past.

That isn't evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

For what you call a forgery sure is accurate of your comments and our current system of affairs. This has been foretold in Matthew 24, which also confirms Daniels Vision and dreams which are explained in the book, even the last kingdom before Jesus returns, unless the whole world is in on the conspiracy. And your comments too:

“Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”
‭‭II Thessalonians‬ ‭2:3-12‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.”
‭‭II Timothy‬ ‭4:3-5‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

And my first thoughts are 'isn't that convenient?'

It's very convenient that any attempts to actually look into the evidence and see what actually happened is brushed off as fulfillment of a prophecy that people will have other viewpoints.

It looks to me like a very nice way to keep people thinking in line with what the leaders want. How dare you think differently!

 

[ElishaElijah]

And my first thoughts are 'isn't that convenient?'

It's very convenient that any attempts to actually look into the evidence and see what actually happened is brushed off as fulfillment of a prophecy that people will have other viewpoints.

It looks to me like a very nice way to keep people thinking in line with what the leaders want. How dare you think differently!

Convenient or Jesus foretelling the events and attitudes of the future before He returns?
The world could’ve gone different but it didn’t, it’s going just like Jesus Christ said it would.
What “leaders” are you talking about?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I apologize for not answering your questions. I initially read your original post too hastily and responded too quickly to the part that caught my attention...without giving adequate attention to your questions. Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. It was the answer I expected, but appreciate the details. I will try answering your original questions and then try getting back to others later, as my time is limited this weekend.

Thank you for that. You're not alone. It's very common for huge swathes of posts making arguments or asking questions to be ignored. I'm glad that you recognize that that is an indication of disrespect for the other person's interests and the time taken to make those points. It's also a bad faith way to deal with difficult issues when done to avoid having to address them. One really ought to acknowledge such passages with a statement of assent to indicate reading it and finding no fault, or, if one disagrees, to say so and state what part of the argument is in dispute.

You asked... “Did you ask yourself why a deity that is said to love you and who wants you to know it if you'll just try didn't appear in the first two tries? Why didn't Jesus save you in those other churches?” My answer is... Jesus likely did not save me in the Catholic or Mormon churches because He was waiting and leading me to Himself, not a religion or a church. I was looking for truth. I thought I had to find “the true church”. Instead of religion, I found a living relationship with Jesus Christ, the only Savior and Creator of heaven and earth.

Thanks again. Now THAT's of interest to me, and I hope to you as well.

The reason I asked is that many, you included I believe, take the attitude that if a person didn't find God in their search, they made some kind of mistake and need to keep trying. You might offer your own experience as evidence of that. After approaching religion from two different perspectives that failed to meet your needs or expectations, Catholicism and Mormonism, you tried something new and found something that you preferred. I didn't do that. When Protestantism failed me, I moved to humanism, which met my needs where theism had failed. You might disapprove, but I say that we were doing the same thing - finding a pair of shoe that we could walk comfortably in, having discarded those pairs that were ill-fitting.

You might see it otherwise, but to me, your story is further confirmation that there is no deity waiting for us to find it so that it can reveal itself more fully. If there were, we both would have found it the first time. Actually, I thought I had:

My conversion to Christianity happened while I was in the Army. I wandered into the congregation of a very gifted and charismatic pastor who had all of us in a euphoric state with every service, which I experienced as the presence of the Holy Spirit. Upon discharge, I returned home and tried to find a new congregation. I visited about a half dozen of them in my first few years home, and they were all lifeless. I understood what that meant. I had misunderstood the initial experience. There was no Spirit behind that first church experience, just a skillful preacher, and so I moved on.

It's not just that this deity had failed to reveal itself. I also saw why so many other people claimed that they experience God. Like me, they were misunderstanding a comforting endogenous psychological experience. And why when people tell me that my faith must have been weak and that I need to keep trying to find this god, I understand that to mean that they have accepted their psychological state as evidence of a deity that for whatever reason, I keep failing to find.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

.if life comes from God it comes from another life

You ignored this argument from me at least three times, but I see that you've decided to address it with another poster. This is the discussion we could have had had you done your part and not been guilty of exactly what I just posted about to InChrist. It's bad faith disputation. To her credit, she seems to have understood that and agreed.

That's your answer? I guess you haven't ever understood the implications of that argument for your contention that life always comes from prior life. So God is alive to you? That would make an interesting discussion, as God has zero of the criteria for life (takes nutrition, reproduces, grows and develops, self-repair, etc.), but lets overlook that and go right to the obvious chase that it seems you didn't see coming: You just named an example of life that was not the result of life according to your definition of life.

How about a rebuttal this time? If you disagree with that comment, how about stepping up and explaining not just that you reject the notion, which we know, but what flaw you found in the argument that allows you to rationally reject it. It's never going to happen, is it? You refuse. But that's fine, too. Failure to respond has the same significance as giving a fallacious response: you can't rebut the argument.

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

NO, YOU have no evidence of abiogenesis, because you refuse to look at it. You seem to see yourself and your uniformed position as some kind of metric about what is possible, failing to realize that you are telling this to people who have seen the evidence. More bad faith argumentation.

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.

No, it's not impossible, and you would know that if you had bothered to look.

Also, the statistical arguments, all variations of Hoyle's Fallacy from creationists, have been debunked. If you understood the processes of chemical evolution, you would see why the 747 in a junkyard analogy is irrelevant to the fact of increasing biochemical complexity over deep time. The argument is tantamount to arguing that it is impossible for the pieces of planets to come together as a spheroid is overwhelmingly unlikely by treating the events as independent and undirected. That would be a failure to understand the processes and the forces involved. There is good evidence that organic molecules spontaneously organize themselves into life wherever possible, just as debris spontaneously organizes itself into spheroids wherever possible, no luck involved.

If you disagree, you must explain which of those 5 points fails.

Good luck with that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am not the one denying the documented history of salvation. It's up to you to show that the biblical history of salvation is indeed wrong.

Why would you think I need to disprove any of the theists' faith-based beliefs? I'm not trying to talk them (or you) out of them, and don't mind them holding them. If you trying to get skeptics to believe the biblical story of salvation, you'll need to make a plausible argument. Then we can have a discussion.

A presupposition is not a belief. My presupposition remains that God exists.

I guess these words must have different meaning for you than me. For me, a belief is any idea I hold that I consider correct. If I believed that God existed, I would call that a belief.

However, you make unsubstantiated conclusions about the substance of my knowledge of God as if you know me.

If you look two posts above this to my reply to InChrist, you'll understand why I hold those opinions regarding all theists. It doesn't matter to me how certain the theist is of his belief in a deity, I reject his unevidenced claim. I understand the limits of knowledge that we are all subject to, as well as the psychological state understood as experiencing God. And I do know you to some extent. You're a human being. That fact alone means that I know much about you, just as you do me. I know you get tired. I know you get hungry. I know that you are susceptible to cognitive biases including the will to believe in a powerful father figure, because I've been there. I know that you have no more senses or faculties than I, and no access to any information not also available to me.

 

[Polymath257]

Convenient or Jesus foretelling the events and attitudes of the future before He returns?
The world could’ve gone different but it didn’t, it’s going just like Jesus Christ said it would.
What “leaders” are you talking about?

I was talking about the leaders of the churches.

It's too easy to say that someone in the future is going to disagree with you. Well, duh.

But that is also a wonderful cover for getting people to not question your position too much. just say that anyone that questions you is evil and dishonest.

Given the number of ways confirmation bias is promoted, it's hard to take anything said past that seriously.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I was talking about the leaders of the churches.

It's too easy to say that someone in the future is going to disagree with you. Well, duh.

But that is also a wonderful cover for getting people to not question your position too much. just say that anyone that questions you is evil and dishonest.

Given the number of ways confirmation bias is promoted, it's hard to take anything said past that seriously.

I live by what God says in the Bible, who ever said you have to be part of any particular Church or have to do what a leader says? On the contrary, we are instructed to follow Christ and the Holy Spirit is our teacher. Now there are leaders but if they contradict the Bible then they are disqualified as a leader to follow. The Bible is the authority for the believer.

 

[Polymath257]

I live by what God says in the Bible, who ever said you have to be part of any particular Church or have to do what a leader says? On the contrary, we are instructed to follow Christ and the Holy Spirit is our teacher. Now there are leaders but if they contradict the Bible then they are disqualified as a leader to follow. The Bible is the authority for the believer.

And why do you accept the Bible as authoritative? Why not use the same techniques to determine the reliability of the Bible as would be used for any other collection of books from the ancient world?

Why not use the Koran instead of the Bible? Why not use the Baghdad-Gita? Why select that particular collection of writings as authoritative?

For that matter, why accept any writings as authoritative? Why not see which parts are valid and which are invalid?