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

[samtonga43]

Yeah, that works for you. Now do you claim that it then is so for us all?

Of course not. I just posted it as something to think about. If you don't want to think about it -- ignore it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The religions themselves don't exclude the supernatural from science. All sorts of physical things happen through magic in the scripture. They obviously don't happen outside of the text so religious people make claims that the supernatural cannot be studied. Yet in the religion they believe heaven is literally in outer space and miracles are frequent. As are dead people raising from the grave. Somehow "spiritual" has been moved to another dimension but 2000 years ago it was all here?

Yes, we are talking past each other. Let us leave it at that since I am derailing in a sense.

 

[samtonga43]

The religions themselves don't exclude the supernatural from science. All sorts of physical things happen through magic in the scripture. They obviously don't happen outside of the text so religious people make claims that the supernatural cannot be studied. Yet in the religion they believe heaven is literally in outer space and miracles are frequent. As are dead people raising from the grave. Somehow "spiritual" has been moved to another dimension but 2000 years ago it was all here?

'They'? Is this a deliberate gross exaggeration, or do you really believe it?

 

[ElishaElijah]

First you didn't answer or respond to the discussion? It IS the consensus and it wasn't Carriers work. He was using papers from other historians.b You had something to say but now are oddly silent and are moving the topic completely to posting scripture from Matthew?





Yeah that's in the Quran as well. It's in all religions. You claim there are disbelievers, they follow satan, they have to be saved, blah, blah

Quran, Ya Sin 36. Already hath the judgment, (for their infidelity) proved true of most of them, for they believe not.
Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not, it is alike for them, for they believe not.
Burn therein this day for that ye disbelieved.
To warn whosoever liveth, and that the word may be fulfilled against the disbelievers.

Then when you say you are not Muslim they throw verse at you proving that Islam is true. Words from Allah. It must be right! It's words from GOD!!!!
It's right BECAUSE IT SAYS SO!

See every religion gets to do it. Every religion wrote firey words about non-believers and how they will not believe and they must be influenced by Satan. In ancient times people thought this stuff was true. Every culture had their own version. It still isn't any more real than the Quran.

Matthew is just copying Mark and adding his personal ideas about how to make it better. Christian scholarship has determined this.
From your religion, The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

"It is quite impossible to hold that the three synoptic gospels were completely independent from each other. In the least, they had to have shared a common oral tradition. But the vast bulk of NT scholars today would argue for much more than that.

When one compares the synoptic parallels, some startling results are noticed. Of Mark’s 11,025 words, only 132 have no parallel in either Matthew or Luke. Percentage-wise, 97% of Mark’s Gospel is duplicated in Matthew; and 88% is found in Luke.

97% of Mark is duplicated verbatim in Matthew. Matthew sourced Mark and added some theology.

These are myths. Islam is a myth, the Gospels are a myth.

I already gave a list of scholars verifying the Scriptures as authentic as well as Daniel, you must’ve missed all that. So much evidence

 

[joelr]

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

You criticize ideas coming from a movie and you source an UNsourced gotquestions.org? Wow, which historian writes for gotquestions.org?

It isn't even correct. The first canon was the Marcionite canon. - Marcion of Sinope was the first Christian leader in recorded history (though later considered heretical) to propose and delineate a uniquely Christian canon[22] (c. AD 140). This included 10 epistles from St. Paul, ...

and again the 2nd century was about 50% Gnostic:

These various interpretations were called heresies by the leaders of the proto-orthodox church, but many were very popular and had large followings. Part of the unifying trend in proto-orthodoxy was an increasingly harsh anti-Judaism and rejection of Judaizers. Some of the major movements were:

• Gnosticism – second to fourth centuries – reliance on revealed knowledge from an unknowable God, a distinct divinity from the Demiurge who created and oversees the material world. The Gnostics claimed to have received secret teachings (gnosis) from Jesus via other apostles which were not publicly known, or in the case of Valentinius from Paul the Apostle. Gnosticism is predicated on the existence of such hidden knowledge, but brief references to private teachings of Jesus have also survived in the canonic scripture (Mark 4:11) as did warning by the Christ that there would be false prophets or false teachers. Irenaeus' opponents also claimed that the wellsprings of divine inspiration were not dried up, which is the doctrine of continuing revelation.[citation needed]
• Marcionism – second century – the God of Jesus was a different God from the God of the Old Testament.
• Montanism – second century – a pentecostal movement initiated by Montanus and his female disciples, featuring prophetic continuing revelations from the Holy Spirit.
• Adoptionism – second century – Jesus was not born the Son of God, but was adopted at his baptism, resurrection or ascension.
• Docetism – second to third century – Jesus was pure spirit and his physical form an illusion.
• Sabellianism – third century – the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three modes of the one God and not the three separate persons of the Trinity.
• Arianism – third to fourth century – Jesus, while not merely mortal, was not eternally divine and was of some lesser status than God the Father.[note 1]

In the middle of the second century, the Christian communities of Rome, for example, were divided between followers of Marcion, Montanism, and the gnostic teachings of Valentinus.


It is not known the actual reasons for Constantines conversion, many historians believe it was political. Your apologetics source wouldn't dare mention that.

"Constantine ruled the Roman Empire as sole emperor for much of his reign. Some scholars allege that his main objective was to gain unanimous approval and submission to his authority from all classes, and therefore chose Christianity to conduct his political propaganda, believing that it was the most appropriate religion that could fit with the Imperial cult (see also Sol Invictus). Regardless, under the Constantinian dynasty Christianity expanded throughout the Empire, launching the era of State church of the Roman Empire.[1] Whether Constantine sincerely converted to Christianity or remained loyal to Paganism is a matter of debate among historians (see also Constantine's religious policy).[2] His formal conversion in 312 is almost universally acknowledged among historians,[1][3] despite that it was claimed he was baptized only on his deathbed by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia in 337;[4][5][6] the real reasons behind it remain unknown and are debated also.[2][3] According to Hans Pohlsander, Professor Emeritus of History at the University at Albany, SUNY, Constantine's conversion was just another instrument of realpolitik in his hands meant to serve his political interest in keeping the Empire united under his control:

 

[joelr]

I already gave a list of scholars verifying the Scriptures as authentic as well as Daniel, you must’ve missed all that. So much evidence

Right except AGIAN you didn't read it because he doesn't claim it's authentic. First he isn't a historian, he's an amateur and his paper is not peer-reviewed. He admits he's out of his depth and is trying to make an argument that at least supports it not being a forgery to some degree. He doesn't claim it's exclusive, nor would he because it's not his field and the actual consensus is that it's absolutely a forgery.


"Nonetheless, my goal in this article is to evaluate the data as fairly as I can, sifting through and reviewing the academic literature on both sides, before arriving at what I believe to be a fair and balanced conclusion. In the process of doing so, I will expose weaknesses in arguments adduced by both sides of the debate. I will also not (as some have done) argue that my position is supported by all of the relevant data and that there is none supporting the Maccabean theory. The subject before us is enormously complex and it is extremely naïve to assert that all of the evidence supports one’s own conclusion. Rather, I believe there is evidence on both sides of the scale."


That is as good as he can do. Meanwhile the actual field who studies Daniel considers it a forgery. Because a fundamentalist writes an amateur paper that doesn't change anything. It wasn't submitted for review either.
As it stands the scholarship is that it's a forgery. He is not a historical scholar. You didn't bother to read it and clearly do not care about what is actually true?

 

[ElishaElijah]

You criticize ideas coming from a movie and you source an UNsourced gotquestions.org? Wow, which historian writes for gotquestions.org?

It isn't even correct. The first canon was the Marcionite canon. - Marcion of Sinope was the first Christian leader in recorded history (though later considered heretical) to propose and delineate a uniquely Christian canon[22] (c. AD 140). This included 10 epistles from St. Paul, ...

and again the 2nd century was about 50% Gnostic:

These various interpretations were called heresies by the leaders of the proto-orthodox church, but many were very popular and had large followings. Part of the unifying trend in proto-orthodoxy was an increasingly harsh anti-Judaism and rejection of Judaizers. Some of the major movements were:

• Gnosticism – second to fourth centuries – reliance on revealed knowledge from an unknowable God, a distinct divinity from the Demiurge who created and oversees the material world. The Gnostics claimed to have received secret teachings (gnosis) from Jesus via other apostles which were not publicly known, or in the case of Valentinius from Paul the Apostle. Gnosticism is predicated on the existence of such hidden knowledge, but brief references to private teachings of Jesus have also survived in the canonic scripture (Mark 4:11) as did warning by the Christ that there would be false prophets or false teachers. Irenaeus' opponents also claimed that the wellsprings of divine inspiration were not dried up, which is the doctrine of continuing revelation.[citation needed]
• Marcionism – second century – the God of Jesus was a different God from the God of the Old Testament.
• Montanism – second century – a pentecostal movement initiated by Montanus and his female disciples, featuring prophetic continuing revelations from the Holy Spirit.
• Adoptionism – second century – Jesus was not born the Son of God, but was adopted at his baptism, resurrection or ascension.
• Docetism – second to third century – Jesus was pure spirit and his physical form an illusion.
• Sabellianism – third century – the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three modes of the one God and not the three separate persons of the Trinity.
• Arianism – third to fourth century – Jesus, while not merely mortal, was not eternally divine and was of some lesser status than God the Father.[note 1]

In the middle of the second century, the Christian communities of Rome, for example, were divided between followers of Marcion, Montanism, and the gnostic teachings of Valentinus.


It is not known the actual reasons for Constantines conversion, many historians believe it was political. Your apologetics source wouldn't dare mention that.

"Constantine ruled the Roman Empire as sole emperor for much of his reign. Some scholars allege that his main objective was to gain unanimous approval and submission to his authority from all classes, and therefore chose Christianity to conduct his political propaganda, believing that it was the most appropriate religion that could fit with the Imperial cult (see also Sol Invictus). Regardless, under the Constantinian dynasty Christianity expanded throughout the Empire, launching the era of State church of the Roman Empire.[1] Whether Constantine sincerely converted to Christianity or remained loyal to Paganism is a matter of debate among historians (see also Constantine's religious policy).[2] His formal conversion in 312 is almost universally acknowledged among historians,[1][3] despite that it was claimed he was baptized only on his deathbed by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia in 337;[4][5][6] the real reasons behind it remain unknown and are debated also.[2][3] According to Hans Pohlsander, Professor Emeritus of History at the University at Albany, SUNY, Constantine's conversion was just another instrument of realpolitik in his hands meant to serve his political interest in keeping the Empire united under his control:

Would recommend this Bible for anyone, it’s excellent with so much great information.
https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Illustr...5300c3b8aac09baec89cf2b948cda8&language=en_US

 

[joelr]

'They'? Is this a deliberate gross exaggeration, or do you really believe it?

The cosmology of the OT is very clear.
Biblical cosmology - Wikipedia

Paul mentions the 3rd heaven which demonstrates the 7 heaven model was still in use at this time. The celestial temple was in outer space. Heaven was in outer space. The sky was blue because one could see the ocean above heaven.

These things did not change until astronomy became popular and religious folks realized the cosmology that was given by Yahweh by revelation was incorrect and later theologians moved things to different dimensions and began using Greek Platonic ideas, a God beyond space and time, tri-omni and Persian ideas of an eternal, uncreated God who created all that was good. The Persian ideas were used since the occupation in 5-300BC.
God

t Zoroaster went much further, and in a startling departure from accepted beliefs proclaimed Ahura Mazda to be the one uncreated God, existing eternally, and Creator of all else that is good, including all other beneficent divinities.

Dead people rising is standard gospel happenings, Saints rose up in one of the crucifixion narratives. Why is this in question?

 

[joelr]

Would recommend this Bible for anyone, it’s excellent with so much great information.
https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Illustr...5300c3b8aac09baec89cf2b948cda8&language=en_US

Have read the Bible. It's as fictional as Lord of the Rings. Way to avoid the point though. Pretty good confirmation that you have no interest in what is actually true!

Would recommend this historical book on why Jesus is probably a myth
https://www.amazon.com/On-Historicity-of-Jesus-audiobook/dp/B00UKE0UTC/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2M7JIC4XILQXV&keywords=richard+carrier&qid=1653392392&sprefix=richard+carrier,aps,72&sr=8-1


OR this one:
https://www.amazon.com/there-was-Jesus-God-Philosophical/dp/1492234419/ref=sr_1_1?crid=225M8IZ6XJ8VF&keywords=lataster&qid=1653392501&s=audible&sprefix=lataster,audible,118&sr=1-1

If that's too much maybe just historian Bart Ehrman on how a Jewish Rabbi became known as a God:
https://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-audiobook/dp/B00I8ON7XM/ref=sr_1_4?crid=3SI6W9T67828A&keywords=bart+ehrman&qid=1653392527&s=audible&sprefix=bart+ehrman,audible,56&sr=1-4

 

[ElishaElijah]

Have read the Bible. It's as fictional as Lord of the Rings. Way to avoid the point though. Pretty good confirmation that you have no interest in what is actually true!

Would recommend this historical book on why Jesus is probably a myth
https://www.amazon.com/On-Historicity-of-Jesus-audiobook/dp/B00UKE0UTC/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2M7JIC4XILQXV&keywords=richard+carrier&qid=1653392392&sprefix=richard+carrier,aps,72&sr=8-1


OR this one:
https://www.amazon.com/there-was-Jesus-God-Philosophical/dp/1492234419/ref=sr_1_1?crid=225M8IZ6XJ8VF&keywords=lataster&qid=1653392501&s=audible&sprefix=lataster,audible,118&sr=1-1

If that's too much maybe just historian Bart Ehrman on how a Jewish Rabbi became known as a God:
https://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-audiobook/dp/B00I8ON7XM/ref=sr_1_4?crid=3SI6W9T67828A&keywords=bart+ehrman&qid=1653392527&s=audible&sprefix=bart+ehrman,audible,56&sr=1-4

I found in depth personal study and the reading of Scripture instead of books written by skeptics to be a lot more beneficial to life application of the principles God has communicated to us. The others tend to bring confusion, which is a tactic of the devil.
So, thanks for the skeptic book recommendations but definitely with continue with the Illustrated Bible.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Not your God since yours is apparently theistic. Mine is philosophical and atheistic as not theistic.

Your God doesn't believe in himself?

 

[Kfox]

I’ve been reading through a couple of threads, and I see that it is said that there is no evidence for a god, it’s an unfalsifiable idea. We all agree on this? If you don’t, care to explain the evidence there is for god?
I’m in agreement. I used to believe my personal experiences to be subjective evidence for god, but I know now that’s not the case. I am not a theist anymore because I recognize I was a Christian thanks almost completely to my environment. That’s why I believed. I was brought up in it. Wasn’t because of any proof or anything,
So, theists, why do you believe? Is it mainly because of your environment and geographical location? There is no proof for god (right?), so what logically keeps you believing? Or is logic not supposed to be a factor when it comes to faith? Is it too jarring, the idea of leaving the comfort that religion and belief in a god brings?
I am curious about personal evaluations on why you believe. It can’t be because of logic, as there is no proof of god, right?

When I was Christian, the concept of "faith" (belief without empirical evidence) was stressed as extremely important. Perhaps that is why they believe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your God doesn't believe in himself?

I can't see that it follows?

 

[ElishaElijah]

When I was Christian, the concept of "faith" (belief without empirical evidence) was stressed as extremely important. Perhaps that is why they believe.

To be considered a believer in Christ a person would need certain evidence and proof of a changed life and heart, a new man and would say empirical. This is being born again, if this change isn’t evident then I would question whether that person was ever a believer in the first place. They may have gone to meetings and participated in religious activities but not born again of the Spirit. Would ask what soil in the Parable of Sower is that person, am I or you?
So not sure what that church was teaching or what you heard.

 

[metis]

How do you figure that I ignore helping other people?

I didn't say that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

View attachment 63172
To be considered a believer in Christ a person would need certain evidence and proof of a changed life and heart, a new man and would say empirical. This is being born again, if this change isn’t evident then I would question whether that person was ever a believer in the first place. They may have gone to meetings and participated in religious activities but not born again of the Spirit. Would ask what soil in the Parable of Sower is that person, am I or you?
So not sure what that church was teaching or what you heard.

There are several forms of experience. I experience that you are evil, so it is true that you are evil, because I experience it. Now you wouldn't accept that and nor would I, but how come that is so? How come it is not true? What is the error? Can you explain that?

 

[Wildswanderer]

I can't see that it follows?

You said your God was atheistic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You said your God was atheistic.

Yes, not all Gods are theistic. So now I get, but that is only relevant for a certain subtype of Gods.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yes, not all Gods are theistic. So now I get, but that is only relevant for a certain subtype of Gods.

How can a god not believe in himself?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How can a god not believe in himself?

You take for granted that your type of God is the only type of God. It isn't.