• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Do you have an answer yet? You've had an opportunity to read the words of dozens of us
The only reasons I see presented by skeptics are the Bible is too old, eye witness accounts can be unreliable, although we see the accounts in the Bible, we aren’t accepting that or any other historian or scholar of the time that disagrees with the skeptic view.
Then when someone testifies who is alive today
that Jesus is Alive and He intervened in their life, gave them His Spirit, Eternal Life and victorious living and power over the lust of the flesh, the ability and desire to live a holy life and you have justifications how this isn’t so.
So have I answered yours and the other skeptics on this thread adequately? Yes, and my opinion is no answer will do until my Lord and King returns, then then it will be great bu a hollow victory because it would be too late for the skeptic.
 
Do you have an answer yet? You've had an opportunity to read the words of dozens of us
The only reasons I see presented by skeptics are the Bible is too old, eye witness accounts can be unreliable, although we see the accounts in the Bible, we aren’t accepting that or any other historian or scholar of the time that disagrees with the skeptic view.
Then when someone testifies who is alive today
that Jesus is Alive and He intervened in their life, gave them His Spirit, Eternal Life and victorious living and power over the lust of the flesh, the ability and desire to live a holy life and you have justifications how this isn’t so.
So have I answered yours and the other skeptics on this thread adequately? Yes, and my opinion is no answer will do until my Lord and King returns, then then it will be great but a hollow victory because it would be too late for the skeptic.
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
When I look at the skeptic side of unbelief and doubt I have to ask myself is this a solid foundation or sinking sand

Do you have an answer yet? You've had an opportunity to read the words of dozens of us. My foundation is reason applied to evidence. Everything I believe has passed that test - either being evidently and demonstrably true like the apple, or sound conclusions derived from such evidence using valid reasoning. Both of those methods reliably produce correct ideas, that is, ideas that can be confirmed to accurately map some aspect of reality. No firmer foundation for belief is possible. No more sound basis for mapping and navigating reality are available to humanity. And my experience in life living that way has been to my liking. What else can anybody hope for from a world view?

The only reasons I see presented by skeptics are the Bible is too old, eye witness accounts can be unreliable, although we see the accounts in the Bible, we aren’t accepting that or any other historian or scholar of the time that disagrees with the skeptic view.

The reason the critical thinker rejects the claims of the Bible is because he requires better evidence than unevidenced claims before believing. The only time I comment on how old the Bible is when commenting on its out-of-date ethical principles. It's not the reason for rejecting its claims of historical fact. Insufficient supporting evidence is. Perhaps you don't understand what a foundational belief skepticism, or the need to question all claims and accept only those that are demonstrably correct as fact, is for the strict empiricist. No apologist can provide that level of evidentiary support.

But why did you give that answer? You seem to be giving reasons why skeptics reject the claims of the Bible, not a response to my position that a solid foundation is based in holding demonstrably correct ideas about reality. You were asking whether that was a solid foundation for belief and navigating life. I argued that it was. Did you want to address that? If you disagree, why? If the answer is that it causes one to miss out on heaven, that's fine, but I'd have to add that basing one's life in that belief is not a very good foundation if there is no heaven. Your world view is based on set of faith-based beliefs that reinforce one another. Mine on evidence properly understood. I consider the latter a firmer foundation.

I just gave a detailed argument for relying on empiricism and reason alone when determining what is true that supplements the one I've made to you, which you may find to be of interest:
Reformed Epistemology

Then when someone testifies who is alive today that Jesus is Alive and He intervened in their life, gave them His Spirit, Eternal Life and victorious living and power over the lust of the flesh, the ability and desire to live a holy life and you have justifications how this isn’t so.

The skeptic has no reason to believe that the theist is properly understanding his intuitions as described in the link above (please refer to the comment on sensus divinitatis there). Fervent belief and a sense of certainty are not evidence that you such people are correct in their god belief, just that they have no doubt.

So have I answered yours and the other skeptics on this thread adequately?

Thanks for asking and trying, but no, you never commented on why you consider faith a firmer foundation than empiricism. I suspect that it is because it helped you to hold a god belief, so you discount other ways of knowing reality.

Let me answer for you: empiricism is the only solid foundation for navigating reality possible. It's what even you use to make most of the decisions in daily life, such as filling up the gas tank because it is low. You combine the evidence of the gas gauge with reason, which informs you that if you don't get gas soon, your car won't run. It's how you pick your clothes and the words you'll speak to others - all based in generalizations (inductions) extracted from prior experience and applied to present circumstances with expectations of what will follow based on that knowledge (empiricism).

Will you be cold if you don't dress properly? Will you offend a friend if you ask her if she's pregnant and she's not? If you have preferred outcomes in any of those situations, like not being cold or offending a friend, you'll turn to empiricism, because whether you realize it or not, that is your firm foundation for navigating life. Then you question whether others doing only that absent the comforting faith beliefs are on solid ground.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
It’s not hyperbole it’s what the Bible says. If a church disagrees with what God says in Scripture they can say they’re Christian all day long but that doesn’t make it so. Not sure what’s so difficult to understand here. I thought you understood the Bible? apparently not.
You can of course repeat this straw man ad nauseum, the fact remains there are 45000 different sects of Christianity globally, and over 200 in the US alone, all claiming they are right, all citing personal subjective experience of a deity, and the bible as validating their beliefs. So the method is demonstrably unreliable, and that's just for Christianity, never mind the thousands of other different deities and religions. The want of understanding here is not mine, but yours, since you keep responding with this irrelevant red herring about you knowing what the bible says, and what your deity wants, as if the other 44999 sects don't, you clearly are not understanding the inference I'm making at all, or are just deflecting, which to be fair you do quite a bit.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
You’ll have to read this again, and yes the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact.
The Minimal Facts of the Resurrection

It's not any kind of fact, and that sight has been widely debunked as biased apologetics by more than one poster, including me. Of course you responded with hand waving. The author you cited has refused all requests for his work to be submitted for peer review, so it doesn't come close to the standard historians set for verifying claims, and again this has been explained, and again you are simply ignoring it for a while, then rehashing this apologists trope that it is an "historical fact" when it certainly is not.

The Bible is the best record of this fact.

It's not any sort of fact, and the gospel accounts are pure unevidenced hearsay. The only claim verified independently is the crucifixion, and thus an historical Jesus, so a common name and common punishment of that epoch.

Now you can choose to belief these facts for yourself or not.

They're not facts.

I can say I’m standing on a firm foundation of truth,
facts and evidence.

You have no facts, and the only evidence you have offered is the unsubstantiated hearsay from the gospels, written anonymously decades after the alleged events, and your subjective anecdotal claims, which are so unreliable the method is used to validate 45000 different sects of Christianity alone, and literally thousands of deities and religions.

When I look at the skeptic side of unbelief and doubt I have to ask myself is this a solid foundation or sinking sand, I think it’s sinking sand and a decision that skeptics will regret in the end.

You can think the moon is made of cheese if it makes you happy, but you have failed to support your beliefs, other than in the dubious and unreliable methods I just referred to.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Well they may disagree on whether it is safe to claim that an historical Jesus ever existed, but they are both credible historians, and they both have agree that the gospels are anonymous tales, written decades after the alleged events, and thus pure hearsay. I don't know if someone called Jesus actually did exist, it's by no means an established historical fact, though there is some independent evidence, how sure one can be is largely subjective, however I don't personally think it matters, as this fact alone doesn't alter the fact that we cannot know anything he may or may not have said or did, whether he was a real person or not.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
The gospels are actually the "best record". Which is a terrible source, besides being obvious fiction and that historians say - "Mainstream scholars agree the Gospels are mythologies, not histories, and that if anything in them is historical, it is difficult to impossible to ascertain what that may be. "
This is absolutely the case, the events are of unknown authorship, the claims are hearsay, the earliest accounts are decades after the fact, and there isn't a shred of objective or independent evidence to support it.

Worst of all these are about the most extraordinary claims one can imagine.
 
You have no facts, and the only evidence you have offered is the unsubstantiated hearsay from the gospels, written anonymously decades after the alleged events, and your subjective anecdotal claims, which are so unreliable the method is used to validate 45000 different sects of Christianity alone, and literally thousands of deities and religions.
Saying I have no facts when I have presented facts…there is evidence for 1 God and Creator, the Kingdom of God, the other is the Kingdom of Darkness or Satan where he has his deception, counterfeit, and masquerades as an angel of light.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
You certainly come off as angry. It seems you’re angry because you’re not getting what you want, so you keep spewing the bs and repeating yourself over and over in hopes it will get you what you want.

He doesn't come as across as angry to me? His posts seem well reasoned and well written, if a little long. Laughably dismissing them entirely as bs sounds like you're angry to be honest.
If you don’t understand spirituality and know what I’ve been telling you, then too bad.

Too bad for the claim it exists, as not being able to accurately explain it, and properly evidence it, makes the claim for it woefully weak in a debate.
 
Last edited:

Sheldon

Veteran Member
This shows how little you understand what happened when Jesus rose, yes He was glorified after He rose from the dead and His earthly body did not see corruption, according to the Scriptures.
Which are pure unevidenced hearsay, as has been explained. I can understand Harry Potter books, this does not make them true.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
The only reasons I see presented by skeptics are the Bible is too old, eye witness accounts can be unreliable, although we see the accounts in the Bible, we aren’t accepting that or any other historian or scholar of the time that disagrees with the skeptic view.

None of that is true, people have taken great pains to explain why they're dubious, and you respond with these straw men.

Then when someone testifies who is alive today
that Jesus is Alive and He intervened in their life, gave them His Spirit, Eternal Life and victorious living and power over the lust of the flesh, the ability and desire to live a holy life and you have justifications how this isn’t so.

How many times must we explain that your subjective anecdotal claim is not objective evidence, furthermore it is demonstrably unreliable given the fact the same methods are used by theists to "validate" their beliefs in widely differing religions and deities, even Christianity has over 45000 different sects globally.

So have I answered yours and the other skeptics on this thread adequately?

No, you are also ignoring the reasons they have given as to why.
my opinion is no answer will do until my Lord and King returns, then then it will be great but a hollow victory because it would be too late for the skeptic.

Why would you think your bare subjective opinion on this, is any more compelling than elsewhere?
 
Which are pure unevidenced hearsay, as has been explained. I can understand Harry Potter books, this does not make them true.
Harry Potter books and the Biblical account aren’t close to being on the same level. The Bible has historical, archeological, eye witness testimony written by the apostles, the early church demonstrations of the power of the Holy Spirit confirmed by scholars and historians of that time period I’ve already presented.
My testimony is also evidence because it lines up with the biblical testimonies of the change people experienced when they received Christ.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Saying I have no facts when I have presented facts…

No you haven't. you are misrepresenting the hearsay of anonymous gospel claims as historical facts, when they are not. No credible biblical scholar would agree with you, though their personal subjective beliefs might align with yours.
there is evidence for 1 God and Creator, the Kingdom of God, the other is the Kingdom of Darkness or Satan where he has his deception, counterfeit, and masquerades as an angel of light.

Those are unevidenced claims?
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Sheldon said:
Which are pure unevidenced hearsay, as has been explained. I can understand Harry Potter books, this does not make them true.
Harry Potter books and the Biblical account aren’t close to being on the same level.

Straw man fallacy, as that's not remotely what I said, it's quoted above, read it again and see if you can understand what it says, and what that implies in the context of your claim I had responded to.

The Bible has historical, archeological, eye witness testimony written by the apostles,

No it doesn't, repeating this won't make it true. Or convince me the facts are less reliable than your unevidenced sophistry.

the early church demonstrations of the power of the Holy Spirit confirmed by scholars and historians of that time period I’ve already presented.

That's an unsubstantiated claim, you can't prop up one unevidenced claim with another, no matter how many you line up in tandem.
My testimony is also evidence

As is the identical unevidenced subjective testimony of the countless other theists who believe in widely different religions and deities, a fact you seem unable to grasp the significance of, no matter how many times it is explained.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
No her book is on her specialty, the OT and is about body parts of Yahweh mentioned in the original Hebrew. The English translations clean them up a bit but the original Hebrew is clearly talking about Yahweh having a human type of body. This was common among all stories of Gods in that time.
Yahweh isn't revealed as creator of anything? Ancient Israelite myths made up a God called Yahweh, paired him with a Canaanite Goddess Ashera and borrowed the Mesopotamian creation stories and made 2 stories of creation by this new God Yahweh. But the myth is a re-working of both Mesopotamian creation myths. The flood narrative is also a re-working of the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilamesh. At times the author copied it verbatim.

So no, that wouldn't count as being "revealed" as creating anything. If so then every Bronze age creation myth (there are hundreds) is a God "revealing" he was the true creator.
Anyone can write a book or come up with their own ideas, but the scriptures say...

God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24

And...

...In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
 
Thanks for asking and trying, but no, you never commented on why you consider faith a firmer foundation than empiricism.
Well, I have both, hope in this life and eternal life in the next. This is a guarantee for me because God has given me His Spirit as a guarantee. This is not an empty faith but living hope, promises for this life and the next, a relationship with my Creator.
These things skeptics misstate, lack understanding and are confused by, but the truth remains skeptics have no hope for the afterlife and not sure if you have any hope for this life especially if you’re trusting in yourself. Big trouble there.
 
Straw man fallacy, as that's not remotely what I said, it's quoted above, read it again and see if you can understand what it says, and what that implies in the context of your claim I had responded to.
Ok so the Bible and Harry Potter are not on the same level, one is fiction and the other non fiction, one you understand the other you don’t.
Is that better?
 
Nope, keep trying you might get there. I'm off to the pub anyway, enjoy.
Later on, too bad I wasn’t there, could hang out and meet and talk to you and your friends while I drink a soda or something, buy you something to eat and be your designated driver if you needed one.
 
Top