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

[mikkel_the_dane]

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?

The problem is this:
There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

But there is evidence that people can believe without evidence, so now what?

 

[Riders]

There is no evidence at all. However, people get mixed up on what my beliefs are because I will stand up with the Atheists and agnostics on the evidence of God.

However, I believe in one True God and also the Godself. I'm in a 12 Step recovery group for over eating and the 12 Steps teach us to be dependent on a higher power to get us clean and sober. it makes sense, overeating and junk food were my higher power and replacing my addiction with a power greater than myself.

I don't believe there is evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead. Josephus wrote a line that referred to Jesus but that's the only thing he said about Jesus that some historians think is true and some historians say it is nonsense.

I tend to go with the one about Jesus being true, But it only proves that there was a guy named Jesus who lived and maybe was one of the Messiahs in the Messiah movement back then. He was like Hare Krishna and other messiah types

 

[Riders]

So to the question of why believe I have seen too many people in Alcoholics Anonymous and Overeaters Anonymous get clean and sober and stay in recovery from these 2 addictions and be healed from their addiction for long periods. Number 2 I have had spiritual experiences with my higher power. I have lost 26 pounds in OA so far.

I also believe I don't see any proof for any of the religions as far as historical proof goes, but I don't believe in following a religion because of historical evidence. I have faith and the historical proof is not needed for me to join a religious service,I listen to my higher power instead..

 

[Sheldon]

@Seeker of White Light ...and if you ask @Sheldon to back up his claims, he tells you google it... and continues

Only if it is something that a few seconds of Googling can settle, does your superstition have a moratorium on using internet searches for fact checking? Actually that would explain a lot.

 

[Sheldon]

Because then there would be nothing.

You have a canny knack for missing the point, if everything needs a cause, as your rather facile version of a first cause argument suggests, then it logically follows your argument fails to explain what caused the deity you imagine, or uses a special pleading fallacy to contradict this unevidenced assumption that everything must have a cause.

Godidit has no explanatory powers at all, so it's not just unevidenced as a cause, it explains absolutely nothing.

 

[Sheldon]

Here is the best place, if one wants the Atheist on high alert, and available to be on the opposition, like a swarm of bees.

No one is obliged to participate in debate, if their arguments, beliefs and egos are too fragile for it.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Yes I did say that, but that's not what you dishonestly claimed I had said is it?



Note the dishonest part you added in red.

Do you think we can't read what is written, and see your dishonesty?

No, not really but in these type forums people can misunderstand what other people are communicating. As for being dishonest, no that’s not me. We must not be thinking the same things

 

[ElishaElijah]

I will only if you promise to support your with a valid source the next time that you are challenged.

My sources are valid to me and yours are valid to you, I tend to look at the information first and evaluate the source after that.
The steps of AA and the Big Book is a spiritual program and right in it says: Rarely have we seen a person fail…
https://ashevilleaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/HOW-IT-WORKS.pdf

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My sources are valid to me and yours are valid to you, I tend to look at the information first and evaluate the source after that.

Then you can't tell me if I commit a sin.

 

[Kenny]

Well, imagine someone who never had any access to the Bible, or never heard of Jesus and stuff. Say, an Indian, in pre-columbian America.
According to Romans, he had no excuse, anyway. The question is what it is meant by that.

1) No excuse for not having believed in a God like, the gods people believed back then, while they should have? That would indicate that having believed in Tlatolteotl would have been an excuse. Which I read like "being saved", anyway.

Let's look at this more carefully and add what else scripture says (since we have gone beyond what the OP is talking about.)

23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

So... the "no excuse" is about making gods out of our own hands and then calling it a god and worshipping it. So there isn't an excuse when we make something in the image of what obviously was created by more than just evolution.

The reality that it is possible without the reading of the bible is the knowledge that the American Indians worshipped the Great Spirit - you don't need to know Him as the Hebrew designation of Father to worship Him.

2) If not, then the expectations are that our old Indians would infer the entire Christian theology by observing nature, creation, whatever. The question is how, unless you can show me how to infer that from observing trees, animals, the sky, etc. And she had no excuse if she did not see that. Which I read as "not saved".

So, this was answered in the above post. Sometime we downgrade the mercy of God as if He didn't know the hearts.

I would like to know what scenarios did Paul have in mind (assuming he knew there was a world beyond the relative little area where he preached)

There was a world beyond the little area of Asia Minor and Europe. There were more than just one Apostle and then they made more disciple and it went throughout the world.

Acts 17:6
And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;

Jesus did mention to go to the world

Because we have a dilemma:

If 1) holds, then Christianity is not needed. You can be saved by believing in any God. And in that case, missioning is counterproductive, since it will require possibly saved people to swap religion and lose their status of safety if they don't, once they heard the so-called good news. So, better to know nothing of Jesus and all, for their own sake. But that, of course, would contradict all claims that you need to accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour to get to heaven.

If 2) holds, then missioning is superfluous, since people are expected to infer the right theology without any help. Help that, if needed, would create unfairness for what concerns the eternal destiny of humans depending on sheer accidents of birth outside their control. IOW: turning the salvation game into a lottery.

So, what of the two scenarios apply?

Ciao

So, to sum it up, Christianity is needed because God want us to reach those who willfully worshipped that which was not God. Jesus came for the sick not the healthy (as he said). His mercy goes beyond those who knew God and did righteousness, He sought after those who went astray, the prodigals.

for them it is better to hear about Jesus.

 

[Polymath257]

Even if I could *first* show that God exists that would not prove that God sent any Messengers.

Correct. But to know that the Messengers are *from* God, you need to know God exists first.

You need to know that Messengers exist in order to know that God exists since they are the only evidence that God exists.

That the people you call Messengers existed is not at issue. The issue is whether they were from God. And to know that requires first knowing that God exists.

That is why it is circular reasoning.

It would not be any less circular if we knew that God exists and then claimed that the Messengers were sent by God.

Correct: that is the nature of circular reasoning: all aspects of the circle are only proved by other aspects of the circle.

And that is why it is a logical fallacy: the circle does not establish the truth of *any* of the things in the circle.

In order to actually establish that something in the circle (and hence everything in the circle) is true, you need to give a reason *outside* of the circle.

No, it does not require lack of circularity to be evidence, not at all.
Evidence is evidence. The fact that you do not *like* that it is circular does not negate the evidence.

And this is where you are wrong. A circular argument is fallacious: it is unreliable. To get evidence the claims in the circle are true, you need to go *outside* of the circle and establish them.

There is no way to *prove* that the premise is true because nobody can ever prove that a Messenger was sent by God. All we have is the evidence that indicates this was the case.

What evidence? If the evidence is that some man did a few things, that is hardly close to being evidence that the man was a messenger from God.

The circle cannot be cut because Messengers are the evidence of God. It does not need to be cut because a circular argument can be logically valid.

The claims in the circle *can* be valid, but the circle cannot establish that. To establish the claims in the circle are true, you need to go *outside* of the circle and provide a non-circluar (or otherwise fallacious) argument.

Are all circular arguments invalid?

The circular argument is invalid. The claims made may be true for other reasons.

No. The circularity does not reduce the validity of these arguments in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that all circular arguments are valid and/or sound. It should be more clear now that this line of reasoning is perfectly valid. Aug 18, 2017

No, the reasoning in a circular argument is NOT perfectly valid. it is possible for the claims made in a circular argument to be true, but to show that requires doing something other than a circular argument.

Circular arguments are perfectly valid - THE SKEPTICAL SCIENTIST Why is circular reasoning bad?

Broken link.

That is correct. God could still exist though.

Yes. And to show that requires something outside of the circle.

Again, it cannot be proven that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, all we have is the evidence that indicates that was the case.

Except that you have never presented any evidence.

So there is nothing.

There need not be any assumption that God exists *before* we investigate the claims of Baha'u'llah and come to believe that God exists, based upon what He revealed about God.

You have to believehe was truthful when he spoke about God. Which means you need to *first* know there is a God.

Again, it does not matter if it is a logical fallacy. The premises are either true or false and that is all that matters. You will never be able to locate God and prove He exists and that is why we have to look at the Messenger. The way to go about determining if God exists is to look at the Messenger's claims and the evidence he provided to support those claims, because if the Messenger's claims are true, God exists.

And if the Messenger's claims are false, then God may not exist.

So the question is what supports the claims of the Messenger when it comes to claims about God. What evidence does the Messenger give to support the existence of God?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Then you can't tell me if I commit a sin.

Why would I want to?

 

[viole]

So... the "no excuse" is about making gods out of our own hands and then calling it a god and worshipping it. So there isn't an excuse when we make something in the image of what obviously was created by more than just evolution.

The reality that it is possible without the reading of the bible is the knowledge that the American Indians worshipped the Great Spirit - you don't need to know Him as the Hebrew designation of Father to worship Him.

OK, so what counts is not to have a purely naturalistic view of nature. If you do, you have no excuse. If you don't, even if you worship some pagan divinity, you do have an excuse. On account that you could not possibly know better.

But what is it going to be excused, and why should anyone care if she is excused or not? Is that some sort of excuse at the Pearly Gates like: "Well, you did not know Jesus, not your fault, but you worshipped Apollo, therefore excused. Welcome to Heaven!"

Is that so simple? Wouldn't that entail that basically everyone who never met Jesus is saved, by now, considering that naturalism is a pretty recent philosophy strongly connected with European philosophy?

And why do you need missionaries if that is the case? Why not leaving them alone with their divinities, since that is all they need, instead of complicating things, and even risk that they want to stick with them, even after having heard the Gospel, losing thereby their soul?

So, to sum it up, Christianity is needed because God want us to reach those who willfully worshipped that which was not God. Jesus came for the sick not the healthy (as he said). His mercy goes beyond those who knew God and did righteousness, He sought after those who went astray, the prodigals.

for them it is better to hear about Jesus.

With "sick", you mean the naturalists? Well, I would like a missionary to come to me LOL. I love it when they try that.

Don't you think it will the biggest waste of time possibly imaginable? I would crush his beliefs in 5 minutes straight. I will be the missionary, lol.

Kidding aside, why don't they come to Sweden, for instance, where more than 80% are "sick", as you call them, and they keep on going to places where all people believe in a god, albeit a different one?

Isn't that maybe the case that they gave up on the real sick, and try with someone who is, how shall I put it?, more amenable towards imaginary deities?


Ciao

- viole

 

[Kenny]

OK, so what counts is not to have a purely naturalistic view of nature. If you do, you have no excuse. If you don't, even if you worship some pagan divinity, you do have an excuse. On account that you could not possibly know better.

But what is it going to be excused, and why should anyone care if she is excused or not? Is that some sort of excuse at the Pearly Gates like: "Well, you did not know Jesus, not your fault, but you worshipped Apollo, therefore excused. Welcome to Heaven!"

Is that so simple? Wouldn't that entail that basically everyone who never met Jesus is saved, by now, considering that naturalism is a pretty recent philosophy strongly connected with European philosophy?

And why do you need missionaries if that is the case? Why not leaving them alone with their divinities, since that is all they need, instead of complicating things, and even risk that they want to stick with them, even after having heard the Gospel, losing thereby their soul?

Ciao

- viole

I leave man's philosophical views on everything to God. You can discuss that with Him?

Certainly since we have discussed Jesus, do we have an excuse?

 

[viole]

I leave man's philosophical views on everything to God. You can discuss that with Him?

Certainly since we have discussed Jesus, do we have an excuse?

Me? I am a naturalist. I don't believe I need any excuse whatsoever towards entities that are for me as plausible as Pinocchio.

But, you seem to give up. Wise decision . Despite abandoning the sick to her destiny

Ciao

- viole

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I tend to look at the information first and evaluate the source after that.

That's not every efficient.
Since if you find the source isn't valid, then you just wasted time looking at the information.

I suggest reversing that order.

Also, I think chances are rather huge that if the information confirms your a priori beliefs, that you will tend to skip the source checking.

Amirite?

 

[ElishaElijah]

That's not every efficient.
Since if you find the source isn't valid, then you just wasted time looking at the information.

I suggest reversing that order.

Also, I think chances are rather huge that if the information confirms your a priori beliefs, that you will tend to skip the source checking.

Amirite?

I found those doing the source checking to be biased and misleading.
Let me ask you this: Is the Bible a good source for Truth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

My sources are valid to me and yours are valid to you, I tend to look at the information first and evaluate the source after that.
The steps of AA and the Big Book is a spiritual program and right in it says: Rarely have we seen a person fail…
https://ashevilleaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/HOW-IT-WORKS.pdf

That is the problem. "valid to me" only shows that one does not know what 'valid' means.

And you believe what AA has to say about its own success rates? Are you kidding me? Well in that case you have to believe me. Why? Because I am one of the most intelligent and most honest persons in the world? How do you know that. Well, it is obvious, because I said that I am..

 

[Subduction Zone]

One huge problem with judging AA's success rate is that they are anonymous. They "self report". But even their rates are only 50% and those that have studied it have found to be much lower. Perhaps only 5 to 10%:

Alcoholics Anonymous has a terrible success rate, addiction expert finds

 

[Subduction Zone]

I found those doing the source checking to be biased and misleading.
Let me ask you this: Is the Bible a good source for Truth?

Of course not. It repeatedly fails when properly tested. Believers can't own up to that fact and run away from learning the knowledge that would make their claims outright lies.