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

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
The Christian deity has often traditionally been assigned the characteristics of being omniscient omnipotent and omnibenevolent, @Sgt. Pepper's story would be strong evidence against such a deity, this notion of course has an entire field of apologetics that has struggled to explain the presence of suffering against the contradiction of such an extant deity, it's called theodicy.

See that’s what I was waiting for you to step in. So you’re accepting @Sgt. Pepper anecdotal claim as strong evidence against such a diety.
Yet with my now strong evidence on how God delivered me, gave me His Spirit as a promise of Eternal Life you hypocritically say it’s just anecdotal.
See how you are? And now I’m glad you accept my story as strong evidence.

Take another look, I've emboldened the words you seem to have either missed or not understood. You also seem not to grasp that @Sgt. Pepper's situation would be a direct logical contradiction to the idea of an extant deity with those characteristics, whereas your claim even if true, would not represent evidence for your claim a deity caused it, this is simply a subjective assumption, not a logical argument, in fact it is based on a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

As for being hypocritical, I have done you the courtesy of accepting your claim that you made a profound change in your life, just as I have done @Sgt. Pepper the exact same courtesy by accepting her claims about the appalling abuse she suffered. So explain how that is hypocritical?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Take another look, I've emboldened the words you seem to have either missed or not understood. You also seem not to grasp that @Sgt. Pepper's situation would be a direct logical contradiction to the idea of an extant deity with those characteristics, whereas your claim even if true, would not represent evidence for your claim a deity caused it, this is simply a subjective assumption, not a logical argument, in fact it is based on a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

As for being hypocritical, I have done you the courtesy of accepting your claim that you made a profound change in your life, just as I have done @Sgt. Pepper the exact same courtesy by accepting her claims about the appalling abuse she suffered. So explain how that is hypocritical?

You still used strong evidence and not anecdotal claim and used it in a hypocritical fashion. So you can either take both as anecdotal with no evidence or both as strong evidence. So you pick and we will go from there.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Take another look, I've emboldened the words you seem to have either missed or not understood. You also seem not to grasp that @Sgt. Pepper's situation would be a direct logical contradiction to the idea of an extant deity with those characteristics, whereas your claim even if true, would not represent evidence for your claim a deity caused it, this is simply a subjective assumption, not a logical argument, in fact it is based on a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

As for being hypocritical, I have done you the courtesy of accepting your claim that you made a profound change in your life, just as I have done @Sgt. Pepper the exact same courtesy by accepting her claims about the appalling abuse she suffered. So explain how that is hypocritical?

If God does exist, then for me, the sheer contrast between my experience with God and Elisha Elijah's experience with him begs the question, why does a "loving, merciful" God intervene in someone's life, like Elisha Elijah's life, and seemingly turn his life around for the better, but refuse to intervene in a hellhole life like mine, where I endured abuse and bullying while I was growing up? Did I not deserve divine intervention from God? I was genuinely devoted to him while I was growing up and for thirty years thereafter.

Why did a "loving, merciful" God and "heavenly father" refuse to answer the sincere pleas of a child to save her from being abused and bullied? I've suffered from PTSD for years because of the trauma I endured while growing up, but I never felt any relief from the pain, anxiety, or depression while I was a Christian, despite my devout faith in God and prayers to him. Well, I stopped praying and I started taking care of myself. It took me a long time to accept the fact that God wasn't going to help me, and if I wanted to survive and get better, then I had to save myself. And now I realize that I don't need God and I'm much better off without having faith in him.

Below are the questions I asked in another post. I decided to include them in this post.

Good question. I have some questions of my own: Why was God silent to the pleas of an innocent child who begged him to save her from being abused and bullied? Why did he abandon this child to live in an abusive home for her entire childhood and do nothing to protect her from bullying and harassment by other children throughout her school years? Why didn't he save her and be the loving and merciful God that she'd been hearing about in church? For the record, I'm already pretty familiar with the justifications that some Christians will use in an effort to justify God's heinous actions in ignoring the sincere pleas of a child to be saved from being abused.

 

[ElishaElijah]

If God does exist, then for me, the sheer contrast between my experience with God and Elisha Elijah's experience with him begs the question, why does a "loving, merciful" God intervene in someone's life, like Elisha Elijah's life, and seemingly turn his life around for the better, but refuse to intervene in a hellhole life like mine, where I endured abuse and bullying while I was growing up? Did I not deserve divine intervention from God? I was genuinely devoted to him while I was growing up and for thirty years thereafter.

Why did a "loving, merciful" God and "heavenly father" refuse to answer the sincere pleas of a child to save her from being abused and bullied? I've suffered from PTSD for years because of the trauma I endured while growing up, but I never felt any relief from the pain, anxiety, or depression while I was a Christian, despite my devout faith in God and prayers to him. Well, I stopped praying and I started taking care of myself. It took me a long time to accept the fact that God wasn't going to help me, and if I wanted to survive and get better, then I had to save myself. And now I realize that I don't need God and I'm much better off without having faith in him.

Below are the questions I asked in another post. I decided to include them in this post.

Do you really want the answers to those questions? Are you saying for 30 years God has been silent, has promised you nothing and never loved you in all that time?

 

[Subduction Zone]

See that’s what I was waiting for you to step in. So you’re accepting @Sgt. Pepper anecdotal claim as strong evidence against such a diety.
Yet with my now strong evidence on how God delivered me, gave me His Spirit as a promise of Eternal Life you hypocritically say it’s just anecdotal.
See how you are? And now I’m glad you accept my story as strong evidence.

Sorry, but your evidence is extremely weak, and that is your fault. You are the one that could have properly tested your beliefs but you failed to do so. That makes your evidence almost worthless.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Sorry, but your evidence is extremely weak, and that is your fault. You are the one that could have properly tested your beliefs but you failed to do so. That makes your evidence almost worthless.

Define your proper test method of spiritual matters as far as God is concerned.
I already see what you would say to God when confronted on your faulty science and supposed evidence against the Bible, but He would just have you read Romans 1, so you fail that one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Define your proper test method of spiritual matters as far as God is concerned.

That is not the way it works. The person proposing an idea is the one that has to find a proper test. But I can spot some errors in testing. I am sure that I can not spot them all.

If you propose a test and I see an error I can explain why it is an error.

 

[ElishaElijah]

That is not the way it works. The person proposing an idea is the one that has to find a proper test. But I can spot some errors in testing. I am sure that I can not spot them all.

If you propose a test and I see an error I can explain why it is an error.

Ok if you have no test, then you failed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok if you have no test, then you failed.

No, you failed. It is your claim, not mine, therefore you are the one that has to find a proper way to test it.

Part of the reason that the person making the claim has to come up with a test is that that task tests the honesty of the person making the claim. A person with a real belief should have no problem finding a way to test it properly. If one is just giving lip service it might be much harder for that person to test his or her belief.

 

[ElishaElijah]

No, you failed. It is your claim, not mine, therefore you are the one that has to find a proper way to test it.

My test works perfect for me as well as testing the faith of other people, sorry you don’t have a way other than cheap talk.

 

[Sheldon]

You still used strong evidence and not anecdotal claim and used it in a hypocritical fashion. So you can either take both as anecdotal with no evidence or both as strong evidence. So you pick and we will go from there.

You're clearly just using ad homonem to spin this away from the question. I have not denied either claim, and they are both anecdotal.

However @Sgt. Pepper's life would be a logical negation of the claim for an extant deity that was omniscient omnipotent and omni benevolent. and for pretty obvious reasons.

Paradoxically your claim to have profoundly changed your life, is not objective evidence a deity was the cause, this is just a subjective belief.

I see that you're unable to fully understand the difference here, but there is little I can do about that.

 

[Sheldon]

Define your proper test method of spiritual matters as far as God is concerned.
I already see what you would say to God when confronted on your faulty science and supposed evidence against the Bible, but He would just have you read Romans 1, so you fail that one.

Well a good example would be for you to answer my question, Since you claimed a deity answers all prayers, but some are answered with a no or wait, can you explain the objective difference between your perception that a deity has answered no to a prayer, and no deity existing to answer that prayer?

 

[Sheldon]

That is not the way it works. The person proposing an idea is the one that has to find a proper test.

Ok if you have no test, then you failed.

 

[Sheldon]

My test works perfect for me

Well of course it does, what a stupid claim, you wouldn't hold the belief otherwise would you. That doesn't mean you have rigorously or objectively tested it, only that you have decided it is true.

Remember you have just spent page after page failing to offer an explanation for any objective difference between what you perceive as a deity answer no to a prayer, and no deity existing to answer it. And while it seems clear you're struggling to understand the question properly, and particularly what it infers for your claim, others can see exactly what it infers about your claim, summed up in just two words - selection bias.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My test works perfect for me as well as testing the faith of other people, sorry you don’t have a way other than cheap talk.

And there is your first fail. The results of a test must be repeatable no matter who does it. The problem is that there is a distinct possibility that you cannot judge the results of your test honestly. That can happen to anyone that tries to test one's own ideas. That is why the standard is other people being able to come up with the same results. If they don't then that is considered a refutation.

That does not necessarily mean that you are wrong. It only means that your test failed.

 

[rational experiences]

Consensus. Group. Governing. The human law schooling teaching to suffice productivity of the human slave to rich mains civilisation gains.

Always controlled. Teaching. Advices. Always by human only as control.

What I want you to believe. By group command demand status. Criminal activity origin of men versus natural family was taught.

Humanity by nation owns country father DNA.

Owned governing. Owned teachings.

Similar themes as it's human theories of earths sciences reasoned. Told by human storytellers theists.

So humans said by governing I name the planet God.

It was changed to I name the planet earth.

As God terms were outlawed in governing by consensus new group just for civilisation purposes. Against the evil technologies of life's destruction.

As humans said I name earth all terms of God types as the sciences.

It's difficult to enforce one teaching then suddenly change your own minds. By just humans as a group consensus.

As men bullies by men's technology sacrificed both life and mind.

Civilisation was built on the exact same reasons. Two types of human man historic criminal choice. The teaching to humanity.

Caused human behaviour changed. Caused civilisation to fail by human depravity. By technology practiced itself. Humans greed in trade. Exact self warnings. Human behaviour.

No longer are family motivated or United under God of science teachings.

Humans were forced into new sciences concepts.

Science still owns the same destructive biology conscious attacks on life by technology causing exactly everything they caused before.

Wonder today by group what new type of teachings they should enforce.

Is our humans reality today.

Humans owned two choices.

Be humans mutual life bio conscious balanced mother father human....or by science X 2 destroy bio human health and conscious mind by technology science of changed earth mass.

Science isn't any innocent human organisation.

 

[rational experiences]

A humans deity is God in science.

The machine and machines purpose is his God. Abstracted direct from God

No different a human theist today than before. Theoried as a human about everything. He then tried to relate the outcome to a machine and a reaction...yet it owned known attack change conversion of the nature of living biology.

Man's theory today bio life is electric based so if I contact human biology I can invent electricity inside my machine.

Fact no human was invented by another human by your inside a machine reaction. Controlled by a human.

No he says I'm copying.

How?

I take the highest coldest gas which he says only the heavens owns first. Is Stephen Haw king answer he's trying to burn you to death.

As machines don't exist. God earth mass does.

A theist already conferred your life sacrifice in the thesis was agreed. As they don't just use numbers they use biological living stories too.

What they always lied about.

As they give themselves permission by criminal man brothers rich man history with machine technology.

 

[PearlSeeker]

So you’re accepting @Sgt. Pepper anecdotal claim as strong evidence against such a diety.
Yet with my now strong evidence on how God delivered me, gave me His Spirit as a promise of Eternal Life you hypocritically say it’s just anecdotal.

We believe both testimonies are true and congratulate you for such a change. You just haven't provided reliable evidence that also your explanation is true. It might be a placebo effect.

 

[ElishaElijah]

We believe both testimonies are true and congratulate you for such a change. You just haven't provided reliable evidence that also your explanation is true. It might be a placebo effect.

Sorry but @Sgt. Pepper has some explaining to do because her new OP she is saying she has been consulting with demons since childhood and not God at all, she is a medium.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry but @Sgt. Pepper has some explaining to do because her new OP she is saying she has been consulting with demons since childhood and not God at all, she is a medium.

Where did she claim that? And remember, the same rules that you use will be used against you