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

[George-ananda]

So, theists, why do you believe?

(I am a Hindu non-dualist (God and creation are not-two)) Because it becomes the best explanation for all the paranormal, miraculous and mystical insights of those I most respect. Materialism no longer makes sense as more than a surface understanding.

 

[Audie]

I do not believe that is correct. An activist is someone who is active so a religionist would be someone practicing religion and there are many conservative versions of that.

It certainly isn't correct.
I'm not an idiot thinking if some
Christians are nitwits, all are

 

[Brian2]

How is that evidence of God? This is a topic that I do not understand well myself, but my lack of understanding does not make it "evidence for God". Scientists may understand how this ability has evolved, Or they may not know. Either way that is not evidence for God. It sounds as if yo are using the logical fallacy of an Argument From Ignorance.

No it is not an argument from ignorance but possibly an argument from incredulity.

 

[Brian2]

How precisely does this hand work? For example if I time travelled to a certain point in the path when God's hand was at work in "creating" a feature...what would I have observed? Thanks

I don't know the details.

 

[Brian2]

Youve desensitized yourself to reading for content.

You religionists have quite the variety of weird n
wacky beliefs, all backed up by exxentric ways to
interpret the Bible.

Trying to show someone that their belief is a world
wide flood is bonkers, disproved 10000 ways by
hard data has nothing to do with " god".

Your contuing to falsely claim that talking science
V ignorance is somehow about the existence is
if not an insult to your own intelligence, it certainly is
to those who offer data to counter your made up nonsense.

It's never against the existence of God.

It's against the existence of the only true God imo, the Bible God, and the truth of what He has told us.
Is the science wrong or can science show it is possibly true or is my interpretation of the Bible wrong.
Others (maybe like yourself) presume the science is right and that it does not matter if the science shows it is possibly true if it has not shown that it is true and that a deviation in the way someone understands what is written in the Bible actually shows that the Bible is wrong and that I am not being honest with anyone, including myself.

 

[Brian2]

We already know you've a case of confirmation bias.

Maybe I caught it on this forum.
It is one of those things that can be hard to recognise however, esp by people who have it themselves.
Not me of course, my eyes are wide open.

 

[Audie]

It's against the existence of the only true God imo, the Bible God, and the truth of what He has told us.
Is the science wrong or can science show it is possibly true or is my interpretation of the Bible wrong.
Others (maybe like yourself) presume the science is right and that it does not matter if the science shows it is possibly true if it has not shown that it is true and that a deviation in the way someone understands what is written in the Bible actually shows that the Bible is wrong and that I am not being honest with anyone, including myself.

Do you believe in a world wide flood?
Simple. Yes or no.
If not do you agree with what research has done
proving there was no world wide flood?

Is that "against god" or is it showing the folly if
LITERAL flood- believin'?

Research has found real events such as the refill of
the black sea and big Tibris Euphrates floods that could
give some substance to the fluffed up bible- version.

Many- all educated Christians with intellectual integrity-
see things that way.

You claim they are against ( what you choose to think is )
The One True God?

This thing you choose to presume about "others"
makes no sense. Besides being profoundly insulting.
But AGAIN, you debate persons not present and likely
non existent.

 

[Audie]

Maybe I caught it on this forum.
It is one of those things that can be hard to recognise however, esp by people who have it themselves.
Not me of course, my eyes are wide open.

Go ahead and give an example.
We will wait.

Meanwhile consider the odds.

FAITH, no matter what, is a highest virtue for
Christians.

In science, it's the opposite.

Confirmation bias is self deception, deadly to
research. And careers.

Those who've made any study of science know that.

Saying scientists are just like religionists is seriously
ridiculous

 

[Audie]

No it is not an argument from ignorance but possibly an argument from incredulity.

It's both

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A possible evolution path or a real one does not detract from this incredible ability to repair damage and it being evidence for God's hand in designing such a thing.

"Don't confuse me with facts! My mind is made up!"

 

[Audie]

"Don't confuse me with facts! My mind is made up!"

Here I thought it was just the dictionary
grade example of confirmation bias.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it is not an argument from ignorance but possibly an argument from incredulity.

Nope. Wrong again. I am not saying that means that there is no God. That only means that a belief in God is irrational. You should try to learn the difference. In fact it shows that you are using a strawman argument when it comes to the beliefs of others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe I caught it on this forum.
It is one of those things that can be hard to recognise however, esp by people who have it themselves.
Not me of course, my eyes are wide open.

No, you are now just projecting. Your flaws in reasoning are yours. Do not blame others for your sins. Perhaps you are too sued to being on forums that foster irrational beliefs.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't know the details.

How about enough to answer the basic question: what would be the difference if you actually saw a deity intervene vs not?

 

[Brian2]

Do you believe in a world wide flood?
Simple. Yes or no.

No.

If not do you agree with what research has done
proving there was no world wide flood?

Yes.

Is that "against god" or is it showing the folly if
LITERAL flood- believin'?

Shows folly in literal flood-believin.

You claim they are against ( what you choose to think is )
The One True God?

This thing you choose to presume about "others"
makes no sense. Besides being profoundly insulting.
But AGAIN, you debate persons not present and likely
non existent.

I was speaking in general about secular assumptions being brought into the examining of the Bible, not specifically about the flood.
Those who study the Bible for example with the presumption that the supernatural is not true end up doing what they knew from the start would happen, they show the Bible is not credible.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I was speaking in general about secular assumptions being brought into the examining of the Bible, not specifically about the flood.
Those who study the Bible for example with the presumption that the supernatural is not true end up doing what they knew from the start would happen, they show the Bible is not credible.

That is not the case for all versions of secular.

 

[Brian2]

Go ahead and give an example.
We will wait.

Meanwhile consider the odds.

FAITH, no matter what, is a highest virtue for
Christians.

Love is the highest virtue for Christians.
Scienctists when doing science probably do not bring in confirmation bias.
Since you are the one saying I have confirmation bias then you should be able to give me examples.
There is plenty of confirmation bias on this forum and I'm sure you would agree without examples.

In science, it's the opposite.

Confirmation bias is self deception, deadly to
research. And careers.

Those who've made any study of science know that.

Saying scientists are just like religionists is seriously
ridiculous

Did I say that? Maybe I did. Please show me where so I can agree.

 

[Brian2]

"Don't confuse me with facts! My mind is made up!"

Sorry.

 

[Brian2]

Here I thought it was just the dictionary
grade example of confirmation bias.

Having what I call subjective evidence for God is not confirmation bias. Confirmation bias does not see other evidence which does not find a God in nature but physical mechanisms instead. I see that but also see my subjective evidence. It is not science that is the problem, it is skeptics who refuse to see any evidence for God, that sounds like confirmation bias to me.

 

[Brian2]

How about enough to answer the basic question: what would be the difference if you actually saw a deity intervene vs not?

There may be no difference. I don't know and it does not matter.