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

[shunyadragon]

I am talking about my own subjective evidence for God, not any evidence for God that science can verify or falsify.

The problem is the lack of explanation and matter-of-fact definition of evidence. You need to acknowledge the nature of anecdotal and personal 'evidence.'

 

[SkepticThinker]

You seem happy with thinking that through science you will find the answers.

Yes. And why is that? Because the methodology works. Science is how we discover and demonstrate what is going on around us.
I've asked you for a better methodology, and you've got none to offer. Faith certainly isn't going to cut it.

I'm just pointing out that science has assumptions and limitations and may not be right and doesn't say that there is no God anyway.

Again, science is a tool we use to investigate what is going on around us. It's a methodology designed to remove human error and bias. It's the best methodology we've got.

................................ and that there is other evidence for God than what science can use.

You say this over and over, but offer none. You claim that there are undetectable things that science can't detect, but that you can. Without ever explaining what that is supposed to mean. How are you detecting undetectable things? Do you think that sounds like a rational position to hold?

But maybe you know all these things and don't care anyway,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, except to try to show that science,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, which you say does not show anything,,,,,,,,,,,,, is going to show you if God exists or not and if it doesn't then God remains something in my imagination, because only evidence that science can use is acceptable.
OK so be happy with your belief, worldview, and I'll be happy with mine.

Not sure what this has to do with what I said. When are you planning on addressing all the baggage and assumptions you're dragging in with your god assertions?

If I was making a scientific hypothesis then that would be the case. But I'm not.

This was in response to, "You need to show that god exists if you are claiming that god created the universe."

You're in a "general religious debates" forum and you're surprised that someone is asking you to back up your claims?

I don't need to justify my faith to you.

This was in response to, "Just in this paragraph alone, you assume a god exists, and that this god is a "he." How do you know that?
And now you seem to be arguing in favour of some sort of deistic god that set everything into motion at the start of the universe and then just sat back and let it unfold. In other words, you're all over the place trying to justify your faith in this god."

I didn't ask you to justify your faith to me. I asked you how you know the things you claim to know. Then I asked you which god you are arguing for, because now it seems like you're arguing for some sort of deistic god, when earlier you seemed to be arguing for a specific theistic god. In other words, I'm asking you to clarify your position(s).

You have no evidence that scientific explanations of how the universe and life came to be are true.

This was in response to, "My belief is based on the evidence that our explanations of the universe work just fine without having to assume the existence of god(s). It's the same amount of "faith" required to not belief that fairies created the universe. Or universe-vomiting tortoises.

Do you think it takes faith to say "I lack belief in the claim that universe-vomiting tortoises brought the universe into existence. Do you have some evidence that universe-vomiting tortoises exist?"

Your response doesn't address what I said, nor does it answer my question.

I know that. But you do seem to be saying that God did not do it.
If not, then great.

I don't see any reason to believe that god(s) did it. Do you have one?

Not if you can't see how it is a response.

So nothing. Okay then, moving on.

You trust in the assumptions and work of science with things that God has not said that He did and where science has found answers that have been shown to be correct. SO you keep trusting the assumptions and work of science when it comes to things that God has said that He did and where you know science is not going to say "God did it".

This was in response to, "Expecting science to do what it has always done, which has helped us understand the world around us in an independently demonstrable and verifiable way is not a faith belief, because science has shown itself to be a reliable methodology.

Again here, you claim that existence of undetectable "spirits" while not being able to provide any demonstration of their existence. While claiming to be able to detect spirits. You are making a very bizarre claim here and you don't seem to realize it."

Instead of addressing my points you're just going to accuse me of having blind faith too. Well no, I don't have blind faith in the scientific method. I've studied it, I've used it, I know how it works, and I know that it works.

Science will say "God did it" when someone can show that there is a god who did it. Science will say, universe-vomiting tortoises did it, when someone has demonstrated that universe-vomiting tortoises did it. Until then, we have to stick with what is demonstrable, measurable, testable, repeatable, etc. Because that's what produces actual results and explanatory power.

And yet I suppose you would make a big deal if I said that you believe that God does not exist.

Yes because it would betray your continued misunderstanding of the rules of logic and reason.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are you saying that it would be a better prophecy if it came true that same year or what?

I have not ignored prophecies but I don't know which failed prophecies you are referring to.

I'm saying it would be a better prophesy if it was very specific and unambiguous, if it "came true" in a timely manner, and if it wasn't "fulfilled" just by people wanting to fulfill it and making it happen, like the one about Israel becoming a nation (e.g. self-fulfilling prophecy).
And even then, I'm not sure how you could demonstrate that a person who correctly made an accurate prophecy was working on behalf of some god(s); you'd still have all your work ahead of you to demonstrate that.

 

[ppp]

Again, the problem with the vague statement from the previous post:

What is unclear about it?

'Science ONLY falsifies theories and hypotheses based on objectively verifiable evidence. Science does not reject or accept propositions(?) concerning anything else.

That first sentence is correct. The second is a really weird statement. Hypotheses are propositions. And we do reject or accept hypothesis. Luminious Aether has been reject as a viable hypothesis. Are you confusing accepted or rejected as being equivalent to proven and disproven?

My position is provided as worded. It appears English comprehension is your problem,

No, its not. It appears that English composition is your problem. Ooo, look. pointless sniping. [eyeroll]

The only absolute in Baha'i teaching is the existence of an unknowable God, the Creator of all of existence.

And that god communicates with super special people that they call messengers. And that the last messenger is B. And that B said true stuf. And that stuff has a positive moral value. Plus a bunch of other stuff to support all those absolutes.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I found out through believing the Bible.

Why do you believe the Bible?

 

[lukethethird]

There is no science behind the claim that God or gods do not exist. Are we therefore dealing with a persistent fantasy claim.

Asking for the science behind the nonexistence of x is not a valid question since science is a method of observation. It would be impossible to search the entire universe in order to prove the nonexistence of x, y, and z and every other claim people can come up with, it is not reasonable nor feasible. However, claims in the positive such as claims of x existing, of having been discovered, is a different matter, x can be shown or demonstrated to be true by merely pointing to x or providing the evidence for x.

 

[Trailblazer]

The problem is the lack of explanation and matter-of-fact definition of evidence. You need to acknowledge the nature of anecdotal and personal 'evidence.'

With all due respect, just as the Baha'i Writings are 'evidence' for Baha'is, the Bible is evidence to Christians such as @Brian2, and after all, Baha'u'llah did write that the Bible is God's greatest testimony to His creatures:

“We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! “How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also?” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 89​

So how can Baha'is really deny the Bible and say they follow Baha'u'llah?

 

[Trailblazer]

Why do you believe the Bible?

Why don't you believe the Bible?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why don't you believe the Bible?

It contains fantastical claims.
It contradicts itself.
It's filled with immoral barbarity.
For starters.

 

[Trailblazer]

It contains fantastical claims.
It contradicts itself.
It's filled with immoral barbarity.
For starters.

I cannot argue with that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I cannot argue with that.

I guess we'll have to agree to agree then

 

[shunyadragon]

What is unclear about it?


That first sentence is correct. The second is a really weird statement. Hypotheses are propositions. And we do reject or accept the hypothesis. Luminous Aether has been reject as a viable hypothesis. Are you confusing accepted or rejected as being equivalent to proven and disproven?


No, its not. It appears that English composition is your problem. Ooo, look. pointless sniping. [eyeroll]

And that god communicates with super special people that they call messengers. And that the last messenger is B. And that B said true stuf. And that stuff has a positive moral value. Plus a bunch of other stuff to support all those absolutes.

To add: The Universal 'Source' some call God(s) is not the Hebrew God, Christian God or Trinitarian Christian God, Islamic God, Baha'i Unknowable God, Buddhist 'Source,' or the God(s) or 'Source' described in any one culture or religion in the history of humanity.

Baha'i translates to the follower of 'Light' or 'Glory'

 

[Trailblazer]

I guess we'll have to agree to agree then

Yep.

 

[ppp]

To add: The Universal 'Source' some call God(s) is not the Hebrew God, Christian God or Trinitarian Christian God, Islamic God, Baha'i Unknowable God, Buddhist 'Source,' or the God(s) or 'Source' described in any one culture or religion in the history of humanity.

Baha'i translates to the follower of 'Light' or 'Glory'

A blustridge, what some call snarlits, is not the Greek Dryad, Christian Arboreangel or Trinitarian Christian Arboreangel (aka Trinisylv) , Islamic Jinnakhadir, Baha'i Cryptid Dendromorph. Or even my favorite Bonsai.

Does that tell you anything about what a blustridge actually is?

No. No, it does not.

EDIT: Oh yeah. A bulstridge is the moment of sudden realization when you remember a forgotten task in the middle of the night. Wasn't that obvious?

 

[shunyadragon]

A blustridge, what some call snarlits, is not the Greek Dryad, Christian Arboreangel or Trinitarian Christian Arboreangel (aka Trinisylv) , Islamic Jinnakhadir, Baha'i Cryptid Dendromorph. Or even my favorite Bonsai.

Does that tell you anything about what a blustridge actually is?

No. No, it does not.

EDIT: Oh yeah. A bulstridge is the moment of sudden realization when you remember a forgotten task in the middle of the night. Wasn't that obvious?

Huh?!?!?! Nothing here is relevant to my posts.

 

[timothy1027]

In over 4,423 years of religious scriptures (since 2,400 BCE), nobody has ever provided any evidence that Gods exists. Therefore, it is impossible for anyone to claim any of God's attributes (e.g., all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, wise, perfect, jealous, loving) or what God wants, thinks, did, said, etc. etc. etc. God has chosen to remain anonymous & mysterious over the millennia. I don't make the rules, I just play the game (live a productive life).

 

[ppp]

Huh?!?!?! Nothing here is relevant to my posts.

It demonstrates the uselessness of describing anything by a litany of things that it isn't. Based on the definition you gave, you could be describing a grape, As a scientist you should understand that. You did say you were a scientist, right?

 

[shunyadragon]

It demonstrates the uselessness of describing anything by a litany of things that it isn't. Based on the definition you gave, you could be describing a grape, As a scientist you should understand that. You did say you were a scientist, right?

Huh?!?!?! Nothing here is relevant to my posts.

Yes, I am a scientist. So what?!?!?

Still waiting for you to respond coherently to my posts.

 

[ppp]

Huh?!?!?! Nothing here is relevant to my posts.

Yes, I am a scientist. So what?!?!?

Still waiting for you to respond coherently to my posts.

Your response is the semantic equivalent of, "Nuh uh"

 

[shunyadragon]

Your response is the semantic equivalent of, "Nuh uh"

Huh?!?!?! Nothing here is relevant to my posts.

Yes, I am a scientist. So what?!?!?

Still waiting for you to respond coherently to my posts.