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

[Brian2]

The Bible is little more than an evidence free ancient book of mythology.

Books of mythology do not give evidence for their own truth. The Bible does through a history that happened and prophecies that come true.

 

[Brian2]

For there to be evidence against a god (or anything else), there has to be a falsifiable definition of said god.
There isn't any, so by definition there can't be direct evidence against (or FOR) a god.

Having said that, I'ld say the evidence against gods is the same as evidence against fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, etc...
And that is the total lack and absence of evidence for it and the total lack of evidence for anything "magical".

There can be evidence against the Bible God by showing the Bible to be wrong.
There can be evidence for the Bible God by showing that the Bible is actually a history book and the prophecies came about.

There is no evidence of a bible god or indeed any other god.
Also, when it comes to specific gods, like the god of the bible, then there very much is evidence against said god.

According to some.

The bible includes all kinds of verifiable claims about this supposed god. Specifically events attributed to said god, like the flood etc.
And those claimed events are testable. And they demonstrably didn't happen.
So those claims are definitely false. They didn't occur.

A large locl flood did occur. So no, that claim is not definitely false.

 

[Brian2]

Morality and law are two different things.
They certainly can and do overlap, but they are not necessarily the same thing.

For example, it is not illegal to be an impolite manipulative lying douche. But it certainly isn't moral to act like that.

True.

 

[Brian2]

It's called confirmation bias.

If I do not see evidence to the contrary then that might be confirmation bias.

 

[Brian2]

So, the same kind of "evidence" that makes Travolta and Tom Cruise believe in scientology.

I guess so.
But the Bible offers more than just psychological manipulation even if it does need faith to believe it.

 

[Audie]

There can be evidence against the Bible God by showing the Bible to be wrong.
There can be evidence for the Bible God by showing that the Bible is actually a history book and the prophecies came about.



According to some.



A large locl flood did occur. So no, that claim is not definitely false.

Lots of large local floods occur.

The flood story is as false a it would be if
if someone wrote it as a record of the much
bigger flooding in Pakistan.

 

[Audie]

If I do not see evidence to the contrary then that might be confirmation bias.

First step is to admit you have a problem.

They found signs of flooding in a flood plain!
That confirms that Noah's ark is a true story!

And that confirms the whole Bible is True!!

 

[Brian2]

Except you didn't realise at all, did you? You assumed. If it wasn't an assumption, then you'd be able to give far better reasons than this.

The things I am talking about just confirm by belief.
I can give much better reasons that that but nothing that is verifiable by science. In fact you could say "Ah science has found out why that happens" but you would be misunderstanding what my subjective evidence is, and it does not matter if science has or thinks it has an explanation, it just shows a designer for me.

Looks very much like an argument from personal incredulity about the alternative. What's more, since this 'designer', should it exist, would have to be far more sophisticated, complex, ordered and whatever else you see in nature, by the same 'logic', it too would need a designer.

It's all just too obviously flawed.

We can keep going back in time to find the first cause and that is a misspent thing to do for good reasons.
We are talking about this universe and if it was designed after all.
But yes it can be seen as personal incredulity about the alternative. But of course there is really no alternative that you can show is true.
Given that, it could be said that skepticism is from personal incredulity about a creator.

 

[Audie]

The things I am talking about just confirm by belief.
I can give much better reasons that that but nothing that is verifiable by science. In fact you could say "Ah science has found out why that happens" but you would be misunderstanding what my subjective evidence is, and it does not matter if science has or thinks it has an explanation, it just shows a designer for me.

Just plain cant be verified. By anything.

But lots can be falsified. Like flood.

 

[blü 2]

That explains the Bible for people who come to it first believing that the Bible is not from God but from other cultures of the day.

I hope it's from the culture of its day. Its God orders invasive wars, massacres of surrendered populations, human sacrifices, mass rapes, murderous religious intolerance, will not suffer a witch to live, and a death penalty for shaving your beard, women as property, slavery as normality including the rules for selling your daughter, and more. If those are part of your present culture, then you're down there with the gun massacre people, aren't you?

God is real like your internal life is real,,,,,,,,,,,, all you thoughts and feelings and ideas and decisions. That is more than the external world.

You keep running away from the simple question, how do you define real? What test tells you whether something is real or not?

 

[ratiocinator]

...you would be misunderstanding what my subjective evidence is...

"Subjective evidence" isn't evidence. It's a contradiction in terms.

...and it does not matter if science has or thinks it has an explanation, it just shows a designer for me.

You're basically admitting to a bias.

We can keep going back in time to find the first cause...

You do realise how many flaws there were in that 'argument', even before the relativistic view of time finally killed it, don't you?

But yes it can be seen as personal incredulity about the alternative. But of course there is really no alternative that you can show is true.

That's really somewhat irrelevant. The lack of an alternative doesn't make your baseless storytelling any more credible. What's more, of course, postulating a god explains exactly nothing about the big questions like: why do things exist and are as they are? These questions just get relocated to the proposed god. Why does this god exist and is the way it is? See? Nothing really explained at all. In fact, you just added to the total of things that need explaining. A giant leap in the wrong direction.

Given that, it could be said that skepticism is from personal incredulity about a creator.

People who question god(s) are just doing what everybody else does for other claims for which there is absolutely no supporting evidence or sound reasoning. It's theists who try to make a special case for their favourite species of god(s).

 

[Brian2]

Nothing cuts it when trying to find unfalsifiable and undetectable entities.
They are by definition "unfindable". And indistinguishable from non-existent entities.

As the saying goes: "the undetectable and the non-existent look very much alike"

Great skeptic saying, but stepping forward in faith can be a good way for God to confirm that faith for you in ways that you may not expect or want.

So... confirmation bias / bare assertion.

Doesn't sound like a very trustworthy methodology.

It is a good way to reach out beyond what science can do.

Environment = earth?
Formation of planets and solar systems is pretty well understood. No gods required

So which environment are you talking about and how have you determined that your god created them?

Why do you say that God was not required when that is not what science can tell you.
It can give an answer of how things may have happened presuming God was not involved and may even be right, but it is just the skeptical add on to science that says that God or Gods were not involved or needed.

Or is this another case of "I looked at it and just decided god dun it (because I already happened to believe that)"?

I looked at it and decided that it needed a designer. And anyone can do that, especially if they are open to the supernatural and have not decided that science is the only way to determine things, even the existence and possible works of a God.

Do you?
You don't seem to be getting much further then "I looked at it and decided it is so".

I think I may have gone down this road of subjective evidence to get skeptics off my back about my beliefs and to show that they also have faith in things that science has not shown to be true and that they also have their own subjective evidence.
It has not worked, so I think I will just have to stop answering posts and not waste my time on things that skeptics don't seem to be able to see, or if they do, don't care but just want to attack my faith anyway.

I don't expect science to be be able to demonstrate the existence of non-existent things.

Maybe you should not expect science to demonstrate the existence of invisible spirits, non material beings.

 

[Brian2]

"Subjective evidence" isn't evidence. It's a contradiction in terms.

OK

You're basically admitting to a bias.

OK

You do realise how many flaws there were in that 'argument', even before the relativistic view of time finally killed it, don't you?

If you say so.

That's really somewhat irrelevant. The lack of an alternative doesn't make your baseless storytelling any more credible. What's more, of course, postulating a god explains exactly nothing about the big questions like: why do things exist and are as they are? These questions just get relocated to the proposed god. Why does this god exist and is the way it is? See? Nothing really explained at all. In fact, you just added to the total of things that need explaining. A giant leap in the wrong direction.

OK

People who question god(s) are just doing what everybody else does for other claims for which there is absolutely no supporting evidence or sound reasoning. It's theists who try to make a special case for their favourite species of god(s).

I suppose that means that you think that skepicism is not an argument from personal incredulity about a creator.
If you think so.

 

[lukethethird]

x cannot be pointed to in a way you probably want, when x is an invisible spirit.
I can point to x and provide evidence for x in other ways, but not ways science can verify or falsify.

So x is a personal experience of yours, it doesn't apply to anyone else.

 

[ratiocinator]

I suppose that means that you think that skepicism is not an argument from personal incredulity about a creator.

Exactly. Scepticism is what everybody does, most of the time, with everything. If I told you I had an invisible dragon in my garage, you'd be right to be sceptical. But it's not just confined to fantastical ideas, it goes, for example, for scientific hypotheses too. The first things we ask of a new hypothesis is: why should I take this seriously, how can we test it, and how can it potentially be falsified?

I don't see why claims about various versions of God or gods should be treated any differently? Do you think they should be? If so, why?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Science doesn't cut it when it comes to finding God.

This was in response to, "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."

From your response here (or lack thereof), shall I assume that you don't have a better methodology than science has to offer? All you've done here is double down again.

Science "cuts it" when it comes to absolutely everything else that actually exists - science has been the best tool we've had for discerning fact from fiction about the world around us, for demonstrating the actual existence of things. But then suddenly, when it comes to invisible deities that people claim exist, suddenly, science is no good. Science suddenly can't help us determine what exists and what doesn't. Surely you can see this obvious excuse for what it is - a total cop-out.

Best methodology for finding how the physical universe works.

The universe as in, "all of space and time[a] and their contents,[10] including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy." ,,,.., ? That universe?

Universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I see nature and realise that it needed a designer and life giver. Science cannot do that.

Science cannot make baseless claims without any evidence backing it up. Yes, you're right about that.

How did you "realize" that nature "needed a designer" and how did you determine that the designer is the specific version of the Christian god that you worship?

I wasn't planning on addressing all the baggage and assumptions I'm dragging in with my God assertion. But I was not making a God assertion for a start.

How very convenient. This is just more confirmation bias. Of course you have to account for all the extra baggage you're trying to drag into it. Why wouldn't you?

I think I have already said that I cannot back up my claims with scientific evidence.

Then why on earth do you believe them???

A God who not only designed and created the building blocks of nature but also set up the environment for them to do their job and who gives life, is not a deistic God.

Sure it is, if this god set everything all up and then sat back and watched it all unfold without further intervention. I mentioned that in my last post but you seem to have missed it.

Which building blocks did this god design and how did he/she/it set it all into motion?

Science is finding explanations for how the building blocks of nature work. Science really has got nothing to do with whether God or fairies exist and/or created the universe. Basing your belief in God or fairies on what science tells us about how the natural universe works is nonsense unless you think that science should be able to do that.

And still no answer to my question. Which was, "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?"

Telling me that science hasn't anything to say about fairies doesn't address my question.

I have hundreds of reasons to say that the universe was designed.

What are they? So far, you've offered logical fallacies such as arguments from personal incredulity and confirmation bias. Do you have something logical to offer?

Good, stick with what is demonstrable and there is no problem. And don't think that science should be able to demonstrate an invisible spiritual entity.

You should probably take your own advice here about sticking to what is demonstrable.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's easy to show Bible prophecies come from God

Which god? Have you even defined god yet?

I've seen your attempts at "easily" demonstrating that prophecies have been fulfilled and I'm sorry to say I was not impressed.

by showing hundreds of fulfilled prophecies from the same God

How can you show that prophecies come from god(s) at all?

by prophets of that God

Which god?

and but showing some of them to be fulfilled in a timely manner and unambiguously and others to be fulfilled hundreds of years later.

This one made me chuckle a bit. So some prophecies have been fulfilled "in a timely manner" while others were fulfilled "hundreds of years later."
You've just basically described random chance.

The unambiguous part made me chuckle a bit too. The supposed Biblical prophecies are some of the vaguest stuff I've ever seen. I mean, Nostradamus did a better job of it.

But if you think all I just said is not true, how do I show it is true?

It's on you to figure out how to show it's true.

How could Israel becoming a nation be a self fulfilling prophecy?

That is exactly what did happen. Human beings worked to "fulfill the prophecy." God didn't create the state of Israel in 1948 - human beings did that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Books of mythology do not give evidence for their own truth. The Bible does through a history that happened and prophecies that come true.

Neither does the Bible. Unless you want to trap yourself into circular reasoning.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There can be evidence against the Bible God by showing the Bible to be wrong.
There can be evidence for the Bible God by showing that the Bible is actually a history book and the prophecies came about.

How would humans somewhat accurately recording what was going on around them, demonstrate the existence of the Biblical god? And how exactly do you define that god, by the way?

According to some.



A large locl flood did occur. So no, that claim is not definitely false.

We've been over this one before. Using mental gymnastics in some attempt to turn what is obviously described in the Bible as a global flood into a small local flood, renders the point of the story completely moot.

 

[ppp]

I guess there are also modern mythologies, but this forum is about mythologies of God which go back over 4,000 years!

Of "God". Specifically? What about all the religions with other gods of other descriptions? Or the ones without gods? Or the newer religions. Are scientologists banned from this forums? Or the Laozi form of Taoism? Or the gods that do not fit into the specific umbrella of "God"?