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

[shunyadragon]

Are you saying that the Bible is the evidence for God that I saw and ignored all the evidence against there being a God, like,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ah,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, hmmm.
You better tell me what evidence there is against there being a God.
Hey, then if you do that I can say that it sound like confirmation bias, since you ignore the evidence for the Bible God.

I still object to the claim of evidence for belief being the scripture of any one religion including the Bible. The problem is the self-justification of belief based on confirmation bias.

What about the many others with diverse and conflicting claims to yours and claim 'evidence?'

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.



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

No, it isn't. That's the point. It's a logical fallacy. Not a trustworthy methodology.

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.



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.



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.



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

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK



OK



If you say so.



OK



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

No. Skepticism isn't an argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can see your pov with regards forcing morals onto others.
I also see that morals, what is acceptable in society has a habit of changing over time and could become problematic for you in the future depending what may be legalised which you are opposed to.
So iow I can see a point when you might want to impose your morals on others for the good of society and to stop them doing what is clearly wrong in your opinion.

Morals do and should change over time. As we learn more as a species our ability to implement better moral behavior becomes possible. Moral beliefs need to be pragmatic to be effective. So that morals will change does not bother me very much. It is what is predicted. If I was suddenly transported to a time 1,000 years in the future I might have a very difficult time adapting to the new morals. But I would at least hopefully try.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

No, it explains the Bible for rational thinkers. There is evidence that clearly shows that is the case. You have to have endlessly self contradicting beliefs when it comes to your God to try to defend him. That is self refutation when you do that. There are Christians that realize that the Bible has severe problems when abused literally.

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.

If God is real then why can't you make a rational argument for his existence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you saying that the Bible is the evidence for God that I saw and ignored all the evidence against there being a God, like,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ah,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, hmmm.
You better tell me what evidence there is against there being a God.
Hey, then if you do that I can say that it sound like confirmation bias, since you ignore the evidence for the Bible God.

No, not at all. The Bible is not evidence for God. If it was you would be able to show it. Evidence has to be demonstrable to be evidence. If only believers see it as "evidence" it is almost certainly confirmation bias, and that is shown when believers are pinned down and forced to explain why the Bible is evidence.

To be evidence there is usually a requirement that possible outcomes could cut both ways. In other words one clear finding would support one's beliefs, where other possible findings would refute them. Many believers cannot even think of a reasonable observation that would refute their beliefs. They think that this is a strength, but in reality it is a great weakness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Haven't we been over the failures of prophecy in the Bible? I do not know of any valid biblical prophecy that has come true. I know of some that have failed incredibly badly. Didn't we discuss how the Tyre prophecy is an example of a failed prophecy?

 

[Trailblazer]

Can you give me an example of a "modern" myth that is relevant to this forum?

You said "mythologies of God." I am not sure what you mean. Are you referring to religions?

 

[Trailblazer]

Claims aren't evidence.
Claimed "messengers" aren't evidence of god

How many times have I told you now that I never said that claims constitute evidence?
Of course claims are not evidence of anything, except that Messenger can make a claim....

The Messenger is evidence for God.
Evidence is what supports His claim to be a Messenger of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

No more then alien abductees are evidence that aliens abduct humans.

Religious scriptures are part of the evidence that God sends Messengers.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's indistinguishable from sheer fantasy.

Indistinguishable by you.

 

[timothy1027]

Religions worldwide are all based on evidence-free ancient mythology which is obsolete & unverifiable. I think that humanity societies would be improved if all religions were replaced with logic, reason, and critical thinking.

 

[Trailblazer]

Religions worldwide are all based on evidence-free ancient mythology which is obsolete & unverifiable.

That is true for all the older religions since they are obsolete & unverifiable.

I think that humanity societies would be improved if all religions were replaced with logic, reason, and critical thinking.

Religions cannot be replaced with human logic, reason, and critical thinking since religions are revealed by Messengers of God.

 

[timothy1027]

That is true for all the older religions since they are obsolete & unverifiable.

Religions cannot be replaced with human logic, reason, and critical thinking since religions are revealed by Messengers of God.

How can anyone know if these "Messengers" are authentic if we have no proof or even scant evidence?

 

[Trailblazer]

How can anyone know if these "Messengers" are authentic if we have no proof or even scant evidence?

Since the existence of God cannot be proven it cannot be proven that a Messenger speaks for God.
However, there is evidence that supports the claims of a Messenger of God. We know by looking at that evidence.

The claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah are in this post:
Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

 

[timothy1027]

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"?

I have not formally studied the history of religion. Could you enlighten me with specifics (including dates or at least years)?

 

[ppp]

I have not formally studied the history of religion. Could you enlighten me with specifics (including dates or at least years)?

Sure.

google.com

You're welcome!

 

[timothy1027]

Sure.

google.com

You're welcome!

THANKS! It appears that my Universe is bigger than yours!

 

[ppp]

THANKS! It appears that my Universe is bigger than yours!

I am sure that it does appear that way to you.

 

[timothy1027]

I am sure that it does appear that way to you.

How can you be "sure" when you have NO EVIDENCE?