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

[SkepticThinker]

I think the Bible gives good grounds for being the true scriptures, but yes, I have faith and can be seen as having confirmation bias also.

I don't understand how you're comfortable with that.

 

[PureX]

No, it probably means that they understand the concept of evidence. Confirmation bias is not evidence.

Confirmation bias is also evidence because it can still supports a claim. Had you not just blindly presumed yourself to be the decider of what is and isn't evidence I'm sure you could have grasped this, yourself. But as it is, I'm sure you won't.

 

[PureX]

No evidence of what, exactly? What is this entity that you're saying is real? How will we identify a real one if we find it?

If you don't even know what evidence to look for, or what it would look like if you found it, you certainly can't honestly or reasonably claim there is none, then, can you.

What distinct real quality will it have that will show it's a god and not a superscientist?

What makes you assume that these are mutually exclusive? If I ingest an hallucinogenic drug and experience a meeting with God does the presence of the drug rule out the meeting with God as a valid meeting? Or did the drug simply enable a meeting that was not otherwise possible? And how can we know either way?

Alot or people here will say that such an experience is "not evidence" of the existence of God because the meeting was just an hallucination, not an actual meeting with God. But the truth is that they have no idea if it was a meeting with God or not. They just blindly defined that possibility out or the realm of possibility by labeling it "just an hallucination". And this "cheat" becomes very habit-forming because it feeds the ego's endless desire to be right about all things in all ways, all the time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Confirmation bias is also evidence because it can still supports a claim. Had you not just blindly presumed yourself to be the decider of what is and isn't evidence I'm sure you could have grasped this, yourself. But as it is, I'm sure you won't.

No, it only seems to. Evidence needs to be evidence for all rational thinkers.

 

[blü 2]

If you don't even know what evidence to look for, or what it would look like if you found it, you certainly can't honestly or reasonably claim there is none, then, can you.

Why don't you simply tell me? Or don't you know?

What makes you assume that these are mutually exclusive? If I ingest an hallucinogenic drug and experience a meeting with God does the presence of the drug rule out the meeting with God as a valid meeting? Or did the drug simply enable a meeting that was not otherwise possible? And how can we know either way?

I know because you didn't stream your meeting, or even bring back a photo. It all took place in your head, like a dream or vision or hallucination, and wholly unlike something occurring in objective reality, the world external to you, which you know about through your five senses.

They just blindly defined that possibility out or the realm of possibility by labeling it "just an hallucination". And this "cheat" becomes very habit-forming because it feeds the ego's endless desire to be right about all things in all ways, all the time.

The refutation of such claims is very simple ─ give a satisfactory demonstration of the reality of this entity to the unbelievers.

 

[timothy1027]

The bible is full of evidence.
Evidence that it's not what it pretends to be.
Flood, 6 day poof, talking animals, tower of babel...

You can find no reason, no reason at all,
not to believe those?

People believing it is evidence of something.

Guess what that's evidence of?

I think the simple answer is "delusion."

 

[PureX]

Why don't you simply tell me? Or don't you know?

God is a way of conceptualizing the great mystery of being. But that won't compute for you, will it. You want concrete (objective) explanations. You can't accept the limitations of a mystery.

I know because you didn't stream your meeting, or even bring back a photo. It all took place in your head, like a dream or vision or hallucination, and wholly unlike something occurring in objective reality, the world external to you, which you know about through your five senses.


The refutation of such claims is very simple ─ give a satisfactory demonstration of the reality of this entity to the unbelievers.

 

[blü 2]

God is a way of conceptualizing the great mystery of bring. But that won't compute for you, will it. You want concrete (objective) explanations. You can't accept the limits of a mystery.

The foremost mystery at present is what you're actually talking about. I see various mysteries of "being", starting with "How come there's something instead of nothing?" ─ including, if the answer were offered that God created the something, "What's a God? How come there's a God instead of nothing?"

But the only people who are actually looking for an answer to the first question are the materialists.

 

[PureX]

The foremost mystery at present is what you're actually talking about. I see various mysteries of "being", starting with "How come there's something instead of nothing?" ─ including, if the answer were offered that God created the something, "What's a God? How come there's a God instead of nothing?"

But the only people who are actually looking for an answer to the first question are the materialists.

They aren't looking for answers. They are trying to invalidate the questions.

Theism is the category of human thought that seeks ways of effectively living with those unanswerable questions.

But can you even recognize unanswerable questions? Questions for which omniscience would be required to answer, and to understand the answer?

 

[ratiocinator]

They aren't looking for answers. They are trying to invalidate the questions.

Who is? Examples?

Theism is the category of human thought that seeks ways of effectively living with those unanswerable questions.

Why do you find it at all difficult to live with the questions and how on earth do you think theism helps?

But you don't recognize unanswerable questions, do you.

I can't speak for anybody else, but I'm perfectly comfortable with apparently unanswerable questions (not sure how we'd know that any given question was unanswerable in principle, rather than apparently so, not sure it matters).

 

[Brian2]

The bible is full of evidence.
Evidence that it's not what it pretends to be.

It sounds like it can have evidence for everything but that it is true.

Flood, 6 day poof, talking animals, tower of babel...

You can find no reason, no reason at all,
not to believe those?

You want the Bible to be literally literal (as in YEC literal) so that you have reason to say it is not true. Sounds like a strawman to me.

People believing it is evidence of something.

Guess what that's evidence of?

You believe it is evidence of something. What is that evidence of?

 

[Brian2]

Then you are demonstrably wrong. The Bible supported slavery. Slavery is universally seen to be immoral today and yet the Old Testament has not problems with chattel slavery. Have you even studied the Bible at all?

I said, Morals don't always go to a better place imo.
I did not say, Morals never go to a better place.

 

[Brian2]

Thank you for telling everyone that you do not understand the concept of evidence without saying that you do not understand the concept of evidence. What you are describing is confirmation bias. Evidence needs to be objective not subjective.

The Bible is in part a history book that purports to be and Jews claim is a history of their people.
We can all see that evidence and reject it or accept it as true.
Because some people say that it is not evidence, that does not turn it into non evidence either for me or for others.
I think you don't really know what the term "evidence" means.

 

[Brian2]

LOL, no, that would have been you. In fact you never read the whole prophecy. That was what was rather amazing about the discussion. The Tyre prophecy is a test for believers. It shows if they can be honest with their beliefs or not.

You have a cheer squad.

 

[Brian2]

No, they clearly are not. When one tries to get them to reason consistently they rarely can do so. Some believers can reason rationally, many can't. You are forgetting how poorly you fared in the Tyre prophecy again. And though I may not agree with him, I know that you cannot show that any of Richard Carrier's arguments are "silly".

You do not believe the Bible and can see that Carriers arguments. I can see that they are arguments that are based on assumptions and full on faith in those assumptions about the Bible being untrue, and have nothing solid in them when you compare the Bible with the stories he uses from other cultures and especially when you realise that he needs to start off with an assumption that the Bible was written (ahh, made up) hundreds of years after the purported dating in the stories and prophecies.

What do you mean by "internal life"? If you meant "eternal life" then you just short yourself in the foot. If you mean that we have thoughts, no, that does not help you. Either way, that is not an example of rational thought.

If our internal life which is more than the material of this universe, is real, then it is rational that God can also be real.

 

[Audie]

It sounds like it can have evidence for everything but that it is true.



You want the Bible to be literally literal (as in YEC literal) so that you have reason to say it is not true. Sounds like a strawman to me.



You believe it is evidence of something. What is that evidence of?

You make things up. Kind of like your
" bible" writers.

The things you made up ( see above, your post)are all false.
Talk about strawman. Tsk.

You've no way of knowing owi g what bible writers
intended. So you, like millions of others. Make things up
and pretend it's the " true"meaning.

Its only since geology, physics and biology came along
to disprove the 6 day poof -n - flood story that a few
bible- believers found they needed new " interpretations"
to retro force- fit the bible to line up with realit.

Others bitterly cling to their moldy myth. World wide flood.
Six day poof. Evolution is devil's lie.

If you cant figure what all these behaviors
( including the things you make up) is evidence of,
well, me telling you may be pointless.

Now finally, on this seriously silly thing about
bible being " true" or " untrue".

You really - really thonk thats it? That I am sooo
BRAINLESS that I think every word is untrue?

Whatvon earth are you thinking, making up,such
outlandish claims against people?

 

[Audie]

You do not believe the Bible and can see that Carriers arguments. I can see that they are arguments that are based on assumptions and full on faith in those assumptions about the Bible being untrue, and have nothing solid in them when you compare the Bible with the stories he uses from other cultures and especially when you realise that he needs to start off with an assumption that the Bible was written (ahh, made up) hundreds of years after the purported dating in the stories and prophecies.



If our internal life which is more than the material of this universe, is real, then it is rational that God can also be real.

Yup. ***IF***Batboy really has a secret lab on
the moon it's utterly rational to await his
cure for cancer. Any day now.
And world peace.

 

[Muffled]

So by that the Bible is literally sense- less for people to read.
Good one.

But then you are so far off topic.

I said it's impossible to be an educated
Creationist who is intellectually honest.

You've hardly shown that's not so.

I believe that is too blanket a statement. There are elements that make sense and elements of miracles that do not make sense to a materialist.

I believe I am guilty enough here; you should see when I preach off the cuff.

I believe I have no need to do so. I know what the truth is and I speak it. I am being an educated and intellectually honest creationist.

 

[Muffled]

But then you are admitting that it is not the "word of God". It is only inspired by God. And yes, people screw up regularly.

I believe I still consider it the word of God. For instance The Wheel of Time is a fantasy book series written by Robert Jordan but he died before finishing the series and Brandon Sanderson finished the series based on his notes. Now there is a tv series and the writers make changes based on the books but it is all still inspired by Robert Jordan and I consider it his.

 

[Audie]

I believe that is too blanket a statement. There are elements that make sense and elements of miracles that do not make sense to a materialist.

I believe I am guilty enough here; you should see when I preach off the cuff.

I believe I have no need to do so. I know what the truth is and I speak it. I am being an educated and intellectually honest creationist.

Since there are as many versions of " creationist"
as there are creationists it's remarkable that
you are the one with the truth.

In order for me to assess your claim of bei g educated
and intellectually honest. I'd have to know what
version of creationism you chose.

Yec? Oec? Literal flood or local or metaphorical?
ToE is a lie ?