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

[Audie]

This is completely untrue!

Please, it is best to say you don’t know, than to spread lies.No one can trust your statements

Good observation about your flood geology etc.
and great advice you will never apply to yourself.

 

[Brian2]

It's the exact same topic.

Yes and no.
Don't you think the principle of complexity of design needing a designer and the reasonableness of "any codes we have, needed a designer, here is another code, it probably needed a designer", should be established before we move on to where the designer came from IF all that is reasonable.

 

[Brian2]

You said: "joelr claims that it is 100% proven that God does not heal those who pray.
That is a claim of faith since it is not proven."

I just showed you that it's not a faith claim. My uncle's prayer wasn't answered. It doesn't take me any faith at all to say god did not answer my uncle's prayer. I have results (or lack thereof).

How is anyone able to show that God (which one?) answered a prayer for anything, ever? It appears that this god answers prayers at about the rate of chance. Which is to say at about the rate we would expect to find if there isn't any god answering anything.

Your uncle's prayer shows nothing about whether God answers prayer, except that God did not do what your uncle wanted.
Even scientific studies on the topic actually do not show whether God answers prayer or if God did heal people even during the study.

 

[Brian2]

I didn't. I quoted your entire post and highlighted the parts I wanted to draw attention to.

You seem to be accusing me of changing the words in your post which I definitely have not done.

Finding god by faith is not the same as "believing science." You can say that until the cows come home, but when we actually get into it, and you describe what it is you're doing, what you are describing is unjustified belief. That is not a reliable pathway to truth.

It's a different type of evidence that I use. Science can't do tests on it to see if it is significant evidence.
It's a matter of choice. Do I accept it or does it have to be tested by science first before it is given the tick of approval as being evidence for God?
So what you are saying is "science and science only" can justify belief in God.

 

[Audie]

Yes and no.
Don't you think the principle of complexity of design needing a designer and the reasonableness of "any codes we have, needed a designer, here is another code, it probably needed a designer", should be established before we move on to where the designer came from IF all that is reasonable.

First. There is no "principle of complexity "
The clouds of a summer afternoon are vastly more
complex than a person.

"of design".

The word MEANS that there's a designer.

You see the problem (s)?

One of them is you want people to start by
accepting your premises and conclusion.

Then you do it again with this " code".
Someone just called DNA a code.


That doesn't make it a ( intelligently designed)
"Code" any more than your announcement of a
" principle" makes a principle appear from thin air.

With comparably dim reasoning, made up
principles, some reckless equivocation, with
equal confidence, we may announce that
a starfish is, yes, a fish.

 

[Audie]

So what you are saying is "science and science only" can justify belief in God.

We are seeing a major reading comprehension issue.

 

[Brian2]

What?

For a scientist to believe in a creator God does not mean that the scientist does not care about what is true or is not a reputable scientist. Maybe it shows the exact opposite.
But you do understand that science is a thing don't you. It is a method and cannot give up, it just keeps going on blindly looking for a naturalistic answer. No other answer is acceptable for science. Science is the servant of humans and humans are the ones who can say that they believe "God did it" and still go on with the science to see what that can show.

Notice how none of them just settle on "god did it" and pretend that they've answered something.

Of course they have answered something for themselves even if not for the naturalistic mechanism seeking science. Believing God did it, created it, does not tell us how genetics works.

It doesn't show that it does. That's the point. It also doesn't show that magical pixies did not do it for them either. Nor invisible leprechauns. And yet we don't posit those as potential explanations. Ask yourself why that is.

A creator, designer, one who has evidence for it's existence outside of science should not be equated to leprechauns or magic pixies. That is just a skeptic way of mocking and making an argument where there is none.

Science is "blind" in that it seeks demonstrable answers and explanations? What an absurd statement.

Almost as absurd as simultaneously asserting that "it takes humans to actually see that God did it."

But not quite as absurd as your statement that following the evidence where it leads is "blindly following science."

Good grief.

Well that was a say nothing argument.
Surely you can see that humans are better at seeing some things than science is.

computer says no - Google Search

 

[Audie]

For a scientist to believe in a creator God does not mean that the scientist does not care about what is true or is not a reputable scientist. Maybe it shows the exact opposite.
But you do understand that science is a thing don't you. It is a method and cannot give up, it just keeps going on blindly looking for a naturalistic answer. No other answer is acceptable for science. Science is the servant of humans and humans are the ones who can say that they believe "God did it" and still go on with the science to see what that can show.



Of course they have answered something for themselves even if not for the naturalistic mechanism seeking science. Believing God did it, created it, does not tell us how genetics works.



A creator, designer, one who has evidence for it's existence outside of science should not be equated to leprechauns or magic pixies. That is just a skeptic way of mocking and making an argument where there is none.



Well that was a say nothing argument.
Surely you can see that humans are better at seeing some things than science is.

computer says no - Google Search

You are not aware that you are utterly
unqualified to lecture on the nature of
science,that you are just saying things?

 

[ppp]

Surely you can see that humans are better at seeing some things than science is.

Science is not a living being. It does not see things. It is a tool. It facilitates the investigation of things that humans see, Humans that use that tool are better at seeing things than those who do not. Demonstrably better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For a scientist to believe in a creator God does not mean that the scientist does not care about what is true or is not a reputable scientist. Maybe it shows the exact opposite.
But you do understand that science is a thing don't you. It is a method and cannot give up, it just keeps going on blindly looking for a naturalistic answer. No other answer is acceptable for science. Science is the servant of humans and humans are the ones who can say that they believe "God did it" and still go on with the science to see what that can show.

That is not true. If there was evidence for a god the scientific method would be satisfied with it. The problem is that there does not appear to be any reliable evidence for a god. That is why science does not refer to a god in its answers.

Do not blame science for your version of God playing hide and seek.

Of course they have answered something for themselves even if not for the naturalistic mechanism seeking science. Believing God did it, created it, does not tell us how genetics works.

Okay, so we do not need God for genetics. At least it seems that you are admitting that we do not need a god for that.

A creator, designer, one who has evidence for it's existence outside of science should not be equated to leprechauns or magic pixies. That is just a skeptic way of mocking and making an argument where there is none.

If there was such a god we would not make the comparison. That is the point of that argument. Find some reliable evidence for you god and that argument goes away.

Well that was a say nothing argument.
Surely you can see that humans are better at seeing some things than science is.

You just admitted that science is a tool. It does not see on its own.

computer says no - Google Search

Well that looks like a waste of time.

 

[Brian2]

That is not true. If there was evidence for a god the scientific method would be satisfied with it. The problem is that there does not appear to be any reliable evidence for a god. That is why science does not refer to a god in its answers.

Do not blame science for your version of God playing hide and seek.

You must mean "for any version of God playing hide and seek".
It sounds like you are saying that since science has not found a God then there are no gods.
That is the faith of scientism but is an agrument from ignorance.

Okay, so we do not need God for genetics. At least it seems that you are admitting that we do not need a god for that.

Genetics operates by chemistry.

If there was such a god we would not make the comparison. That is the point of that argument. Find some reliable evidence for you god and that argument goes away.

It's fine that you do not like the evidence. That is your prerogative.
But what argument are you talking about. The magic fairies thing is no argument.

You just admitted that science is a tool. It does not see on its own.

Yes, so?

 

[ppp]

Genetics operates by chemistry.

Life operate by chemistry.

 

[Truthseeker]

No, it actually hasn’t….

What is God’s Kingdom? Most people, even in Christendom, don’t know.
Some say it’s a “feeling in your heart.”

IOW, the preaching about it has been ambiguous, at best; people haven’t been taught what it really is.
(See Daniel 2:44; it’ll give you some idea.)

But as Jesus said, after it is preached, “then the end will come.”

The kingdom can have two meanings in my opinion, depending on the context. In some contexts it might even mean both an earthly kingdom or a heavenly kingdom in your soul.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You must mean "for any version of God playing hide and seek".
It sounds like you are saying that since science has not found a God then there are no gods.
That is the faith of scientism but is an agrument from ignorance.

Please, you are not ready to use logic in an argument yet. You get so much wrong.

If, and that is a huge "if", your God exists he plays hide and seek like a pro. I never said that there were no gods. There do not appear to be any. No one can seem to find a rational reason to believe in one.

Do not accuse others of "scientism" when you have no ability to reason logically. You are using faith. And now you are falsely claiming that others use it.

Genetics operates by chemistry.

Wow! You got one rigth

It's fine that you do not like the evidence. That is your prerogative.
But what argument are you talking about. The magic fairies thing is no argument.

You have nor provided any evidence. You do not even seem to understand the concept. How can I "not like" that which does not exist? Again, please try to think rationally. And you do not seem to understand that the "magic fairies thing" is your argument.

Yes, so?

Oh my. . . . I do believe it is hopeless.

 

[Truthseeker]

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Jesus promised that Christ would return to earth after the gospel had been preached everywhere on earth.
That had already happened by the mid-1800s so there is no need to wait any longer.

The millennial zeal reached its climax in the year 1844. I wanted to know exactly why. What had led all these people to the same year? I found the answer. This date in history had been chosen primarily because of three specific promises made by Christ Himself to His disciples. He gave three promises, saying that when these three things came to pass, He (Christ) would return to earth. The first promise: His Gospel would be preached everywhere on earth. The first promise of Christ was easy to find. He made it to His disciples in direct reply to their questions. They asked Him: “Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” (Matthew 24:3) This verse is found in the twenty–fourth chapter of Matthew. Christ then gave His disciples in the following words: “But he that shall endure until the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness … then shall the end come.” (Matthew 24:13-14) This was clear enough. The end would come, and Christ would return, when His Gospel was preached throughout the world. My next step was to discover when the Gospel of Christ was considered to have been preached throughout the world. A study of the spread of Christianity made by scholars of the 1840’s, convinced them that the message of Christ had, by their day, already encircled the globe. The Gospel was being taught in all the continents. By 1844 it was being taught even in the interior of Africa, not by solitary missionaries, but on an organized scale. A commercial history of East Africa states: “Christian missions began their activities amongst the African people in 1844. (Year Book and Guide to East Africa, Ed. by Robert Hale Ltd., London, 1953, p. 44) Dr D. L. Leonard, historian of the Mission movement, in his A Hundred Years of Missions, says of the spread of the Word of Christ and His Gospel: “… for the first time since the apostolic period, (there) occurred an outburst of general missionary zeal and activity.” He is speaking of the last years of the eighteenth century, leading to the nineteenth century, to 1844, and beyond. “Beginning in Great Britain, it soon spread to the Continent and across the Atlantic. It was no mere push of fervour, but a mighty tide set in, which from that day to this has been steadily rising and spreading.” Another account states: “In 1804 the British and Foreign Bible Society was organised. Students of the prophetic word felt at the time that these agencies were coming in fulfilment of the prophecy.” (Our Day in the Light of Prophecy, Spicer, p. 308.) This was a direct reference to the prophecy of Christ that He would return when His gospel was preached everywhere in the world. Before 1804, the Bible had already been printed and circulated in fifty languages. In 1816 the American Bible Society was formed. George Storrs in the newspaper, Midnight Cry, on 4 May 1843, stated that these two societies (British and American) with their innumerable branches were spreading the Gospel of Christ in every part of the world. G. S. Faber in Eight Dissertations, which was completed in the very year of greatest prophetic fervour, 1844, declares: “The stupendous endeavours of one gigantic community to convey the Scriptures in every language to every part of the globe may well deserve to be considered as an eminent sign even of these eventful times. Unless I be much mistaken, such endeavours are preparatory to the final grand diffusion of Christianity, which is the theme of so many inspired prophets, and which cannot be far distant in the present day.’ M. H. Goyer writes in his book on prophetic fulfilment: “The British and Foreign Bible Society (for one example) has issued, since its foundation in1804, over 421 million copies of the Scriptures, in practically every country known throughout the globe.” In Our Day in the Light of Prophecy, Spicer wrote that the Gospel in his day had been spread ‘to ninety-five per cent of the inhabitants of the earth.’ He added: “It was in 1842 that five treaty-ports in China were open to commerce and to missions—advance steps in the opening of all China to the Gospel. In 1844 Turkey was prevailed upon to recognise the right of the Moslems to become Christians, reversing all Moslem tradition. In 1844 Alan Gardiner established the South American Mission. In 1842 Livingstone’s determination was formed to open the African interior.” Dr A. T. Pierson in Modern Mission Century wrote: “India, Siam, Burma, China, Japan, Turkey, Africa, Mexico, South America … were successively and successfully entered. Within five years, from 1853 to 1858, new facilities were given to the entrance and occupation of seven different countries, together embracing half the world’s population.” There were many additional references which made it clear that the Gospel of Christ, and its teachers, had entered every continent by the year 1844, spreading the Word of Jesus the Christ throughout the world. This was considered by the students of Scripture to be in exact fulfilment of the words of Christ given in Mark: “And the gospel must first be published among all nations.” (Mark 13:10) In this same chapter, Christ warns that when this takes place: “Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.” (Mark 13:33) When this Gospel is published in all nations, Christ again promises: “… then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.” (Mark 13:26) The millennial scholars of the 1840s felt that Christ’s first promise had been fulfilled. They felt it had been clearly demonstrated that the Gospel of Christ had been ‘preached in all the world for a witness’ and, therefore, the hour for His coming must now be at hand. I was convinced myself that the first promise of Christ had indeed been fulfilled by the year 1844. There could be no doubt of this. It was an interesting beginning.

From: http://bahai-library.com/pdf/s/sears_thief_night.pdf

This is well researched by William Sears. He was a powerful speaker too. Besides that he was born on my birthday.

 

[Trailblazer]

The kingdom can have two meanings in my opinion, depending on the context. In some contexts it might even mean both an earthly kingdom or a heavenly kingdom in your soul.

But as a Baha'i what do you think the Kingdom of God is referring to?
Jesus said to pray for the Kingdom to come to earth as it is in heaven. Jesus was not referring to a heavenly kingdom in our soul.

I believe the Kingdom of God on earth is the new world order that humans are going to build, with God's assistance.

“The world’s equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind’s ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this unique, this wondrous System—the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed.” Gleanings, p. 136

“By My Self! The day is approaching when We will have rolled up the world and all that is therein, and spread out a new order in its stead. He, verily, is powerful over all things.” Gleanings, p. 313

“Beseech ye the one true God to grant that all men may be graciously assisted to fulfil that which is acceptable in Our sight. Soon will the present-day order be rolled up, and a new one spread out in its stead. Verily, thy Lord speaketh the truth, and is the Knower of things unseen.” Gleanings, p. 7

 

[Truthseeker]

But as a Baha'i what do you think the Kingdom of God is referring to?
Jesus said to pray for the Kingdom to come to earth as it is in heaven. Jesus was not referring to a heavenly kingdom in our soul.

I believe the Kingdom of God on earth is the new world order that humans are going to build, with God's assistance.

“The world’s equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind’s ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this unique, this wondrous System—the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed.” Gleanings, p. 136

“By My Self! The day is approaching when We will have rolled up the world and all that is therein, and spread out a new order in its stead. He, verily, is powerful over all things.” Gleanings, p. 313

“Beseech ye the one true God to grant that all men may be graciously assisted to fulfil that which is acceptable in Our sight. Soon will the present-day order be rolled up, and a new one spread out in its stead. Verily, thy Lord speaketh the truth, and is the Knower of things unseen.” Gleanings, p. 7

Yes, but when Jesus used the word kingdom sometimes He meant a heavenly kingdom in your soul. In the Lord's prayer that reference to the kingdom did mean a kingdom on earth. In other contexts He was talking about the heavenly kingdom, not the earthly kingdom. 'Abdu'l-Baha often used the word "kingdom" that way also because he was talking to Christians a lot. Baha'u'llah sometimes used it in that sense also:

He summoned all the peoples and kindreds of the earth to the kingdom of eternity, and invited them to partake of the fruit of the tree of faithfulness.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 19)

Inasmuch as He, the sovereign Lord of all, hath willed to reveal His sovereignty in the kingdom of names and attributes, each and every created thing hath, through the act of the Divine Will, been made a sign of His glory.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 184)

There's absolutely no reason why "kingdom" can't be used in both senses.

 

[Trailblazer]

There's absolutely no reason why "kingdom" can't be used in both senses.

It can be used in both senses, but the Kingdom of God on earth is the new world order.

The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh

 

[Truthseeker]

It can be used in both senses, but the Kingdom of God on earth is the new world order.

The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh

That's quite true.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

1. Do you think you know what God's kingdom is?

Plain and simple, it’s God’s heavenly government, with God’s son, Jesus, as the King.
Isaiah 9:6,7

Jesus, as a descendant of King David (of whom both Mary & Joseph were descendants), was a rightful heir…certainly the one God chose (Daniel 7:13,14) to fulfill His promise to David that his family line would rule “forever”. — Isaiah 9:7.

In the hands of Jesus, it will be what accomplishes God’s “will” for the Earth. —Matthew 6:9,10… “Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done on earth”; Matthew 5:5…”Blessed are the meek, since they will inherit the earth.”


2. How do you think you know whereas other Christians do not know?

At Luke 10:21, Jesus praised his Father (whose name is Yahweh / Jehovah) as the One who either ‘reveals’ His Word, or ‘hides’ it.
And at John 4:23,24, Jesus said “true worshippers will worship the Father “

Most of Christendom worships a trinity, not the Father solely, as He requires at Exodus 20:2-6. And Paul emphasized it further at 1 Corinthians 8:5,6.

I have not found any other religion that worships Jehovah as He requires, and also adheres to Jesus’ statements at John 13:34,35… “love” observed by others, is what identifies his followers… & Matthew 5:44… (self-explanatory). These Scriptures preclude getting involved in any war.

The pursuit of peace, of utmost importance to worshipping God acceptably (2 Corinthians 13:11; Romans 12:18; Matthew 5:9;James 3:17,18) , eludes most every religion in times of conflict. As Peter said, “We must obey God as Ruler rather than men.” (Acts 5:29) And Jesus: “Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God.” — Mark 12:17.
We know what takes precedence.

I say all of this, because obedience to God, is paramount to gaining His blessing & understanding of His Word.

Daniel 2:44 does not say what God's kingdom is.

It’s a Kingdom, which destroys other kingdoms. It has military might

The verse says "in the time of those kings." Who are those kings?

“Those kings” are the ones ruling over the earth in these Last Days, the “kings” as represented by the image’s ‘feet and toes, partly of iron and partly of clay.’ This “rock cut out not by hands” struck “the feet” of the image (in Daniel 2:34); this brought the entire structure down.

In vs.38, Daniel said to Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, “you are the head of gold.”

(So we know, from this, that parts of the image in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream represented human governments ruling over large portions of the earth, that also impacted God’s people, which certainly applied to Babylon.)

Then Daniel foretold other kingdoms after Babylon: Medo-Persia , then Greece, then Rome, and finally, the current Anglo-American powers, as representing the feet of the image, made of mixing iron and clay. (I can explain in more detail, if you’re interested.)

The end of what? I believe it means the end of the old age and the beginning of a new age.

In a sense, you’re right. They will be totally different from each other!

Matthew 24:14 says that the gospel message will be preached in all the world before the end of the age.

The phrase is, “then the end (to telos) will come.”

The end of this System… no more human rulership / government…no more warfare and injustice.
“With that I heard a loud voice from the throne* say: ‘Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.’”

* A throne is what? It’s where a king sits, ruling over his kingdom.

Have a good day.