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

[SkepticThinker]

Your uncle's prayer shows nothing about whether God answers prayer, except that God did not do what your uncle wanted.

Oh, of course it doesn't. Only answered prayers show whether God answers prayers, right?
That's irrational, my friend.

Even scientific studies on the topic actually do not show whether God answers prayer or if God did heal people even during the study.

So we don't have any good evidence indicating that god(s) answer prayers. In other words, god answers prayers at the rate of chance. Which is the same thing as no god existing at all.
So why do you believe that god answers prayers/

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's a different type of evidence that I use.

Yes, I know. It's called confirmation bias. It's not evidence, rather, it's a logical fallacy.

Science can't do tests on it to see if it is significant evidence.

Science isn't a sentient being, rather, it's a self-correcting methodology designed to remove as much human bias and error as possible.

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.

It is a matter of choice - Do you want to believe in as many true things as possible while not believing in as many false things as possible? Do you care about what's actually true? Then you go with the evidence. If you want to believe what you want to believe, then you go with faith.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

That would depend on their reasons for believing. But again, we don't see reputable scientists injecting gods into their explanations of anything.

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.

You're trying to tell me that science isn't a "thing" then go on to describe it as just that ... a thing. "It just keeps going on blindly looking for a naturalistic answer." No, it doesn't. Rather, scientists continue to use the scientific method to discover how the world around us operates. And it has a damn good track record, which is more than we can say for religious assertions.

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.

This avoids the point though, doesn't it?

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.

No, it's not. It's my way of illustrating to you that your claim is unevidenced and we could insert anything into it it in place of "god" and still end up with the same thing - an insufficient explanation that doesn't actually explain anything at all.

Your assertion was "that mechanism does not show that God did not do it for them." No, it doesn't. But it also doesn't show that anything else in the world you can come up with didn't do it for them either. You're still not understanding how reason and logic work here or that you need to demonstrate that your claim is correct, rather than expecting other people to disprove your claim.

Well that was a say nothing argument.

Yours was. I was pointing it out.

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

computer says no - Google Search

Again, science isn't a person and doesn't "see" anything. Human beings use the scientific method to discover what's going on around us.
Everything we can demonstrate about the world around us comes from our use of the scientific method.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I find rational reasons to believe in a God and in particular to believe in the Bible God.

It would be great if you'd present any of them.

But yes we all use faith in our beliefs. We trust and believe the scientists and their testing and conclusions which they tell us are not proofs.

Nope, I don't. And it's not necessary, given the nature of scientific inquiry, as it stands today. Because it's evidence-based.
We can read through their published studies and their methodology, we can compare them with other studies, we can check their math, we can check if the study is replicable, we can carry out our own study. There are all kinds of things we can do to verify and test the conclusions drawn by scientists. There is no faith required in order to accept scientific findings. And the big major difference between this and religious beliefs is that if and when scientists present findings that may contradict or alter previous findings, we follow the evidence and change our views accordingly. You don't get anything like this with religion.

I trust and believe the Bible God and the authors of the Bible and the stories and prophecies etc they have written and can even see the evidence for the truth of what was written
I trust and believe my own rational conclusions about the origins of this universe and life.

I've yet to see you present an argument that isn't swimming in logical fallacies.

And that does not tell us it's origins.


I have provided the evidence of the genetic code and the reasoning that all codes have some form of intelligence behind them and/or in their use.
You seem to think that is not evidence of intelligence.

This argument is based on an equivocation error and has been refuted many times over.

I suppose you also think that the dance of the worker bees to give direction and distance to a food source is not a code which is stored in the genetic code and is evidence of an intelligence behind it.
I suppose you think that the genetic storage of the information that spiders use to make a web and how to use it is not a result of intelligence.

I don't know what these are supposed to mean.

That's OK, you are entitled to your views, however much they have not been thought through.
And yes maybe it was magic fairies that did it and not God/s but there is evidence for the God view and the Biblical God view specifically.



That does not answer the question?

 

[Unfettered]

How about you blanket the question with some evidence.

Faith isn't collective. So blanketing doesn't work but conceptually with this question. One person, one faith (ie, repository of evidence).

 

[YoursTrue]

I know what I learn from reading books from PhDs in the field, lectures by the same and from discussions among any fringe theories.
This seminar is a basic overview but agrees with all OT scholars and scholarship on the subject. All of the evidence points to this.

So when you purposely twist basic concepts like "learning", into the above statement you sound like you have no interest in actual discussion of how things are known or anything related to what is true.
Also you are wrong, as is every apologist who makes such ridiculous assumptions. I don't just look for things that back up certain ideas, I look at all scholarship on the subject, or as much as I can.
What's happening is you sound butthurt that the consensus is what is presented above so you take it out on me, calling scholarship "false" and claim I'm just using confirmation bias to support specific ideas.
Actually I'm looking for what is true. These ideas are the consensus of academia looking at historical facts.

Only apologists will try and manipulate this into being a negative.





The "rapture" is a Persian myth re-tooled in Revelation. There is no doubt in the fields that it started with Persian religion.
Messianic ideas and end of the world, God vs devil and a general resurrection are Persian myths adopted by Jewish thinkers.

If you think I am wrong about something explain it and give sources. OR, just say you don't care about what is actually true, just what you want to be true from an ancient mythology. Then I'll understand. Please don't pretend otherwise, like has been happening in other posts and now seemingly here.



Revelations, from Mary Boyce, scholar in Iranian religions





but Zoroaster taught that the blessed must wait for this culmination till Frashegird and the 'future body' (Pahlavi 'tan i pasen'), when the earth will give up the bones of the dead (Y 30.7). This general resurrection will be followed by the Last Judgment, which will divide all the righteous from the wicked, both those who have lived until that time and those who have been judged already. Then Airyaman, Yazata of friendship and healing, together with Atar, Fire, will melt all the metal in the mountains, and this will flow in a glowing river over the earth. All mankind must pass through this river, and, as it is said in a Pahlavi text, 'for him who is righteous it will seem like warm milk, and for him who is wicked, it will seem as if he is walking in the • flesh through molten metal' (GBd XXXIV. r 8-r 9). In this great apocalyptic vision Zoroaster perhaps fused, unconsciously, tales of volcanic eruptions and streams of burning lava with his own experience of Iranian ordeals by molten metal; and according to his stern original teaching, strict justice will prevail then, as at each individual j udgment on earth by a fiery ordeal. So at this last ordeal of all the wicked will suffer a second death, and will perish off the face of the earth. The Daevas and legions of darkness will already have been annihilated in a last great battle with the Yazatas; and the river of metal will flow down into hell, slaying Angra Mainyu and burning up the last vestige of wickedness in the universe.


Ahura Mazda and the six Amesha Spentas will then solemnize a lt, spiritual yasna, offering up the last sacrifice (after which death wW be no more), and making a preparation of the mystical 'white haoma', which will confer immortality on the resurrected bodies of all the blessed, who will partake of it. Thereafter men will beome like the Immortals themselves, of one thought, word and deed, unaging, free from sickness, without corruption, forever joyful in the kingdom of God upon earth. For it is in this familiar and beloved world, restored to its original perfection, that, according to Zoroaster, eternity will be passed in bliss, and not in a remote insubstantial Paradise. So the time of Separation is a renewal of the time of Creation, except that no return is prophesied to the original uniqueness of living things. Mountain and valley will give place once more to level plain; but whereas in the beginning there was one plant, one animal, one man, the rich variety and number that have since issued from these will remain forever. Similarly the many divinities who were brought into being by Ahura Mazda will continue to have their separate existences. There is no prophecy of their re-absorption into the Godhead. As a Pahlavi text puts it, after Frashegird 'Ohrmaid and the Amahraspands and all Yazads and men will be together. .. ; every place will resemble a garden in spring, in which


there are all kinds of trees and flowers ... and it will be entirely the creation of Ohrrnazd' (Pahl.Riv.Dd. XLVIII, 99, lOO, l07).

Sorry but that post is too long for me to read and dwell on. Maybe you can highlight a few sentences that bear out your point.

 

[YoursTrue]

Who?
I can name many biblical historians who were fundamentalists who left the religion after reviewing the historical evidence.



Again, who? A general deism doesn't demonstrate anything except a general deism.
No one in physics says the natural laws are "perfect". They are actually a bit of a mess. However for one we have no way to know if they even could be any other way.
We don't know if an infinite multiverse exists and all possible permutations exist.
Physicist Sean Carroll firmly believes in the math of many-worlds where all possible states are realized in different dimensions. Relativistic state.

We see natural laws created at the symmetry breaking at the big bang (possibly), from one unified law. This can easily have happened naturally.
We believe the fundamental forces were not created with the big bang but happened after the big bang, so that doesn't support what you are saying at all.
Nature is completely capable of creating these laws as they are not laws at all. They are just how spacetime manifests in the simplest way. There isn't a "code", it's just energy states, probabilities and how things work because there is no other option. The forces split that way.
It does not require a conscious being.







There are laws about used food for health reasons. If God is infinite and has love nothing is stopping him from helping out. It's clearly not a creation but a manifestation of probabilities. Please demonstrate love from God. That is from a late rendition of Yahweh using Greco-Roman philosophy and new age wu.




God giving freewill is a syncrtetic theology from Persia:

"Freewill, choice
the basic Zoroastrian doctrine of the existence of free-will, and the power of each individual to shape his own destiny through the exercise of choice. "
Mary Boyce

Evolution had no choice, genes that are heritable cannot help but result in evolution. Being curious to a degree is a survival traight. Animals who were not curious were eaten easier. There is no being doing that, it's nature. You are adding something that isn't needed and isn't there in order to justify a pre-held belief. This is a terrible way to know what is true and an excellent way to ensure you will always be fooled by incorrect beliefs.

Good vs evil and freewill

Harsh experience had evidently convinced the prophet that wisdom, justice and goodness were utterly separate by nature from wickedness and cruelty; and in vision he beheld, co-existing with Ahura Mazda, an Adversary, the 'Hostile Spirit', Angra Mainyu, equally uncreated, but ignorant and wholly malign. These two great Beings Zoroaster beheld with prophetic eye at their original, far-off encountering: 'Truly there are two primal Spirits, twins, renowned to be in conflict. In thought and word and act they are two, the good and the bad .... And when these two Spirits first encountered, they created life and not-life, and that at the end the worst existence shall be for the followers of falsehood (drug), but the best dwelling for those who possess righteousness (asha). Of the two Spirits, the one who follows falsehood chose doing the worst things, the Holiest Spirit, who is clad in the hardest stone [i.e. the sky] chose righteousness, and (so shall they all) who will satisfy Ahura Mazda continually '----1\n with just actions' (Y 30.3-5). essential element in this revelation is that the two primal Beings each made a deliberate choice (although each, it seems, according to his own proper nature) between good and evil, an act which prefigures the identical choice which every man must make for himself in this life . The exercise of choice changed the inherent antagonism between the two Spirits into an active one, which expressed itself, at a decision taken by Ahura Mazda, in creation and counter-creation, or, as the prophet put it, in the making of 'life' and 'not-life' (that is, death); for Ahura Mazda knew in his wisdom that if he became Creator and fashioned this world, then the Hostile Spirit would attack it, because it was good, and it would become a battleground for their two forces, and in the end he, God, would win the great struggle there and be able to destroy evil, and so achieve a universe which would be wholly good forever.









Please tell me what your newborn baby would have to do, or maybe, children, elderly, pregnant women, what iniquity do you think deserves murder?
Those are 6 cities, with people, lovers, babies, hopes, probabilistically EXACTLY LIKE THE ISRAELITES, but the authors hated them for land reasons or some dispute.

So your claim is God so loved the world he murdered 6 entire cities? Now, he's infinite, so showing up and showing he's actually the only God (he's the only God right?? Or is El still the supreme God here?) so the Amorites can say, "wow, we have it wrong, we now see that Yahweh is an actual real God so we are definitely following him"?

Maybe in his chariot? Or he could wrestle them? Nope. Have his people kill them. Because love. This doesn't seem like love.

It all goes back to Adam and Eve. I figure you don't believe that. But infants and pregnant women die in earthquakes, etc. Or disease. Children generally want to know who their parents are and inherit not just genes but often psychological characteristics as they grow. That includes views on religion, national prejudice, etc. God does obviously not owe us life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I find rational reasons to believe in a God and in particular to believe in the Bible God.
But yes we all use faith in our beliefs. We trust and believe the scientists and their testing and conclusions which they tell us are not proofs.
I trust and believe the Bible God and the authors of the Bible and the stories and prophecies etc they have written and can even see the evidence for the truth of what was written
I trust and believe my own rational conclusions about the origins of this universe and life.

You do? Then why on Earth have you never given any rational reasons? I have only seen logical fallacies and emotional arguments from you. I have never seen a rational reason. I do not think that you understand what rational means. The last sentence in your first paragraph tells us that. If something is only "rational" to you then it is not rational.

And that does not tell us it's origins.

True, but it points us in the right direction.

I have provided the evidence of the genetic code and the reasoning that all codes have some form of intelligence behind them and/or in their use.
You seem to think that is not evidence of intelligence.
I suppose you also think that the dance of the worker bees to give direction and distance to a food source is not a code which is stored in the genetic code and is evidence of an intelligence behind it.
I suppose you think that the genetic storage of the information that spiders use to make a web and how to use it is not a result of intelligence.
That's OK, you are entitled to your views, however much they have not been thought through.
And yes maybe it was magic fairies that did it and not God/s but there is evidence for the God view and the Biblical God view specifically.

No, you have never done that. You have only used flawed arguments. Do you have an argument that has not been refuted a thousand times?

Here is the problem. You probably do not even understand what is and what is not evidence. In the sciences you need a model to even begin to have evidence. Your model has to be falsifiable, that is if it is wrong it can be shown to be wrong by the predictions that it makes. So, what is your model? What predictions does it make? How could at least one of those predictions show that it is wrong? If you cannot answer these questions then you do not have evidence. You only have an ad hoc explanation. Those are worthless and are not supported by evidence.

That does not answer the question?

Nope. Not even close.

If you want to claim to have a rational belief then you need to learn what is meant by the term rational. It appears that you have no understanding of the concept at all. And the same applies to evidence. Until you let yourself learn you doom yourself to being wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes... it can go both ways and that is why you and I have the discussions. Nothing is new under the sun, just different names in different eras.

There are many. Here's is one of them.

One of the World's Most Powerful Scientists Believes in Miracles

NIH director Francis Collins, winner of the 2020 Templeton Prize, answers questions about God, free will, evil, altruism and his Christian faith in a 2006 interview

blogs.scientificamerican.com

He believes in miracles, but he does not believe in a dishonest God. That is why he accepts the theory of evolution and realizes that the myths of Genesis are just allegories. They are not to be treated as historical. Have you ever checked out his website? I can give you a link.

A lot of what you are giving such as "a bit of a mess" is more about you looking at it with eyes that don't know everything. An example is the appendix. At one time we thought is was "leftover of evolution" but now we know it has a purpose.

It can still be a leftover. You do not understand what a vestigial organ is. The appendix may have had a different role in our evolutionary past. That it has a different one now would mean that even though it has a present day task it would still be vestigial. You may be conflating it with vestigial traits such as goosebumps. They clearly do not keep us warm any longer. Nor do they lift up guard hairs in a way that aids in defense. Or the muscles that we still have and some can use to move their ears. Those are clearly vestigial. They had a different use in the past but they no longer work at that trait.

Who made the "one unified law"? Naturally buy whose standard? Man's who still know nothing in comparison to what there is to know? Nature creates? Does that negate the possible existence of God?

And there you go with an equivocation fallacy. Why assume that there had to be someone to write a law of nature. You are conflating human made laws with natural laws. Human laws are proscriptive. "No turn on red". "No one under 5 foot tall can use this ride" "Do not litter". Those are all rules or laws written by men. Boyle's Law on the other hand only tells us how gases react as specific conditions change. No one had to write it. It is only a description of what is observed in nature.

And no, natural laws do not mean that there is no god. But the existence of natural laws are not evidence fora god either.

No... you have opinions based on your paradigm of beliefs which we all do.

No, if one has evidence one has more than mere opinions.

Who said He isn't helping? This sounds more like a victim mentality where man has no responsibility

That is a reasonable conclusion based on the fact that there is no evidence of helping. According to your "logic" a husband may be "helping at dishes" by staying out of the kitchen where he just gets in the way because he is useless. This would appear to be the Christian God at best.

And one question, why did you give this post: There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

an optimistic rating? It appears that you did not understand the argument. @Hockeycowboy 's Jesus is rather different from yours. His version is not God. He does not accept the Trinity and thinks that Jesus and Jehovah are totally different beings. He supported that belief by using Bible verses taken out of context. I pointed out how that is a very bad argument by using the same strategy to "argue against God". My examples did not refute god, it only showed that quoting the Bible out of context does not prove anything. I thought that you would agree with such a sentiment.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It would be great if you'd present any of them.

You've been a tour de force on this thread. Just about every thought I had after reading has been addressed by you already, although I'll add a few word below anyway.

"There is no God". Obviously the Bible tells us that there was no God. Or I am just abusing it by cherry picking parts of verses. As you did.

This my go-to example of deceptive contextectomy, or removing relevant context that reveals that the author didn't mean what the isolated snippet implies. The relevance is that it is not enough to say, "That was taken out of context," since virtually every citation is excerpted from its surrounding context, but generally honestly, that is, without changing its meaning in the process. So when someone says, that's out of context, my answer is, "Did you have another point, such as that that matters? If so, you need to restore the missing context that shows that," and then I give that snippet and the entire verse.

As a digression, I generally choose the one that begins, "The fool says" because it is bigoted against unbelievers - not one of which it claims does good ever - to beat the band.

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:1

Isn't that beautiful! And so true! Unbelievers are the worst, you know! This beautiful book that purports to teach love says so, amplifying just how vile such people are in other passages. We're not only vile, we're corrupt, and none of us does any good ever. This passes for love in Christianity - you know, hate the sin but love the sinner - but vile better describes the source of this bigotry and those who accept and spread it.

mainstream christian thought was hijacked long ago, and corrupted with concepts from Plato and other non-christians. But it didn’t start out that way...

From Plato comes the idea that mind and ideas are ontologically prior to nature:

"What is meant by Platonic ideal? The Platonic ideal is the perfect, absolute, and eternal Forms. Everything in the natural world is derived from the Forms but only as an imitation or impression of those Forms. Everything is born from the Realm of the Forms and returns back there after death."

You can see the appeal there to Abrahamic theists (and maybe others). This is the basis of al the discussion about whether disembodied minds are possible. If not, there were and are no incorporeal gods to create the first matter.

You don’t prove anything from a sample of one.

A sample of one can falsify a claim like this one: "I tell you solemnly, if your faith were the size of a mustard seed you could say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there', and it would move; nothing would be impossible for you.” Imagine, not climbing but moving a mountain!" —Matthew 17:20

mankind is mean and loveless. We throw away more food than what we need to feed everyone. That is why we need the God of love.

The love of God was useless to all of those altar boys.

This is dismal, nihilistic, pessimistic, anti-human and anti-humanist thought, and characterizes many of these religions. It is one of Christianity's many sins against man - leaching all goodness out of him, attributing it to an invisible sprit that lives outside of nature and who issues threats and commands, and leaving man's flaws and failings as his doing and alone representing his basic nature.

The religion self-servingly created a problem for which it alone has the antidote. Acordingly, its doctrine describes man as hopeless without gods, utterly dependent, and as you suggest, spiritually diseased and in need of the cure. And there is no wiggle room there. The soul is god's property and hostage, and there is no escape from eternal suffering if that's the verdict, and not even a trial, much less parole or appeal.

I think we are arguing whether things in this physical realm could have come about through chance only or needed a designer. Where a designer might have come from and if He is complex or not is another topic.

No, it's not. If the designer is more complex than a design that is said to need a designer because of its complexity, the argument fails right there due to a special pleading fallacy.

God did not heal one person so God does not heal anyone.

No, God did not heal one person so God does not heal everyone. That's been established by the falsifying example. The next question is does God heal ANYBODY? There evidence suggests not.

How would you describe it?

What you need to understand is that many words (probably all) had one original meaning, but after time, metaphorical definitions appear. These are ideas that borrow a quality of the original, but modify it. Thus, originally, a baby was a human infant, which qualities are that it is young and usually much beloved, and eventually, other young things are called babies metaphorically (baby deer, aunt Mildred was the baby of the family) or precious (his car is his baby, and so is his girlfriend).

A literal code substitutes one set of conventional symbols for words in a language such as .-. for mayday. All of these are artificial and require learning a set of conventions. Mayday has no inherent meaning, its meaning agreed upon by convention, as is the case with .-. Mayday comes from a literal language created by man, and .-. is literal code for that, also requiring the learning of a set of conventions to discern its intended meaning.

The genetic code is not a literal code, because it symbols aren't conventional and don't need to be learned by the enzymes that transcribe it or the ribosomes that translate it (two more metaphorical definitions, as the literal meaning of these words are human actions). And it's substitutions are not code either. UUU is "code" for lysine in the "language" of mRNA which "alphabet" is A, G, C, and U. This is all metaphor, too.

The genetic code is NOT a code in the sense of Morse Code.

"any codes we have, needed a designer, here is another code, it probably needed a designer"

Nope, just the literal codes using symbols with agreed-upon meanings.

science always wants to find out a possible mechanism for things, even if that mechanism might be wrong.

Science doesn't call a mechanism correct without confirming it.

Science is blind like that, it is a method that just keeps going blindly and it takes humans to actually see that God did it.

It takes humans to do and understand science. It takes those humans willing to believe without sufficient justification to claim that gods exist.

Your uncle's prayer shows nothing about whether God answers prayer, except that God did not do what your uncle wanted.

And that is evidence that his prayer was for nought.

Even scientific studies on the topic actually do not show whether God answers prayer or if God did heal people even during the study.

Actually, some do. From Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer - PubMed

"Conclusions: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications."

The STEP study revealed no benefit to prayer, but worse, demonstrated a deleterious effect of being a cardiac patient and a believer going for relatively dangerous surgery and knowing that you were prayed for.

It's a different type of evidence that I use.

We all have access to the same evidence if we use the same senses. You can see what I see, hear what I hearts, feel what I can touch, and smell and taste what I can. The difference is whether we apply valid reasoning to it to arrive at sound conclusions. That is, we don't have different evidence. We use different "logics." Only rogue logic connects the evidence theists offer with their beliefs about what it implies.

For a scientist to believe in a creator God does not mean that the scientist does not care about what is true

It means that he doesn't care if all of his beliefs are demonstrably correct, and I have no other definition for truth (or fact or knowledge) than that, so he doesn't care if his god belief is true.

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.

The Abrahamic theist is always offended when any known fictional entity is compared to his god, even other gods, and pretty uniformly attempts to dismiss the comparison with an emotional response, but of course, that accomplishes nothing. Pick whatever you like to stand for a character for which there is no evidence and compare your god to that. I think you'll find that you find the very exercise offensive a priori whatever is chosen. God isn't all that differently from Santa, who is also nowhere to be found, who is also allegedly reading your mind and making lists of naughty and nice which will result in presents or coals. Does this also offend you? If so, ask yourself why.

Physical bodies are chemical mediums and operate by chemistry. That is not saying that chemistry alone is going to produce a living body.

Happens in eggs and wombs every day.

we all use faith in our beliefs.

No, we don't. I don't. One can learn how to justify belief and choose to not believe unjustified claims.

We trust and believe the scientists

That's evidence-based, not faith. I trust the science because I'm familiar with their humanistic culture and values as well as their stunning successes. That's evidence the theist doesn't have when he trusts Bibles and holds a god belief anyway. That's why his beliefs can be called faith, and the output of science called evidenced.

 

[Kenny]

The love of God was useless to all of those altar boys.

This is dismal, nihilistic, pessimistic, anti-human and anti-humanist thought, and characterizes many of these religions. It is one of Christianity's many sins against man - leaching all goodness out of him, attributing it to an invisible sprit that lives outside of nature and who issues threats and commands, and leaving man's flaws and failings as his doing and alone representing his basic nature.

The religion self-servingly created a problem for which it alone has the antidote. Acordingly, its doctrine describes man as hopeless without gods, utterly dependent, and as you suggest, spiritually diseased and in need of the cure. And there is no wiggle room there. The soul is god's property and hostage, and there is no escape from eternal suffering if that's the verdict, and not even a trial, much less parole or appeal.

This is so irrelevant as it is like you are that no atheist is anti-human - they are nothing but saints.

It is also irrelevant to the message the that Jesus gave. What people do with the message is individual... some for the worst and hopefully most for the better.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The love of God was useless to all of those altar boys.

This is dismal, nihilistic, pessimistic, anti-human and anti-humanist thought, and characterizes many of these religions. It is one of Christianity's many sins against man - leaching all goodness out of him, attributing it to an invisible sprit that lives outside of nature and who issues threats and commands, and leaving man's flaws and failings as his doing and alone representing his basic nature.

The religion self-servingly created a problem for which it alone has the antidote. Acordingly, its doctrine describes man as hopeless without gods, utterly dependent, and as you suggest, spiritually diseased and in need of the cure. And there is no wiggle room there. The soul is god's property and hostage, and there is no escape from eternal suffering if that's the verdict, and not even a trial, much less parole or appeal.

Well said. In my opinion, the Abrahamic God is like an abusive father who only "loves" his children when they do or say precisely what he wants. And his children hope that if they don't make him angry, he won't hurt them, but they're unsure because he has a violent temper and is known to lash out when he is angry. So if they disobey him and upset him, then there will be hell for them to pay. That isn't a healthy relationship founded on unconditional love and respect, but rather on fear and mistrust. It's an abusive relationship. According to the Bible, God is capable of hatred in addition to wrath and jealousy and has committed global genocide. Quite frankly, I don't believe that anyone should derive their understanding of morality, love, or justice from the Bible.

 

[Link]

Well said. In my opinion, the Abrahamic God is like an abusive father who only "loves" his children when they do or say precisely what he wants. And his children hope that if they don't make him angry, he won't hurt them, but they're unsure because he has a violent temper and is known to lash out when he is angry. So if they disobey him and upset him, then there will be hell for them to pay. That isn't a healthy relationship founded on unconditional love and respect, but rather on consistent fear and mistrust. It's an abusive relationship. According to the Bible, God is capable of hatred in addition to wrath and jealousy and has committed global genocide. Frankly, I don't believe that anyone should derive their understanding of morality, love, or justice from the Bible.

I think you are comparing him to a father/parental role. His care-taking guardian role can resemble that of parents in some respect, but there are significant difference in the relationship a father has to a son, that God has to his servants.

For example, a son would never prostrate to the dad at whatever age nor should the dad expect the son too. That is because father and son are relatively equal except the son is younger and trusts the father to raise them in guarding them. The father prefers his son over the son of his friends or sons of his countrymen. God doesn't have preferences in terms of lineage. His preference is due to two things: our goodness and our relationship to him. I separate the two, because sometimes God will forgive and help a servant overcome his evil out of his grace due to prayers and pleading intercession to him through his chosen, when the servants actions don't amount to redemption.

And God has tried us with parents. It's not an easy test. We want to do good to them to the extent we are willing to disobey God to be on their religion. We are willing to put equals to God if our parents are of a polytheistic religion. God understands that and says you've been designed to want to do goodness to your parents, and determined to do so inside, and you must do good, but do not let it be that you associate with God out of their love.

There's also the fact, that God's power and help is overwhelming in that he rewards goodness with more beauty in goodness then it merits, while only recompenses evil with the like of it in terms of how much it darkens/makes ugly our soul. He has stacked the odds in our favor. He also has opened doors to pray to him and that involves him intervening between us and our heart and helping us in unseen ways including that of the Guiding holy chosen leaders he assigned as kings over mankind.

And while parents have best interest in heart for the children, they aren't perfect and can be unwise, and so as we grow older, we have right to discern what advice to follow. If we must disobey them in respect to the religion, then so be it, but we must still be good companions to our parents. We must not condemn them even if we know they will go to hell, it's not our place to do so and God does not allow it per Quran. But we can condemn others in hope it might awaken them to paradise, but not our parents.

What I'm trying to show by all this, is that parental role is not a divine role. There can be some analogy, but it's not a perfect analogy. All analogies are analogous only in some respects but not in all.

It's expected that God being the only perfect judge - would have to be the one to punish us or reward us. This can't be anyone else. So Imams (a) look better because souls like Jesus (a), Ali (a), etc, they intercede for us with God and try to plead with God to save us when we call out to them. However, God set up the system of intercession, to make use of his chosen ones and permitted them to ask and even commanded them to ask forgiveness for us when we believe and obey God. Their role because they are creation too, and have empathy, is also different. We don't obey them for the sake of obeying them. We obey them to obey God. We rely on their guidance only if God has proven them to be his guidance. In short, they are part of relying on God. However, even these exalted souls as exalted as they are, are not Lords nor reached the rank of divinity. In reality, what we see as them having power, fame, etc, from suspicious is just recognition of their chosen status and affection and love for them since God gave them that station so we take a path to him.

God being the light of all light, he sees the darkness for what it is. While your parents if they see bad from you, they see it from a limited perspective and from a perspective of let's support him till they get it right if you go down the bad path.

God does have resemblance in some respects in that he set up life and death so we choose right and are pressured to do good, but that's more like a person who sets up the education system of schools.

Also, God is the designer of the system we live in. Naturally, as a designer, he has to account for everything. While parents are concerned with just a few of humanity. God is thinking of Jinn and humans all together.

There are also some logical constraints he is under. He might look bad from viewpoint of what has become but future was unknown in the past, and odds could've once upon a time been in favor of majority or all of humans and Jinn being good. In fact, it could've been even that odds were humans weren't going to be created, but we created as Angels instead who once became overwhelming "full of themselves" for lack of a better word.

The constraints of logic are real. We can't just say God is all powerful, than anything is possible. This is not true. There are tradeoffs. He could've created us as all one people and all guided, but there would be trade-offs. He might prefer those trade-offs the other way now and wish he did the other decision from hindsight 20/20, but there was only wishing well way back when the odds were in our favor. Of course, he knew the chances, took the risk, but the worst possible unlikely outcome has come about. So yes, it looks bad, but you have to consider the logical constraints. The free-will defense is a classic, but is a good defense.

 

[Ebionite]

spontaneous remission

... doesn't remove tubes from a patient.

The ignorance is all yours.

 

[Link]

@Sgt. Pepper I know also you have husband, kids, etc. Can it be that you picked a bias towards the Abrahamic God for their sake? Particularly, you don't want Islam to be true because you don't want to imagine the possible consequence for your family?

When I left Islam, I did so because I appreciated people who helped me so much, I couldn't bare the thought of them going to hell.

So I understand this strong empathy. But it's even more so with you because of family.

To me, because my parents were tortured by an unjust government that my government supports till today, and because uncle tortured not to long ago was overwhelming me in anger, I wanted to believe in hell again. So I gave Islam and Quran another look and solved my problems I thought I had for sure found that were unsolvable in my mind.

I hate the oppressors so much more then the empathy factor. I guess you can say hate to me is a big thing. But it's out of love for the oppressed and family members who been oppressed.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

Plain and simple. Jesus is not coming back to earth to rule as King.
Jesus never promised to return to earth, not once in the New Testament. Jesus said His work was finished here and He was no more in the world. That means that the return of Christ has to be another Person.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
John 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Jesus never claimed to be a king, and He never said he was coming to earth to rule.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

These two verses in John 18 completely negate that Jesus is the King of this world or that Jesus will ever come to this world to rule it, and they fit perfectly together with John 17:4 and John 17:11. Jesus came into this world to bear witness unto the truth about God. He did that so there is no more reason for Jesus to come back to this world again. That is why Jesus said “I am no more in the world.”

Isaiah 9:6-7 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

These Isaiah 9:6-7 prophecies cannot refer to Jesus because Jesus disclaimed being the Mighty God when He called Himself “the Son of God” (John 5:18-47) and in those verses Jesus repudiates the charge that He claimed equality with God. Jesus disclaimed being the everlasting Father when He said, “my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) and Jesus disclaimed being the Prince of Peace when He said, “I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). Jesus disclaimed bearing the government upon His shoulder when He said to “rend onto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's” (Mark 12:17, Matthew 22:21). Jesus disclaimed that He would establish a kingdom where he would rule with judgment and justice forever when He said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).

I believe that Baha’u’llah was the Prince of Peace and the Lord of hosts. World peace will be established during His religious dispensation. Please note that the prophecy does not say 'when' peace will be established, but where it says there shall be no end to the peace that indicates that it won't happen all at once but rather it will unfold gradually. That is exactly what is happening right now. The same is true for the government. It says that there shall be 'no end' to the government which means it will begin and be established gradually and continue to develop over time. The government will be more developed in the future as the prophecy says (increase in government).

Baha’u’llah set up a 'system of government' and it has already been established among the Baha’is. The institutions of that government are fully operational, but still in their infancy. What we now refer to as Local Spiritual assemblies (LSAs) and will eventually evolve into what will be called Houses of Justice.

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.

Daniel 7:13, 14 is not referring to Jesus.
Christians believe that the following verses are about Jesus, but if Jesus was the Son of man, as Jesus claimed to be, the following verses cannot be about the Jesus.

Daniel 7:13-14 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Baha'is believe that these verses are about Baha'u'llah who was one like Jesus, who was the Son of man.

We believe that Jesus ascended into heaven in the clouds. Baha’u’llah, one like the son of man, descended from the clouds of heaven of the Will of God, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. These verses are about an earthly Kingdom, not a heavenly Kingdom. Jesus’ Kingdom is in heaven, Baha’u’llah’s Kingdom will be on earth, after it is built by humans.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

 

[ppp]

It all goes back to Adam and Eve. I figure you don't believe that. But infants and pregnant women die in earthquakes, etc. Or disease. Children generally want to know who their parents are and inherit not just genes but often psychological characteristics as they grow. That includes views on religion, national prejudice, etc. God does obviously not owe us life.

And even if there were a god of some sort, we, quite obviously, owe him nothing.

 

[ppp]

Plain and simple. Jesus is not coming back to earth to rule as King.
Jesus never promised to return to earth, not once in the New Testament. Jesus said His work was finished here and He was no more in the world. That means that the return of Christ has to be another Person.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
John 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Jesus never claimed to be a king, and He never said he was coming to earth to rule.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

These two verses in John 18 completely negate that Jesus is the King of this world or that Jesus will ever come to this world to rule it, and they fit perfectly together with John 17:4 and John 17:11. Jesus came into this world to bear witness unto the truth about God. He did that so there is no more reason for Jesus to come back to this world again. That is why Jesus said “I am no more in the world.”

Isaiah 9:6-7 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

These Isaiah 9:6-7 prophecies cannot refer to Jesus because Jesus disclaimed being the Mighty God when He called Himself “the Son of God” (John 5:18-47) and in those verses Jesus repudiates the charge that He claimed equality with God. Jesus disclaimed being the everlasting Father when He said, “my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) and Jesus disclaimed being the Prince of Peace when He said, “I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). Jesus disclaimed bearing the government upon His shoulder when He said to “rend onto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's” (Mark 12:17, Matthew 22:21). Jesus disclaimed that He would establish a kingdom where he would rule with judgment and justice forever when He said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).

I believe that Baha’u’llah was the Prince of Peace and the Lord of hosts. World peace will be established during His religious dispensation. Please note that the prophecy does not say 'when' peace will be established, but where it says there shall be no end to the peace that indicates that it won't happen all at once but rather it will unfold gradually. That is exactly what is happening right now. The same is true for the government. It says that there shall be 'no end' to the government which means it will begin and be established gradually and continue to develop over time. The government will be more developed in the future as the prophecy says (increase in government).

Baha’u’llah set up a 'system of government' and it has already been established among the Baha’is. The institutions of that government are fully operational, but still in their infancy. What we now refer to as Local Spiritual assemblies (LSAs) and will eventually evolve into what will be called Houses of Justice.

Daniel 7:13, 14 is not referring to Jesus.
Christians believe that the following verses are about Jesus, but if Jesus was the Son of man, as Jesus claimed to be, the following verses cannot be about the Jesus.

Daniel 7:13-14 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Baha'is believe that these verses are about Baha'u'llah who was one like Jesus, who was the Son of man.

We believe that Jesus ascended into heaven in the clouds. Baha’u’llah, one like the son of man, descended from the clouds of heaven of the Will of God, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. These verses are about an earthly Kingdom, not a heavenly Kingdom. Jesus’ Kingdom is in heaven, Baha’u’llah’s Kingdom will be on earth, after it is built by humans.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

The Baha'i view of Jesus is irrelevant to Christianity. After all, Satan can quote Scripture.

 

[Audie]

The Baha'i view of Jesus is irrelevant to Christianity. After all, Satan can quote Scripture.

So can I.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So can I.

The pages still tend to catch fire when I try. How do you manage?