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

[Kenny]

Science cannot confirm mechanisms that happened millions of years ago. Nobody was there to see what happened. It is believed by faith.

That is so simple to understand. It is on that basis , faith, that I call it a religion

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Thank you for your kind words. I always look forward to reading your thoughtful posts.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

View attachment 82359

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

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

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

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

And that is evidence that his prayer was for nought.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Happens in eggs and wombs every day.

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

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.

The only thing missing is a Seinfeld reference.

 

[Brian2]

I would have thought you would be thrilled that the science only approach will never address your favourite chosen deity.

I get tired of the science only approach in Biblical history starts off with the view that the supernatural and prophecy is not true.
I get tired of skeptics with their science only approach, claim that there is no evidence for God.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

The ignorance is all yours.

This was in response to, "So you presumed that prayer works because "the doctors had no explanation for what happened" after someone was healed? I guess there were some uneducated doctors involved that didn't know about spontaneous remission?

"Intubation doesn't remove itself" ... No, but it can come loose on its own or someone can remove it.

How does that show that prayer worked though? Could you provide more details?"


Notice how I responded directly to your "intubation doesn't remove itself" with "no, but it can come loose on its own or someone can remove it" rather than "spontaneous remission" as you've indicated here.


Maybe you could try again. And perhaps you could add some details so we know what we're talking about here. Such as "intubation doesn't remove itself" or "doesn't remove tubes from a patient." What do you mean by that, exactly? What are we talking about?

 

[Audie]

Thank you for your kind words. I always look forward to reading your thoughtful posts.

The only thing missing is a Seinfeld reference.

Hmm

Here I thought the only person on the
scene missing was the Jack of Hearts.

 

[Audie]

I get tired of the science only approach in Biblical history starts off with the view that the supernatural and prophecy is not true.
I get tired of skeptics with their science only approach, claim that there is no evidence for God.

None of it is true.
Maybe you weary of denial.

 

[Brian2]

That is so simple to understand. It is on that basis , faith, that I call it a religion

I suppose some people have the scientific method as an idol which is placed before the real God.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I just made up that name "principle of complexity of design needing a designer" for what you were saying, trying to make complexity of design into a principle that should also be applied to God and that He might also need a designer. So you are turning it around onto me.

I know you made it up.

Perhaps you could address my points about it, which were:

There is no "principal of complexity of design needing a designer." It's just an assertion, as though complexity is the hallmark of good design when in actuality, simplicity is the hallmark of good design. You're just trying to smuggle in the very thing you need to be demonstrating, without actually demonstrating it. That doesn't fly.

I did say that Antony Flew said that the genetic code was too complex to have been a product of chance. That is all.

Anthony Flew isn't an authority on such things, so I don't know why we're quoting him.

Encoded into the chemistry of genetics is information about the body of a plant or animal and how it works and what diseases it is prone to and what the animal might automatically know as that particular animal etc etc.
This coded information gets transferred to the chemistry of the body of the plant or animal.
This coded information can be altered for better survival and pick up information which brings a worse survival probability.
This coded information is turned on and/or off at various times in the development and life of an individual.

I said nothing about translating from a language to a code or back even though it is plain that the information gets transferred from genes to body etc. Of necessity something like this has to be complex, but complexity is a relative thing.

That is pretty much what you just said. Look up.

The complexity of the genes might be the least complex it could be for such a system and the information it carries and what it does.So stop making stuff up about simplicity being the hallmark of good design as if the complexity of the genes actually shows that they were not designed.

I haven't made anything up, and you haven't addressed my point.

You're the one claiming that complex things require designers. That's your argument. I'm taking that assertion to it's logical conclusion. And you're just handwaving it away.

But the real question is how did DNA and the genes become this fantastic information carrying and storage thing.
Either it was designed or it was chance. (and when I say "chance" I don't mean that there are no laws of chemistry to follow etc---I am looking at the big picture---eveything is a product of chance if there is no designer).

We don't resolve the question of how DNA arose by just declaring that God did it and thinking we've come up with an explanation.

 

[Audie]

I suppose some people have the scientific method as an idol which is placed before the real God.

There seems no end to things you suppose,

Except that it just might be yourself with
the issues you keep projecting onto others.

 

[Audie]

I know you made it up.

Perhaps you could address my points about it, which were:

There is no "principal of complexity of design needing a designer." It's just an assertion, as though complexity is the hallmark of good design when in actuality, simplicity is the hallmark of good design. You're just trying to smuggle in the very thing you need to be demonstrating, without actually demonstrating it. That doesn't fly.

Anthony Flew isn't an authority on such things, so I don't know why we're quoting him.



That is pretty much what you just said. Look up.



I haven't made anything up, and you haven't addressed my point.

You're the one claiming that complex things require designers. That's your argument. I'm taking that assertion to it's logical conclusion. And you're just handwaving it away.



We don't resolve the question of how DNA arose by just declaring that God did it and thinking we've come up with an explanation.

You mean....godidit isn't the "big picture"?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Science sends messages into space hoping to get a response that they can understand as being from an intelligent source. A billion signals that we don't see as intelligent responses do not mean that there is no life out there, it is that one response that we see as intelligent that we see as from life.

Yes, I'm aware.

This doesn't help you demonstrate that god answers prayers.

Counting the hits and ignoring the misses is called confirmation bias.

You are the one who is saying that God answers prayer at the rate of chance. I am saying we do not know who God healed and that the prayer studies do not show that.

That's what the information we have available to us, tells us.

You say you know a guy whose prayer was answered. I know a guy whose prayer wasn't answered. At any given moment somewhere in the world is some starving mother praying for God to feed her kids, and her prayers will go unanswered and that child will die. Meanwhile, there's a guy somewhere else claiming that god answered his prayer to help him sell a typewriter or to help his team win the Super Bowl.

That's basically the same as making a coin toss, my friend.

We do hear of things happening that look like miracles to us however and there are plenty of things that we cannot tell if they are miracles or not. The Christian response is one of faith hopefully in everything,,,,,,,,,,,,, in the ones that look like miracles and in the others also, whether positive or negative results,,,,,,,,,,,, knowing that it is God who is in charge and the one who decides on the outcome.

So you believe that god answers prayers because .... faith ... ?

So once again you've demonstrated that faith is unjustified belief, and not a reliable pathway to truth.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This was in response to, "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."

I already know where science ends up and the only reason I would want to end up there is to not be restricted by a belief in a God who puts restrictions on my conduct.

This isn't a response to my question.

My standards of morality are much higher than those of the god you follow, so your reasoning doesn't apply to me. I don't think it's okay to own slaves, for example.

If I believe only what science says is probabe according to the paradigms it works under makes no difference in anything except I would be able to think that I believe only what the best of human only research shows to be true. But woopee, who cares.

I'm asking you whether you want to be believe as many true things as possible and disbelieve as many false things as possible, OR do you just want to believe what you want to believe. You appear to be happy with the latter.

You can't even demonstrate that your god assertions are anywhere near likely to be possible while in the meantime you dump all over a field of inquiry that can actually show it's work and demonstrate probability. It's bizarre to me.

I'd rather go with "the best of human research" that has an amazing track record of demonstrating the accuracy of its claims, over some old copies of copies of transcripts of earlier oral traditions written by anonymous writers about fantastical claims about a supposed demi-god living in iron age Middle East.

I would rather look further afield. Not to what I WANT to believe necessarily, but to where I see the best of other evidence and human experience pointing to and also to something that also offers some hope and not end up just in the grave.

Why does there have to be some god or afterlife for a person to have hope? I have a lot of hopes and none of them hang on a god existing.

This is you showing me that you want to believe what you want to believe, right? You want to believe there's a god because otherwise you wouldn't have hope for the future. So you believe there's a god that will take care of you so you don't "end up just in the grave."

 

[SkepticThinker]

Science is a thing that scientists use and scientists have to go by the scientific method and not start just injecting God into science when the method has no use for God.
Scientists can see past the method and have a belief in God if they want however. Scientists can use other evidence for that belief which science is not able to use without thorough physical testing of that evidence,,,,,,,,,, something which it cannot do with the evidence we see for God and when we do not know what sort of tests can be applied to see if spirits exist.
Science works well when it sticks to it's area of expertise.

Again, notice how scientists that believe in god don't even feel the need to insert god into their explanations as to how the world around us works. They manage to provide explanations that don't require god(s).

I don't know, does it?

Yep, it does.

There is the answer of how and why and who that science has not and cannot really answer. We need to recognise that and to admit that a God is the serious answer for these thing and not trying to dismiss even the questions or make light of them by equating a God with flying spaghetti monsters and magic pixies etc.

The only reason you think "god is the serious answer for these thing" is because you already believe in god.
To me, it's no more serious or evidenced than "pixies" or "fairies" or "Thor" any other "supernatural" thing you could think up for which you don't have evidence. I'm sorry your offense is blinding you to that.

As long as we can see past the science and not allow it to govern all that we believe or are able to believe or see about the world and our responses to it.

See past the science? In other words, let's invoke faith, right?
I have no use for that.

 

[Unfettered]

Then give what evidence you can. I didn't say blanket it with faith?

Revelation is the first evidence I would present. Meaning that God has given me knowledge I did not have, could not have obtained, and did not obtain in any other way than through his communicating those things to me. Sometimes revelation has followed a request for answers to questions I've had or to address situations I've faced; other times it has come unsolicited (though still in response to my regular requests to be given wisdom from him to aid me in my journey in life).

So that's the first evidence I offer: revelation.

 

[viole]

Revelation is the first evidence I would present. Meaning that God has given me knowledge I did not have, could not have obtained, and did not obtain in any other way than through his communicating those things to me. Sometimes revelation has followed a request for answers to questions I've had or to address situations I've faced; other times it has come unsolicited (though still in response to my regular requests to be given wisdom from him to aid me in my journey in life).

So that's the first evidence I offer: revelation.

Revelation of what?

ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do and have and they are dismissed by people who want only the scientifically testable evidence and reasons. Occam's Razor is good enough in science to give a direction for research to proceed and it seems that Occam's Razor is also good enough for scientism people to dismiss anything that cannot be tested by science and to even say it is not actual evidence.

This was in response to, "It would be great if you'd present any of them [rational reasons to believe in god]."

What you've presented to me is are logical fallacies (question begging, argument from incredulity, argument from analogy), rather than rational reasons to believe in god.

I have no idea what your above response about scientism has to do with it. But it sounds like you trying to explain away the fact that you don't have reliable evidence or logical arguments.

I for one don't become a scientist and do all the tests to see if the science is correct. And if I did that would not mean it was correct. I just trust the science, as we all do.

You don't have to become a scientist to attempt to verify their claims. You can just read their study yourself. And then read what other scientists have to say about it and see what evidence they have to present for or against it. Then you can see if anyone has been able to replicate the study. You know they have to provide their methodology, show their math, and explain their reasoning, right?

And religion (at least the Bible based religious) do change their understanding of the meaning of certain scriptures as evidence comes along that seems to demand that change in understanding.

Such as? What's going to "come along" to change one's understanding?

It just shows some of the information stored in the genes and which is transferred to the living individuals.
It is more than just deciding what proteins should be produced.

It's not information in the sense that you're talking about.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you are claiming that God has to be more complex than His design and that God is just like everything else and is not a special case even if He is the creator and everything else is the creation, even if He is a spirit and everything else is physical etc etc.



But is code in the sense of the genetic code and carries information from molecule to molecule to a life form from generation to generation.



The genetic code has agreed upon meanings. The code passes information in a way that the molecules do what the code says.
However I know what you are saying. That you cannot see any intelligence in the molecules involved in the use of the code.
The intelligence however is in the one who invented and set it up to work as an information collection and storage and use system.
This is something that is not a scientific proof for anything, and science will look for what some scientist says is a possible naturalistic way that this system began until the end of the world if necessary. IMO a designer is more likely than chance for this system to have happened.
It you demand science then it is through Occam's Razor that we can see a designer is more likely than chance.



Science cannot confirm mechanisms that happened millions of years ago. Nobody was there to see what happened. It is believed by faith.



They have sufficient justification for themselves. Who are you to say they have not sufficient justification?



No it isn't.



Interesting, but it does treat prayer as the thing being studied and leaves God, as a being who makes decisions, out of the equation.



It is faith that sees the connection. Faith joins the dots where the evidence has not gone. Some see the evidence and end up saying it points to a God and others see the evidence and want an in depth scientific study to see if the evidence points to a God, because they want to think they believe things without relying on faith. But everyone uses faith, but some want to use it less than others will.



If someone believes in God and acts on that belief, then they see their God belief as true but of course know they are using faith more than the person who waits for the results of the in depth scientific study,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, which does not even see God as a possible answer or hypothesis, and does not even know how to study and test for an invisible spirit. Maybe the one who waits is the one who does not care for belief in God or whether God is true or not. Maybe the one who waits does not want to believe in a God. Maybe the one who waits just has not considered God deeply enough and that nature points to a God.



If you are serious about all those fictional characters being equivalent to belief in God then it is emotional because of the demonstration of the stubborn ignorance of evidence for God shown by those who use such comparisons.
Maybe it is like a Richard Dawkins hearing the evidence for creation and a world wide flood from a young earth creationist.



As a perception of the physical yes, but it is also a faith based on the denial of the evidence of many people who have experienced God and miracles.
It's stubborn ignorance but seen by it's believers as enlightenment in a modern scientific world.



Justified belief is just using less faith than those who believe with less justification.



Yes we trust the scientists and their science and sometimes do that on things where that trust is not warranted imo.

No, everyone does not use faith. I don't. I reject faith. I have zero use for it. None. Nada.

 

[Audie]

Yes, I'm aware.

This doesn't help you demonstrate that god answers prayers.

Counting the hits and ignoring the misses is called confirmation bias.

That's what the information we have available to us, tells us.

You say you know a guy whose prayer was answered. I know a guy whose prayer wasn't answered. At any given moment somewhere in the world is some starving mother praying for God to feed her kids, and her prayers will go unanswered and that child will die. Meanwhile, there's a guy somewhere else claiming that god answered his prayer to help him sell a typewriter or to help his team win the Super Bowl.

That's basically the same as making a coin toss, my friend.



So you believe that god answers prayers because .... faith ... ?

So once again you've demonstrated that faith is unjustified belief, and not a reliable pathway to truth.

That kind of faith is just wishful thinking /
self deception relabelled so that it becomes a
comforting virtue.

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh goodness….Did I not say, it’s a “Heavenly kingdom”?

You’ve misconstrued what I said.

I never once said, or indicated, that Jesus was coming back to earth.

Yes, I know that JWs believe that Jesus is going to 'rule' over Earth from Heaven.
However there is nothing in the Bible that supports that belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

What Jesus Said About Satan

Jesus said a good deal about Satan.​

He called him:

That does not mean that Jesus believed that Satan was a real entity that exists external to the self, even though it sounds that way.
Baha'u'llah also said things about Satan, referring to him as the Evil One.

“How high the reward of him that hath not deprived himself of so great a bounty, nor failed to recognize the beauty of his Best-Beloved in this, His new attire. Watch over yourselves, for the Evil One is lying in wait, ready to entrap you. Gird yourselves against his wicked devices, and, led by the light of the name of the All-Seeing God, make your escape from the darkness that surroundeth you. Let your vision be world-embracing, rather than confined to your own self. The Evil One is he that hindereth the rise and obstructeth the spiritual progress of the children of men.”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 94​

The Evil One is our selfish desire. That is what Satan symbolizes.

“Say: O people! The Lamp of God is burning; take heed, lest the fierce winds of your disobedience extinguish its light. Now is the time to arise and magnify the Lord, your God. Strive not after bodily comforts, and keep your heart pure and stainless. The Evil One is lying in wait, ready to entrap you. Gird yourselves against his wicked devices, and, led by the light of the name of the one true God, deliver yourselves from the darkness that surroundeth you. Center your thoughts in the Well-Beloved, rather than in your own selves.”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 167-168​