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

[Truthseeker]

When you say, “the Heavenly King of God’s Kingdom,” just where are you getting that phrase?

From the Bible, right?
Of course. (I know of no other religious writings that use that phrase.)

So I use only the Bible (and publications based solely on the Bible) to explain that Kingdom, and it’s King.

It only mentions Jesus, as that King… who will eventually turn the rulership over to His Father & God, who is our Father & God. - 1 Corinthians 15:27,28.

Have a good day, my cousin.

It would be good to entertain the possibility that the Bible doesn't contain all divine knowledge. I appreciate the good wishes.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You know, the origin of your religion was sometime after the "Great Disappointment" of 1844.

Oh yeah, I’m aware of the Millerite movement.

It’s interesting what Daniel 12 says about “in the Final part of the days” how “true knowledge” would “become abundant.”


That tells us that what was understood as spiritual knowledge prior to the last days, wouldn’t necessarily be “true knowledge.”

All kinds of teachings developed within Christendom during the foretold ‘Apostasy’.

“Clouds”, as in “coming with the clouds,” refers to things occurring that human eyes can’t see; just as clouds, in reality, obscure our vision.

Goodnight.

 

[Brian2]

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 never said that complexity is the hallmark of good design.

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

Antony Flew is probably in the part of the discussion I had with @ppp and which you did not read. I brought him up then to show someone who believed in God because of the genetic code and he said that it was too complex to have been the result of chance.

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.

I don't think I have claimed anything about complexity. What I say is that the whole concept of a code that allows communication between molecules, and the idea of vast amounts of information stores in the genes and used via this communication suggests an intelligence behind it.
You should address what I have said and not what you think I have said. You have not addressed it.

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.

Ofcourse science does not do that. I just go beyond the science and am saying that it suggests and intelligent designer behind it, and I would think that whether science one day found what they think might be a naturalistic was that it evolved or not.

 

[Brian2]

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.

I see God as a living being who makes decisions and does not just give me whatever I ask for.
You seem to see prayer as something like a superstition that has no living being behind it.
An intelligent message from outer space is confirmation for the scientists who are looking for life and prayer answered in the positive confirms a God for me.
I guess you can call it confirmation bias if you want to but I would suggest that means that you don't know what confirmation bias means, because I don't ignore it when God does not give me what I ask for.

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.

Maybe you have confirmation bias and only see the negative answers and ignore the positive answers.

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.

You are presuming that your scientific studies have to be correct in what you think they show.

 

[Brian2]

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."

This isn't a response to my question.

I go where the evidence I see points. It points to a living God who makes decisions and not to a superstition that science can test with any reliability.

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.

As I said above.
Why don't you answer my genetic code showing intelligence?

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.

Well yes I know you ignore the Biblical evidence and go with the best science can do while presuming that God is not a living being who makes decisions.

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.

Yes I guess if you do not believe in a God then your hopes would have nothing to do with a God existing. We all have hopes like that and I have hopes related to the promises of my God.

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."

That is a promise of God. God also says that nobody will be left in the grave without being resurrected and judges.

 

[Kenny]

I disagree that it is an equivocation fallacy. I have not changed the meaning of the word or concept, relative to the posts I have made in this thread. My understanding of the concept has been consistent and I have responded consistently.

In your opinion, faith is "unjustified belief." That is fine. I'm not here to argue with your opinion. If you'll look objectively at the examples I provided, however, I believe that you'd have to agree that the beliefs being acted upon are not unjustified, but justified. I invite you to look again and follow the logic there; up to you though.

I've stated this before... but some people don't want to agree to this simple truth because it would challenge their positions

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've stated this before... but some people don't want to agree to this simple truth because it would challenge their positions

Or, and this is far more likely, you are both making the same error.

 

[Kenny]

Or, and this is far more likely, you are both making the same error.

I think it is more like a flat-earth stance by you and others... even when we have proven it otherwise.

 

[Brian2]

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).

Yes I usually don't need to bring god into it when I'm working out how something might work. So?

Yep, it does.

Believing that God did it is answering a big question, but science wants to go further of course.

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.

You seem to be blind to the fact that there is evidence for the Bible God. Is it because you choose to be blind to that and to believe what skeptical scholars say about the Bible.

 

[Kathryn]

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." CS Lewis

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think it is more like a flat-earth stance by you and others... even when we have proven it otherwise.

You know that it is the other way around. Why pretend?

 

[Kenny]

You know that it is the other way around. Why pretend?

This seems to be an example of a Flat-earther -- in full display! IMHO

 

[ppp]

This seems to be an example of a Flat-earther -- in full display! IMHO

In what way? Or are you just being snide?

 

[Kenny]

In what way? Or are you just being snide?

Only directed to him and his remarks

 

[Subduction Zone]

This seems to be an example of a Flat-earther -- in full display! IMHO

No, you are just projecting and breaking the Ninth Commandment again. If you can be honest I can explain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In what way? Or are you just being snide?

He hates the fact that his claims have been endlessly refuted by me.

 

[ppp]

Only directed to him and his remarks

So, both snide and personal.

 

[Kenny]

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." CS Lewis

A beautiful quote... thank you!

 

[Kenny]

So, both snide and personal.

LOL... not really personal - just factual. Then you have to figure out who is the hen that laid the egg.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A beautiful quote... thank you!

But a statement of faith and not a rational thought.

You seem to resent the fact that your beliefs are not rational. Faith is the opposite of rational thought. What you do not appreciate is that the fact that it is irrational does not necessarily mean that those beliefs are worthless.