Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That is news to me. Then why do Christians living today believe it is literally true?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
In the US at least a lot of it has to do with what eventually became the Seventh Day Adventists. But it began even before that. It may have first arose due to the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Church used to interpret the Bible for everyone. Ownership of the Bible was limited to the clergy. The Reformation and the printing press allowed for widespread ownership of Bibles and we may have the first case of "I did my own research" there.
How biblical literalism took root | Stephen Tomkins
Stephen Tomkins: The Bible doesn't state that it should be read literally – yet an all-or-nothing approach is the core of many Christians' faith
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
QM you say. You need to read more comments from... scientists. www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You are not in a position to make such a debate. And that article is far far beyond your level of understanding You still do not even understand the most basic of sciences. Let's work on those first, okay?
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
I only pointed out what you did, which was have a discussion with yourself. If you do want a discussion with me, you do have to let me respond before you continue the discussion. This shouldn't be a point of controversy.
You're doing it again...
I'm not here to prove you wrong. I'm not here to overwhelm what you believe, or to convince you of things that you have concluded against. All I have to offer here are the experiences, all my own, that compel me to assert that there is a God, etc. And those are not wanted by you. So there's your answer on the question of several posts ago: I have nothing to offer. Perhaps later you'll want the "anecdotal" stuff? I don't know.
But I'm happy to address your more general questions, still from my own experience.
The method? I start with what others have claimed. People I know and trust. Imperfect people whose lives appear to me to have been guided and influenced and interceded in and improved by the God they claim knowledge of. I include in the process the witnesses offered by others I haven't ever known, but who witnessed similarly. I include the witnesses of those who claim particular access to God; to these I give both additional weight and scrutiny. I include logic and reasoning, probing the world I see with my own eyes, the world understood by collective humanity, by scientists, doctors, thinkers, etc., watching always for either confirmation that what is being witnessed manifests as claimed, or not. Most importantly, I test the claims of God, himself, first as conveyed to me through those witnessing of him, and then as conveyed directly by him to me. And through the process I find cause to believe—and to continue to believe—or not. I find truth, or not. I find light, or not. God reveals himself to me, or not.
That's a distillation of the process, of course. But it's a good summary. It involves both confirmation and "ruling out." It involves both errors in judgment and moments of genuine inspiration. It is labor. It is not "easy," though I would offer that it is simple.
Again, part of the answer is that, because the process includes both confirmation and ruling out, the learning and understanding and maturity and experience and experiences of the process collect and grow until they obviate coincidence. But the other part is that of relationships. The closer you grow to a person, the easier it is to discern that person's workings and sayings, as opposed to those of others.
If someone were to tell me, for example, that a string of expletives were overheard coming from a female voice in the next room, I do not need any additional information in order to definitively rule out my wife as the source. How? Without any other information of any kind, how do I know it was not her? Because I know her. I know her temperament; I know her comportment; I know her language; I know her in moments of calm and in moments of immense stress and everything in between. I know that in 27 years of knowing her she has never uttered an expletive, regardless of the situation. I know her.
It is the same with ruling out God's workings and sayings, as opposed to those of others, or self. As one grows in acquaintance with and knowledge of God, his workings and sayings become easier to discern amongst all that is going on. This includes the ability to discern between his voice and one's own.
Again, it is not easy. It does require effort. Trial and error. Determination. Humility. Curiosity, even (sincerely motivated, to be sure). Every faculty that one would bring to bear to discover any other worthwhile thing. But neither is it complicated. "Ask and ye shall receive" is the truth. "Ask amiss" and "receive not" is also the truth. The process, then, is learning what to ask, and how to ask—and of course what not to ask, and how not to ask. One learns as one goes along. Or one abandons effort (the reasons don't matter in the end) and does not learn.
Which brings me back to the beginning—I start with what others have claimed. People I know and trust. People whose lives appear...
How about we do one thing at a time? If we can get far enough down the road with the first question, we'll have plenty of time to explore this one.
Last edited:
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
This is directed to the question as to is there a God or is there not a God? Scientists examine what they want to, including that which they can't see (such as gravity). And they make statements about how it may have come about. But they aren't sure and perhaps will never find out. They also argue amongst themselves, as we see here -- www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/
Isaiah 40:28 - And now, haven't you known? Haven't you heard? The everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the farthest parts of the earth, doesn't faint. He isn't weary. His understanding is unsearchable.
Ostronomos
Well-Known Member
There are limits to the extent in which God can affect the material world.Is that supposed to be a response? Your Bible says? Yes, every religion sys there will be people who don't buy it because they know they are writing a fabricated story. That is non-sequitur.
This however, is. It's also incorrect. Your position has been shown evidence against it.
1) Mystical experiences happen to people in all religions and cults. One happened to Sam Harris, atheist writer and neuroscientist when he studies Hinduism and meditation.
So the religion the person is in will be the position they relate the experience with.
2) Studies actually have been done and I can show you evidence. It's ironic you ask for evidence when you hold a belief that literally has zero evidence.
Out of body experiences and their neural basis
The out-of body experience: precipitating factors and neural correlates
The reviewed data suggest that OBEs are due to functional disintegration of lower-level multisensory processing and abnormal higher-level self-processing at the temporo-parietal junction. We argue that the experimental investigation of the interactions between these multisensory and cognitive mechanisms in OBEs and related illusions in combination with neuroimaging and behavioral techniques might further our understanding of the central mechanisms of corporal awareness and self-consciousness much as previous research about the neural bases of complex body part illusions such as phantom limbs has done.
The out-of body experience: precipitating factors and neural correlates - PubMed
Out-of-body experiences (OBEs) are defined as experiences in which a person seems to be awake and sees his body and the world from a location outside his physical body. More precisely, they can be defined by the presence of the following three phenomenological characteristics: (i) disembodiment...pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Mystical experiences also fall into this type of analysis.
Classic Hallucinogens and Mystical Experiences: Phenomenology and Neural Correlates
Classic Hallucinogens and Mystical Experiences: Phenomenology and Neural Correlates
This chapter begins with a brief review of descriptions and definitions of mystical-type experiences and the historical connection between classic hallucinogens and mystical experiences. The chapter then explores the empirical literature on experiences ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Controlled laboratory studies show that under double-blind conditions that provide significant controls for expectancy bias, psilocybin can occasion complete mystical experiences in the majority of people studied. These effects are dose-dependent, specific to psilocybin compared to placebo or a psychoactive control substance, and have enduring impact on the moods, attitudes, and behaviors of participants as assessed by self-report of participants and ratings by community observers.
Definitely a red herring. Science doesn't know everything, therefore God. Hilarious. And red. And a herring.
The more science learns doesn't mean it's going to find Lord Krishna is real. Or any typical Near Eastern deity. Or any deity.
Now your link. That was predictable. So a biochemist reads Acts and finds he was "sure this was nothing anyone made up". A biochemist.
Yet EVERY historical scholar in the field who is an expert at literary analysis, intertextuality and so on says Acts is the most fictive and borrows the most from literary models and works of anything.
The Mystery of Acts: Unraveling Its Story
by Richard I. Pervo
This is Pervo's amazing, clear, and unsullied conclusion to his long and magnificent scholarship on Acts. Pervo's conclusion is stunning because it is won by impeccable scholarship and thorough consideration of the traditional views of Luke as historian. It changes the picture of Christian beginnings, and should change the minds of New Testament scholars. --Burton Mack, Professor of Religion and Early Christianity, emeritus Claremont Graduate University
Pervo writes with verve and has a commanding knowledge of the literature on Acts, and his assessment of the theological intent of Acts is informative. --The Bible Today
Pervo's thesis is simple: Acts is beautiful literature, but it is not a historically accurate or reliable book. In the conclusion of the book he states, "...Acts is not a reliable history of Christian origins. One important point is that it does not attempt to be. Another is that the literary techniques are too artistic. The use of cycles, parallels, repetitions, melodramatic characterization, stereotyped scene construction, inventing or presenting stories that replicate biblical narrative, unbalanced narrative with evident symbolic import, and a balanced structure. History cannot be so symmetrical"
"Although it is implied in the preface of the book of Acts that it is supposed to be some kind of historical account, this couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, Acts has been thoroughly discredited as nothing more than a work of apologetic historical fiction, and the scholarship of Richard Pervo conclusively demonstrates this to be the case.
All of the other sources that we can discern within Acts are literary sources, not historical ones. Included in these literary sources is what may possibly have been a (now-lost) hagiographical fabrication, and basically a rewrite of the Elijah-Elisha narrative in some of the Old Testament (OT) texts of Kings, although placing Paul and Jesus in the main roles instead, which obviously would have been a literary source of historical fiction (not any kind of historical account).
The scholar Thomas Brodie has argued that this evident reworking of the Kings narrative starts in Luke’s Gospel and continues on until Acts chapter 15
As an example, the scholar Dennis MacDonald has shown that Luke also reworked fictional tales written by Homer, replacing the characters and some of the outcomes as needed to suit his literary purposes.
Overall, Acts just shares far too many features with popular adventure novels that were written during the same period, in order to lend it any trust as history. Here’s an overview of those features:
1) They all promote a particular god or religion.
2) They are all travel narratives.
3) They all involve miraculous or amazing events.
4) They all include encounters with fabulous or exotic people.
5) They often incorporate a theme of chaste couples that are separated and then reunited.
6) They all feature exciting narratives of captivities and escapes.
7) They often include themes of persecution.
8) They often include episodes involving excited crowds.
9) They often involve divine rescues from danger.
10) They often have divine revelations which are integral to the plot
The Book of Acts as Historical Fiction
Previously, I wrote a series of posts that mentioned several elements from Richard Carrier’s historical/literary analysis of the Gospels in the New Testament (showing that they are not histor…lagevondissen.wordpress.com
There are many papers and books by historians, the consensus is Acts is historical fiction.
Then explain why it makes sense? Nothing in reality, just a "being"?????? Literally the beginning of all reality is a fully functional, conscious, entity. That is more absurd than infinite regress.
This cannot get you to Zeus, Krishna or Yahweh. But I don't see a convincing argument for a deism.
It isn't in question that people can work together. The question is can you make any sense out of the idea.
No, beliefs based on evidence.
Are you actually going to suggest that these 10,000 children who die from starvation are not victims?
The victims mentality is buying into a narrative about life after death, with no evidence, clearly syncretic from older religions, also made up, and blocking out clear evidence it isn't true because you already put blocks up and will not see evidence against it and will employ irrational apologetics to defend it.
But now I'm curious, every time someone points out a tragic case of immense human suffering do you tell them they have the victim mentality?
This is a theological argument about the problem of evil and suffering which goes way back. The answer is not to tell your opponent they have a "victim mentality", that much is for sure.
Please demonstrate this isn't a perfect example of natural probabilities playing out because nature is not conscious and nothing watching over life is nor can it help out. If it could and it isn't then it's evil. That is the question, not am I having a "mentality"?
Who I'm helping or not doesn't advance this argument forward or backward in any way.
It's weird that you are even asking me and you believe in a theistic God? You can ask your God to fix it and feel like you did something maybe?
I didn't see anything in the UN literature about praying to Yahweh for help.
But you can donate to the The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) which is here:
What I sent them is a personal matter and not part of the discussion.
Fight Hunger And Save Lives With Your Donation
The world is facing an unprecedented food crisis. Your gift could be the difference between a child going to bed hungry or eating a nutritious meal. The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) does whatever it takes to deliver lifesaving food to children and families most in need, wherever...secure.wfpusa.org
The real universe contains all and only that which exists. Anything real that could affect it would be inside reality, not outside.
This is one of many logical arguments for God.
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
Not searchable through the means scientists employ to address questions of the natural world, anyway.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
We will never know everything God knows. Ever.Not searchable through the means scientists employ to address questions of the natural world, anyway.
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
That idea seems to far exceed what I feel like is being discussed, generally so I'm letting it go, for my part.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That sounds a lot more like a logical argument against God.
Ostronomos
Well-Known Member
This is a misinterpretation.
The observer is essential in creating the necessary conditions for God to "pop into existence" (i.e. enter the simulation) from outside.
It is really a supernatural thing that defies explanation.
The closest I can come to uncovering this uniquely supernatural phenomenon is to call it a "self-generative reality".
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yeah, in other words just handwaving. It is not a logical argument at all.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
All I can say after reading this, is that you didn't read through my post where I demonstrated that I do have evidence that seeds turn into plants. While here you claim that I have none whatsoever. After I took all that time explaining exactly how, what, where and why I have evidence and how that differs from religious faith, as it's been presented to me.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Ok that's good.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
It doesn't matter if it "makes sense to you" It's still an equivocation fallacy, regardless.
If you want to hang your hat on fallacious arguments, have at it, I guess.
Some of us are more concerned about being rational.
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
No, I did read your post—and understood it. I understand that you plant a seed because you have cause to believe it will turn into a plant—the act of planting the seed is informed by past experience. That I understand. What I said, in response, was that your act of planting a seed is an act of faith because you have no evidence of the anticipated plant when you place the seed in the soil. And you don't.All I can say after reading this, is that you didn't read through my post where I demonstrated that I do have evidence that seeds turn into plants. While here you claim that I have none whatsoever. After I took all that time explaining exactly how, what, where and why I have evidence and how that differs from religious faith, as it's been presented to me.
And on that basis I remain firm that the idea is false that there is one kind of faith for religious contexts and another for other contexts. Faith is what it is, and is invoked when it is invoked, regardless of context.
And all of this because you claimed that you had no use for faith, etc.
That is a summary of our path to this point.
Additionally, as before, I assert that what you are talking about is "blind faith," which is not faith at all, but merely "uninformed belief." IE, you are strawmanning faith and don't realize it.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
This was in response to, "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."
Notice how I pointed out your assertion, which was, "there is a principal of complexity of design needing a designer" and then went on to expound upon that?
All you're doing is calling something "designed' so that you can claim there is a designer, which is, as I said, just an attempt to smuggle in the very thing you need to be demonstrating. And this conversation began when you claimed that complex things require designers.
I read it. It was not compelling. Why do we care what some random dude thinks about DNA? Especially when his argument appears (as you've presented it) to just be a fallacious argument from incredulity?
You sure did. You claimed some, "principal of complexity of design needing a designer."
The molecules are not "communicating" in the way that humans communicate via language. Several posters have explained this, at this point.
I'm addressing your words directly.
I didn't say anything about science here. In this context, I'm talking about using reason and rationality.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Cool. Can you show me this living being? Can you demonstrate it makes decisions?
We're talking about confirmation bias here. Specifically, counting what you consider the "hits" of prayers being answered, while ignoring the "misses" and then declaring that god answers prayers.
Yep. Can you show me a "living being behind it?"
We don't have an intelligent message from outer space.
That's exactly what it is: confirmation bias. It's one of the many errors in thinking humans tend to make.
I'm the one who just pointed them out.
This was in response to, "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."
Your response was to deflect from the question.
I make no presumptions that scientific studies "have to be correct." I know how the scientific method works, I've studied it, and I know that it was designed to remove as much human error and bias as possible. I know that scientists have to show their work and demonstrate their claims and publish their work to be scrutinized, criticized, tested, replicated, etc. by other scientists. You have nothing like this for your claims, and at this point it appears that all you have are logical fallacies.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
What Biblical evidence??