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

[Audie]

The spontaneous remission theory doesn't explain how the tubes were removed. The simplest explanation is that the patient reported what actually happened.

Simplest is that it's a false report

 

[Audie]

It matters because any plausible explanation is better than none. Witnesses should be believed unless there is a reason to disbelieve them.

A story like that is reason not to believe

 

[Ebionite]

A story like that is reason not to believe

I don't care what you believe. What matters is what is true.

 

[Ebionite]

Simplest is that it's a false report

Problem with that is that the patient was known to someone who I've known for a number of years, and he didn't say anything to me to indicate that he was lying or delusional.

 

[Ebionite]

Fair enough.

Why is it you believe "GodDidIt" is a plausible

Nobody said "GodDidIt". The patient said that Jesus healed him.

 

[McBell]

Nobody said "GodDidIt". The patient said that Jesus healed him.

Ok then,

Why do you believe that "JesusDidIt" is plausible?

 

[Ebionite]

The simplest explanation is that it didn't happen.

That's the most stupid explanation because it rejects the available information without cause. By simplest, I mean the explanation that makes the minimum number of assumptions to explain the data.

 

[Audie]

I don't care what you believe. What matters is what is true.

Of course. And one truth is, those lacking
a functioning scam detector get suckered time after time.

 

[Ebionite]

Of course. And one truth is, those lacking
a functioning scam detector get suckered time after time.

Where is the scam?

 

[Audie]

Where is the scam?

I guess that's my point about being so easily taken in.
Broken b.s. detector.
Cant even see it when told about it.


And it fits in nicely with the human reluctance to ever
admit to being gulled. ( defrauded, hoodwinked, misled,
tricked, snooker etc )

 

[Brian2]

No, you didn't.
I'm the one who showed to you that your methodology of counting the hits and ignoring the misses is not proper methodology.

I said I did not do that.
Also I said that if the God one is praying to is real and makes decisions, you cannot treat it or prayer as a thing to be studied, like a rock.
Also prayer could depend on the one who is praying and how they do it and with what attitude etc and not be something like the Buddhist prayer wheels, where you just hit it and pray that way.
Too many variables which cannot be accounted for by science, but all you have to say is that you trust the science.

How so?

You can never say that there is no life somewhere else.

Obviously I do not think that.

But you do, right? So how are you determining how and when God answers prayers or ignores them? That's the point of this entire discussion.

I don't think God ignores my prayers and I should be thanking God in faith for whatever answer I get. If it is what I have requested I thank God in faith even though the answer may have just happened that way anyway.
So it is a matter of faith and believing Jesus is the Lord of my life.

Rather than evidence.

Thank you for finally admitting that faith is unjustified belief, and not a reliable pathway to truth. The very thing I've been saying all along.

I have been saying all along that my subjective justification is not the justification that you demand before you believe.
I hope I accept whatever God gives with thanksgiving, and trust that He has given it.
There are imo however, good reasons for the acceptance of faith even if they are not the high standards that you demand.

 

[Brian2]

Then why do you keep complaining about things that have no bearing on the existence or non-existence of pixies? Or gods.

How have I done that?

 

[Brian2]

You're still not getting it.
You need to show that Gods are required. Nobody needs to show that gods aren't required.

We both know that we can understand how things work with bringing in a God into it.
We should both know that being able to understand how things work with bringing in a God into it, does not mean that there is or was no God involved in the creation of those things so that they could and do work as they do.

It can tell us how it came to be.
But you are assuming there is a "who" involved.
And you ignored the point which is that your "explanation" doesn't provide any actual explanatory power.

You are assuming that science can tell us how things came to be when nobody was there to see how things came to be.
I don't ignore the point that my explanation doesn't provide any explanatory power. I'm not wanting to provide explanatory power.
I can however point out that your faith in science goes too far if you think that all their explanations have to be true.

Supposed prophecies that took thousands of years to come true and only after tweaking the "original" stories to make them fit?
That's not all that convincing to me. Are the prophecies of say, Nostradamus convincing to you? Why or why not?

How do you know original stories were tweaked?
Doesn't thousands of years show that whoever made the prophecy knew what they were doing over long periods of time and did not just say stuff like, the sun will come up tomorrow.
I imagine people think they see Nostradamus prophecies coming true. I have heard a couple of prophecies but nothing that has come true as far as I remember.

 

[Brian2]

Post #5660:

"Don't you think the principle of complexity of design needing a designer and the reasonableness of "any codes we have, needed a designer, here is another code, it probably needed a designer", should be established before we move on to where the designer came from IF all that is reasonable."

This is an assertion that there is a "principle of complexity of design needing a designer."

Post #5686:

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

I can see where you might think that I was saying that complexity of design show that a designer is needed initially instead of just chance, but I was not saying that originally, it was Antony Flew who was saying that for the genetic code since the alternative answers were chance or designer.
I was saying that the data in and used by the code showed a designer,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, simple or complex had nothing to do with it.
See post #5,582
However imo complexity of design does move the pointer away from chance and to a designer more in the sense that the initial creation of some things probably would not go very well or lead to a better chance of survival unless a whole system was set up and not just parts of it for no good reason.

Yep.

If I'm getting internet installed in my house and the guy comes and installs a cord that starts outside, wraps around my chimney, then the house, then comes down inside a window and weaves throughout my house up to my computer. That's probably going to be a pretty bad design, right? Because the cord is too long and goes outside the house so is exposed to the elements of nature so it will wear out more quickly and and cause all kinds of problems for me in the future.

Or, the guy comes to my house, installs a couple of feed of cable right beside my computer.

Which one sounds more efficient to you?

The second guy.

Why not?

Human design is the only design we actually have experience with.

Human design is purpose built for one thing from the beginning and God design through evolution manages to get there but takes some turns along the way, through a variety of types of the same design.
To compare the 2 and call God design through evolution inferior is just not looking at the bigger picture of what evolution does.
But I suppose your argument might work for young earth creationism.

So do you care if your beliefs are true, or not?

Yes

How so?

My argument is that I've never seen good convincing evidence for the existence of god(s), so I don't believe in god(s). I could be convinced that god(s) exist, with good evidence for god(s).

Which is just how logic works.

Please explain how that is an argument from incredulity.

We could also say - and I think this one would apply to you as well - I've never seen good convincing evidence for the existence of Thor, so I don't believe in Thor. I could be convinced that Thor exists with good evidence of Thor existing.

Do you think that is also an argument from increduilty?

So you say "Gods, that's unbelievable, I can't believe in gods without more evidence."
With that reasoning, the Thor one is from incredulity also initially.
If you say "Gods, I believe in them, let me see which gods might be real".
That might bring up other reasons why you might accept or reject Thor.

Logical fallacies seem a bit ridiculous at times. But someone has said they are logical fallacies so does that mean we all have to bow to that?

A code is a symbol that stands in place of a symbol.
The letters CAGT are symbols we created to represent the major components of DNA. Cytosine, adenine, guanine and thymine aren't codes, rather they are primary symbols that stand for real things and not for symbols.

OK, good. And from this site: The Structure and Function of DNA - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf.
The genetic information stored in an organism's DNA contains the instructions for all the proteins the organism will ever synthesize.

But it has so much more information than just that imo. That is the start.

I don't know what the origin of DNA is, but it appears to be natural.

I don't see the existence of the DNA molecule that is the problem, it is the whole idea that a molecule could carry and use information for the replication of a body and it's functions and what it intuitively know to do to survive etc.
This whole thing is very complex of course and awesome, but it is the storage and use of the information which is really amazing imo.
We do that in our head somehow, that is amazing also, and the chemical way, without a consciousness in the molecules is at least as amazing,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and how it does it and got this function in bodies is a mystery imo and would have needed a designer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can see where you might think that I was saying that complexity of design show that a designer is needed initially instead of just chance, but I was not saying that originally, it was Antony Flew who was saying that for the genetic code since the alternative answers were chance or designer.
I was saying that the data in and used by the code showed a designer,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, simple or complex had nothing to do with it.
See post #5,582
However imo complexity of design does move the pointer away from chance and to a designer more in the sense that the initial creation of some things probably would not go very well or lead to a better chance of survival unless a whole system was set up and not just parts of it for no good reason.



The second guy.



Human design is purpose built for one thing from the beginning and God design through evolution manages to get there but takes some turns along the way, through a variety of types of the same design.
To compare the 2 and call God design through evolution inferior is just not looking at the bigger picture of what evolution does.
But I suppose your argument might work for young earth creationism.



Yes



So you say "Gods, that's unbelievable, I can't believe in gods without more evidence."
With that reasoning, the Thor one is from incredulity also initially.
If you say "Gods, I believe in them, let me see which gods might be real".
That might bring up other reasons why you might accept or reject Thor.

Logical fallacies seem a bit ridiculous at times. But someone has said they are logical fallacies so does that mean we all have to bow to that?



OK, good. And from this site: The Structure and Function of DNA - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf.
The genetic information stored in an organism's DNA contains the instructions for all the proteins the organism will ever synthesize.

But it has so much more information than just that imo. That is the start.



I don't see the existence of the DNA molecule that is the problem, it is the whole idea that a molecule could carry and use information for the replication of a body and it's functions and what it intuitively know to do to survive etc.
This whole thing is very complex of course and awesome, but it is the storage and use of the information which is really amazing imo.
We do that in our head somehow, that is amazing also, and the chemical way, without a consciousness in the molecules is at least as amazing,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and how it does it and got this function in bodies is a mystery imo and would have needed a designer.

Okay, this is just one long argument from ignorance along with a reference to false authority fallacy thrown in.

Do you not see how others are not swayed by an irrational argument?

 

[stvdv]

So, theists, why do you believe?

Because I experience

Is it mainly because of your environment and geographical location?

No

There is no proof for god (right?)

God is beyond the mind, hence beyond Scientific Proof, as Science is below the mind

so what logically keeps you believing?

Continuing experiences

Or is logic not supposed to be a factor when it comes to faith?

In my case it's logic that strengthens my faith

Is it too jarring, the idea of leaving the comfort that religion and belief in a god brings?

Not to me, but my definition of God is different from your definition

I am curious about personal evaluations on why you believe. It can’t be because of logic, as there is no proof of god, right?

There is not even an agreed definition of God, hence impossible to figure it out Scientifically

 

[Audie]

Because I experience

No

God is beyond the mind, hence beyond Scientific Proof, as Science is below the mind

Continuing experiences

In my case it's logic that strengthens my faith

Not to me, but my definition of God is different from your definition

There is not even an agreed definition of God, hence impossible to figure it out Scientifically

I believe you just say things.

 

[ppp]

Then why do you keep complaining about things that have no bearing on the existence or non-existence of pixies? Or gods.

How have I done that?

Complexity has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of a pixie or a god.
Chemistry has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of a pixie or a god.
Biology has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of a pixie or a god.
Physics has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of a pixie or a god.
Name dropping has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of a pixie or a god.
Feelings have no bearing on the existence or non-existence of a pixie or a god.

Yet you keep trying to wangle, inveigle and finagle those things into support of your belief in the existence of your particular pixie or god. That is "how [you] have done that."

 

[Brian2]

Okay, this is just one long argument from ignorance along with a reference to false authority fallacy thrown in.

Do you not see how others are not swayed by an irrational argument?

I can see that you use a phrase like "argument from ignorance" with "false authority fallacy" thrown in, and you think that you have posted something rational and knowledgeable.
It sounds like an irrational logical fallacy post to me.

 

[Brian2]

Complexity has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of a pixie or a god.
Chemistry has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of a pixie or a god.
Biology has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of a pixie or a god.
Physics has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of a pixie or a god.
Name dropping has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of a pixie or a god.
Feelings have no bearing on the existence or non-existence of a pixie or a god.

Yet you keep trying to wangle, inveigle and finagle those things into support of your belief in the existence of your particular pixie or god. That is "how [you] have done that."

It is skeptics and atheists who have said that most of those things have a bearing on the existance or non-existence of pixies or gods.
So I reply to that and now it seems those things have no bearing on the existence of pixies or gods.
But that won't stop skeptics and atheists from using those things again against the existence of pixies or gods.