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

[Trailblazer]

Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence. Otherwise they'd give the evidence. Since anything can be believed on faith, then faith cannot be a useful pathway to truth. Faith is unjustified belief.

faith

• complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
• strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

faith means - Google Search

Faith is not an excuse people give for not having evidence. Faith is what people have to have in order to believe in God, since there is no proof that God exists.

Faith is not unjustified belief if there is evidence that backs up the belief.

There is no proof that proves that God exists, but that doesn't mean there is no evidence that indicates that God exists. For example, you might not consider the Bible to be evidence for Jesus or God, but it is evidence. The fact that it is circular reasoning does not change the fact that it is evidence, since it indicates (not proves) that God exists.

Evidence is not the same as proof. Evidence indicates that a belief is true. Proof proves that something is true, establishing it as a fact.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

There are many kinds of evidence, and not all evidence is verifiable. Verifiable evidence is proof because it establishes something as a fact.

Fact: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

there is no such thing as "the burden of proof" regarding theism.

There is if you want to be believed and are dealing with a mind prepared to recognize a compelling argument and willing to be convinced by one.

"Proof" is an internal decision based on subjective personal criteria and assessment. What stands as "proof" for one person is not going to be logically transferable to another.

No, there is a method and standards for determining these things. If one doesn't know them, then he can't play. He can only make claims that he cannot justify, and the critical thinker will be unconvinced by them.

There are no 'objective' means by which any human could verify the nature or existence of a being or phenomenon that transcends our own reality. And thus it would be illogical to demand that any human do so.

What's illogical is believing such things, not rejecting such beliefs for their lack. You keep appealing to have these kinds of ideas accepted by critical thinkers coming from "their own reality," but that's not going to happen ever.

Anyone can make any theistic claims they like, because no one can prove or disprove them. Which is why the whole "burden of proof" argument is a red herring

Which is why the claims should be rejected. Disproof isn't needed to reject insufficiently evidenced claims.

There are no theistic claims that are anything more that a personal theory.

What you call a personal theory I call a reverie or fiction of imagination, and why no such ideas should be believed by critical thinkers.

You're jousting a windmills if you're foolish enough to take such claims as anything more than a personal theory.

Tilting at windmills is what the insane do - people with fantasies that they believe are fact. It's the very model of delusion. Skeptics are not expecting evidence. They know the believer cannot justify his claims. He's telling you why he rejects them.

this is just a silly red herring used to keep yourself in an imaginary "judge's seat".

We ARE in the judges seat. We all are, even you. You do plenty of judging here. That's what brains do, and some learn to do it better than others.

by "support" we simply mean that one agrees to share the reasoning for their personal theory along with their theory.

Not good enough.

Perhaps you are a bit too intent on protecting your own theories to appreciate these alternative theories of others?

You've got it backwards. It's the believer who get emotional and defensive, who says "You can't judge me," "You're just tilting at windmills," and "My fanciful 'theories' are as good as your rigorous thinking and if you challenge them, then you're out of line." THAT'S turf defending. The critical thinker doesn't need to protect his turf. Nobody threatens it. And there is nothing to appreciate about faith-based thought. Not a single such idea is useful, and many are harmful. We've got a few believers here that are agitated by these discussions - something you don't see much of on the other side of the thought aisle.

 

[ppp]

There is if you want to be believed and are dealing with a mind prepared to recognize a compelling argument and willing to be convinced by one.

No, there is a method and standards for determining these things. If one doesn't know them, then he can't play. He can only make claims that he cannot justify, and the critical thinker will be unconvinced by them.

What's illogical is believing such things, not rejecting such beliefs for their lack. You keep appealing to have these kinds of ideas accepted by critical thinkers coming from "their own reality," but that's not going to happen ever.

Which is why the claims should be rejected. Disproof isn't needed to reject insufficiently evidenced claims.

What you call a personal theory I call a reverie or fiction of imagination, and why no such ideas should be believed by critical thinkers.

Tilting at windmills is what the insane do - people with fantasies that they believe are fact. It's the very model of delusion. Skeptics are not expecting evidence. They know the believer cannot justify his claims. He's telling you why he rejects them.

We ARE in the judges seat. We all are, even you. You do plenty of judging here. That's what brains do, and some learn to do it better than others.

Not good enough.

You've got it backwards. It's the believer who get emotional and defensive, who says "You can't judge me," "You're just tilting at windmills," and "My fanciful 'theories' are as good as your rigorous thinking and if you challenge them, then you're out of line." THAT'S turf defending. The critical thinker doesn't need to protect his turf. Nobody threatens it. And there is nothing to appreciate about faith-based thought. Not a single such idea is useful, and many are harmful. We've got a few believers here that are agitated by these discussions - something you don't see much of on the other side of the thought aisle.

Hell, yes.

 

[Brian2]

My opinion about the origins of life is not faith based. It includes no unjustified belief. Yours does. If you were to stop where I do and say that life might have been intelligently designed, you would have made no leap of faith. When you went further and decided that a god was involved, that's when you took a leap of faith and we parted ways.

Why would you say that life could have been intelligently designed if you say there is no evidence for that or that suggests that?
That would be like you saying that the flying spaghetti monster might exist.

As far as we know, there is nothing about life that requires that the first life came from previous life including the fact that we haven't witnessed or reproduced abiogenesis yet.

In fact, that's what you believe, isn't it? Do you consider your god living? If so, then you believe that that god is life that didn't come from other life. If you consider disembodied mind not alive, then the life it created is life that came from non-life according to YOU, right? Do you find fault with that comment? If so, which part, and what makes it wrong in your estimation?

I do consider a disembodied mind to be alive. We do know that the first life on earth began and from what we know about life these days that means that the first earth life came from other life.
This other life also would have come from previously existing life if it had a beginning.
You seem to be arguing for a special pleading.

They've been shown to be untrue, which is what falsified means.

For a start that would depend on how you want to interpret them.

What believers believe is not relevant to the claim that the story has been falsified by science. Your problem appears to be with the use of the word falsify. Believers avoid words like that - like error and untrue - when describing their scriptures even when those are the very words that they would use to describe the creation stories of other traditions. They assume that the Vikings, for example, just made up the story about Odin and his brothers creating the world - their best guess of what happened, but a guess and scientifically falsified. It never happened.

I'm imagining that you wouldn't object to reading that any more than I do, because you likely consider their religions as false as are their gods. But the faithful NEVER say that about the god of Abraham and his scriptures. They say allegory or metaphor instead. It sounds nicer than wrong. The difference is that they still believe that their story and their story alone came from a god and therefore cannot be wrong.

That's what you're doing here, and that fine with me. I understand why. But I don't have to invoke euphemisms. The claim that God created the first two people and put them in a garden, where their disobedience led to the fall of man and need for salvation and the crucifixion of Christ has been falsified. Every human being has had two human parents so far, although that may not necessary be true in the future. You don't like that word, so you say that it hasn't been falsified, but that's exactly what that word means. If the weatherman predicts clear and sunny and it rains, we don't call that allegory. We call that error. We say that his prediction was falsified. Unless, of course, the forecast is in the Bible. Then the believer needs to find a different word. That's when he begins retranslating words, as when he says that a day of creation was not a literal day, because saying that the story was wrong is just not possible for such people.

Are you saying that there are no metaphors or allegories in the Bible?
How do you know that every human being has had 2 human parents?

 

[Brian2]

That's got nothing to do with this story, imo.
But yes, the story told in the Bible is that of a global flood. Obviously so.

With a global flood the languages of the whole earth were messed up at the Tower of Babel, but with a local flood the languages of the people of that land only were messed up and they people spread out away from each other.

This was in response to, "The Tower of Babel story is bogus as well. We know how languages developed and evolved over time and that ain't how it happened."

I don't see a response to what I said here. And I'm not sure I understand the response you gave here.

Languages developed and evolved over time and continue to do so. The Tower of Babel is a made up just-so story that is demonstrably false.

We don't know how long it took to mess the languages up. It sounds like it was not a click of the fingers. They (probably angels) had to go and do it.

 

[Brian2]

Which brings us back 'round to my definition of faith that you keep wanting to quibble with, despite the fact that you keep demonstrating how accurate it truly is.

Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence. Otherwise they'd give the evidence. Since anything can be believed on faith, then faith cannot be a useful pathway to truth. Faith is unjustified belief.

Please notice that all I've been asking you for over and over again is evidence for the things you claim. You have repeatedly claimed that you can detect the undetectable, and when I ask you how, the answer you fall back on is always "faith."

You don't get to do that, and then blame other people for the fact that you can't back up your claims. That's on you and nobody else. It's not atheists fault that you can't make rational and reasonable arguments for the existence of the god you worship.

It's not my fault that you say that the evidence of people in the past is not evidence,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that you want to be able to detect and test spirit over a bunsen burner before it can be said to exist.

This was in response to, "Been there, done that. Got the same response as I would from something that didn't exist - nothing.
I still don't know what I'm supposed to be looking for, because you don't seem to know either."

Instead of telling me how to detect the undetectable or telling me what I should be looking for, again you appeal to useless old "faith."

It takes time for you to see the answer even though I keep saying it.
But that's OK, keep believing that science is the only way to find spirit if you want to. It sounds too much like unjustified faith to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

With a global flood the languages of the whole earth were messed up at the Tower of Babel, but with a local flood the languages of the people of that land only were messed up and they people spread out away from each other.

Hold it now. You earlier were arguing for a local flood. Now you are arguing for a global one. You do realize that it is very easy to refute a global flood, providing that God is not a liar.


And without a global flood we would expect to see a ton of languages. Do you need me to explain why?

We don't know how long it took to mess the languages up. It sounds like it was not a click of the fingers. They (probably angels) had to go and do it.

Yeah, fairy tales are often vague.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not my fault that you say that the evidence of people in the past is not evidence,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that you want to be able to detect and test spirit over a bunsen burner before it can be said to exist.

That sounds like a strawman. But if you are trying to use the Bible as evidence that is an error. The Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence.

It takes time for you to see the answer even though I keep saying it.
But that's OK, keep believing that science is the only way to find spirit if you want to. It sounds too much like unjustified faith to me.

It does not necessarily have to be science, but the burden of proof is always upon the person making the positive claim. How are you going to demonstrate that a spirit exists?

 

[SkepticThinker]

faith

• complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
• strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

faith means - Google Search

Faith is not an excuse people give for not having evidence. Faith is what people have to have in order to believe in God, since there is no proof that God exists.

Faith is not unjustified belief if there is evidence that backs up the belief.

There is no proof that proves that God exists, but that doesn't mean there is no evidence that indicates that God exists. For example, you might not consider the Bible to be evidence for Jesus or God, but it is evidence. The fact that it is circular reasoning does not change the fact that it is evidence, since it indicates (not proves) that God exists.

Evidence is not the same as proof. Evidence indicates that a belief is true. Proof proves that something is true, establishing it as a fact.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

There are many kinds of evidence, and not all evidence is verifiable. Verifiable evidence is proof because it establishes something as a fact.

Fact: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

It is in this case, as the poster has repeatedly demonstrated.

 

[SkepticThinker]

With a global flood the languages of the whole earth were messed up at the Tower of Babel, but with a local flood the languages of the people of that land only were messed up and they people spread out away from each other.

That's not how languages developed.

The story described in the Bible is one of a global flood. You've yet to adequately refute that, on a number of different levels.

Q&A: What is human language, when did it evolve and why should we care? - BMC Biology

Human language is unique among all forms of animal communication. It is unlikely that any other species, including our close genetic cousins the Neanderthals, ever had language, and so-called sign ‘language’ in Great Apes is nothing like human language. Language evolution shares many features...

bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com

We don't know how long it took to mess the languages up. It sounds like it was not a click of the fingers. They (probably angels) had to go and do it.

The Tower of Babel story is a just-so story not based in reality.

Look at this, now we're introducing angels into the equation for some reason where they definitely aren't warranted. You'd have to show they exist first, before you go anywhere with that. We might as well just claim leprechauns and we'd still be on the same footing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's not my fault that you say that the evidence of people in the past is not evidence,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that you want to be able to detect and test spirit over a bunsen burner before it can be said to exist.

To recap, this is how the conversation is going:

You: "Faith is the way. Atheists these days harden themselves to not only the supernatural and God, but to faith itself. Finding the undetectable God, who is a spirit, through science that cannot detect spirit is not the way to find the truth of God.
Which brings us back 'round to my definition of faith that you keep wanting to quibble with, despite the fact that you keep demonstrating how accurate it truly is."


Me: "Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence. Otherwise they'd give the evidence. Since anything can be believed on faith, then faith cannot be a useful pathway to truth. Faith is unjustified belief.

Please notice that all I've been asking you for over and over again is evidence for the things you claim. You have repeatedly claimed that you can detect the undetectable, and when I ask you how, the answer you fall back on is always "faith."

You don't get to do that, and then blame other people for the fact that you can't back up your claims. That's on you and nobody else. It's not atheists fault that you can't make rational and reasonable arguments for the existence of the god you worship."

I'm not sure how your response fits into our discussion.
I've never said that "evidence of people in the past is not evidence," whatever that means.
We're talking about your claims of detecting the undetectable here.

It takes time for you to see the answer even though I keep saying it.
But that's OK, keep believing that science is the only way to find spirit if you want to. It sounds too much like unjustified faith to me.

This just sounds like psychological projection. You're apparently trying to project your faith onto me in some attempt to squirm out of your claim about your ability to detect undetectable things. You tried this in your last post as well and I pointed it out to you, as you can see above.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hold it now. You earlier were arguing for a local flood. Now you are arguing for a global one. You do realize that it is very easy to refute a global flood, providing that God is not a liar.


And without a global flood we would expect to see a ton of languages. Do you need me to explain why?

Yeah, fairy tales are often vague.

Oh, good catch! I totally missed that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why would you say that life could have been intelligently designed if you say there is no evidence for that or that suggests that?

For the same reason that I would say that anything possible which would not be expected to leave evidence might have occurred. It is logically possible that the first life in the universe was intelligently designed. I have no observation, argument, experiment, or algorithm that can rule out that poss

That would be like you saying that the flying spaghetti monster might exist.

OK. Can you demonstrate that it doesn't? I can't.

I do consider a disembodied mind to be alive.

Yet you still say that all life comes from previous life. Isn't the god you believe exists a disembodied mind that has no origin or source?

We do know that the first life on earth began and from what we know about life these days that means that the first earth life came from other life.

No, it doesn't mean that. The first life in the universe probably arose from naturalistic abiogenesis. The first life on earth did as well, but not necessarily on earth. The case for Martian panspermia is intriguing.

You seem to be arguing for a special pleading.

I'd say that that describes your argument. According to you, all life comes from previous life unless that previous life is the god you believe in. That's what special leading looks like - unjustified double standard.

that would depend on how you want to interpret them.

I'm using the academic rules of reason applied to evidence - the same ones used in scientific peer review and courtroom trials.

Are you saying that there are no metaphors or allegories in the Bible?

No. I'm saying that the myths of Genesis are not metaphors or allegories, and I gave my reasons why. Did you care to try to rebut them and explain how and why you consider my argument fallacious? If not, shall we consider the matter resolved? I do whenever I make a plausible argument that is not rebutted. Why? Because sound arguments can't be falsified.

How do you know that every human being has had 2 human parents?

I understand biology.

Have you heard of the sorites paradox? It accounts for why we can say that at one time, there were no human beings, today there are billions, but at no time in between was there ever a first human born to a non-human mother and father.

 

[Brian2]

Hold it now. You earlier were arguing for a local flood. Now you are arguing for a global one. You do realize that it is very easy to refute a global flood, providing that God is not a liar.

What?

 

[Brian2]

That sounds like a strawman. But if you are trying to use the Bible as evidence that is an error. The Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence.

The Bible forms part of the claim and evidence.

It does not necessarily have to be science, but the burden of proof is always upon the person making the positive claim. How are you going to demonstrate that a spirit exists?

I can say how not to demonstrate that a spirit exists, through scientific research.
I claim that God has revealed Himself to me through faith and so all I can do is show you the way but cannot force you on to that way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What?

Really? You did not know that claiming that there was a worldwide flood means that one is claiming that God is a liar.

Think about it for a bit.

 

[Brian2]

That's not how languages developed.

The story described in the Bible is one of a global flood. You've yet to adequately refute that, on a number of different levels.

Q&A: What is human language, when did it evolve and why should we care? - BMC Biology

Human language is unique among all forms of animal communication. It is unlikely that any other species, including our close genetic cousins the Neanderthals, ever had language, and so-called sign ‘language’ in Great Apes is nothing like human language. Language evolution shares many features...

bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com

I have not refuted a global flood to your satisfaction. That is fine, I accept that I cannot please all the people all the time.

The Tower of Babel story is a just-so story not based in reality.

Look at this, now we're introducing angels into the equation for some reason where they definitely aren't warranted. You'd have to show they exist first, before you go anywhere with that. We might as well just claim leprechauns and we'd still be on the same footing.

The story does not mention Babel, that is just my presumption.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible forms part of the claim and evidence.



I can say how not to demonstrate that a spirit exists, through scientific research.
I claim that God has revealed Himself to me through faith and so all I can do is show you the way but cannot force you on to that way.

No wonder that you are so confused. No, the Bible is the claim. How can it be the evidence?

And no, you can't demonstrate that spirit exists.. You can try, and a good laugh will be had by all.

 

[Brian2]

To recap, this is how the conversation is going:

You: "Faith is the way. Atheists these days harden themselves to not only the supernatural and God, but to faith itself. Finding the undetectable God, who is a spirit, through science that cannot detect spirit is not the way to find the truth of God.
Which brings us back 'round to my definition of faith that you keep wanting to quibble with, despite the fact that you keep demonstrating how accurate it truly is."


Me: "Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence. Otherwise they'd give the evidence. Since anything can be believed on faith, then faith cannot be a useful pathway to truth. Faith is unjustified belief.

Please notice that all I've been asking you for over and over again is evidence for the things you claim. You have repeatedly claimed that you can detect the undetectable, and when I ask you how, the answer you fall back on is always "faith."

You don't get to do that, and then blame other people for the fact that you can't back up your claims. That's on you and nobody else. It's not atheists fault that you can't make rational and reasonable arguments for the existence of the god you worship."

I'm not sure how your response fits into our discussion.
I've never said that "evidence of people in the past is not evidence," whatever that means.
We're talking about your claims of detecting the undetectable here.

We are talking about different types of evidence here.
God can reveal Himself to us when we are open to that revelation.

This just sounds like psychological projection. You're apparently trying to project your faith onto me in some attempt to squirm out of your claim about your ability to detect undetectable things. You tried this in your last post as well and I pointed it out to you, as you can see above.

You have faith that science should be able to detect the undetectable if it exists and I say "Good luck with that".

 

[Brian2]

Really? You did not know that claiming that there was a worldwide flood means that one is claiming that God is a liar.

Think about it for a bit.

I said "What?" because you did not read or comprehend what I said. I was not claiming that there was a world wide flood.