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

[Brian2]

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

The Bible has always been evidence for the Bible God.
But it is not evidence for the Bible God if you say that there is no God and are not open to the stories of people in history.

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

And I did not say that I can demonstrate that spirits exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God can reveal Himself to us when we are open to that revelation.

The same can be said about magical unicorns, Thor and your inner Thetan.

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

He said nothing remotely like that. It seems you are now resorting to dishonest tactics in an effort to avoid dealing with your own shortcomings.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Bible has always been evidence for the Bible God.

The bible is the claim of the bible god.
Just like the quran is the claim of allah.

The bible is no more evidence of god as claimed alien abductees are evidence of aliens or bigfoot spotters are evidence of bigfoot.

You might want to learn the difference between claims and evidence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The Bible forms part of the claim and evidence.

The claim and the evidence for it are never the same thing. They are different kinds of things. Evidence is what the senses present to the reasoning faculty. It's the sights, sounds, smells, etc. of conscious experience, which the mind compares with memory, and using reason, elicits inferences from it about what reality is like. Claims are ideas in symbolic (human, artificial, conventional) language that might or might not be supported empirically (through the external and bodily senses).

The Bible is just words in the form of ink on paper. It makes claims about reality - about things it alleges exist and things it alleges happened. It's not evidence about reality except that some people had those thoughts and eventually wrote them down. We can't even assume that the writers believed them themselves, but you believe them. That's faith. It skips the evidence of the senses part and goes directly from claim to belief.

The Bible has always been evidence for the Bible God.

The Bible is evidence that the Bible was written. If you want to confirm or disconfirm any of its claims, you need to put it down and go look at the world. In that way, we have determined that there never was a global flood but that there was a King David, for example.

I can say how not to demonstrate that a spirit exists, through scientific research.

If you can't produce evidence of spirits, you can't convince those who require evidence before belief that your claim is anything more than your imagination speaking. Think about that from the other side. I make a claim to you that contradicts your belief set, but can't show you anything that distinguishes my belief from my imagination. Your choices are to believe me by faith or reject my claim. That's precisely the face you present with claims about spirits. You offer others nothing to make them believe that you aren't just imagining that they exist.

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.

You've essentially restated what I just wrote. Are we in agreement on this then? You believe by faith and therefore have nothing to show others in support of your belief, which has no persuasive power with some? If that's your position, we're in accord here.

We are talking about different types of evidence here.

I think you're talking about what I would call evidence and intuition, but calling both evidence. You consider deeply held convictions evidence that they are correct. All evidence is via the senses. There are other sources of conscious experience than just the senses, like the imagination and the emotions, but they are only evidence about how our brains and minds work, not about what's true outside of them.

God can reveal Himself to us when we are open to that revelation.

I'd translate that to "We can believe in God when we are able to do so without experiencing one first." I would agree.

Where we seem to disagree is whether sincerely believed intuitions should be called evidence and whether they justify belief.

 

[Brian2]

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

Me neither.

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

I don't need to demonstrate that the spaghetti monster does not exist to say that it does not exist.

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?

I did say that a disembodied mind is alive imo and has no origin or source.

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.

That is the hypothesis that disagrees with what we know about where all other life has come from.

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.

I did say that if life on earth had a beginning it probably came from pre existing life, and that we know that life on earth had a beginning.
But we don't know that the previously existing life that the first life on earth or in the universe came from has had a beginning.
No beginning means there is no need for previously existing life.
You are comparing chalk and cheese.

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

What evidence? The evidence of the stories in the Bible?
That must be what you mean because the stories have not been shown to be wrong by any other way.
And I imagine the rules of reason applied to evidence, which you are talking about, are the ones that eliminate the stories as evidence from the beginning. iow the stories and characters have to be confirmed by independant evidence before being accepted.

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.

I also say that the stories are not metaphors or allegories. So there is no need to rebutt anything.

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.

I have not hears of the sorites paradox but understand the slowness of evolution and that parents are always the same kind as the offspring.
This of course means that you would be saying that a microbe is a human being, biologically.

 

[Brian2]

The same can be said about magical unicorns, Thor and your inner Thetan.

I see no reason to open myself to the existence of unicorns, Thor or my inner Thetan.

He said nothing remotely like that. It seems you are now resorting to dishonest tactics in an effort to avoid dealing with your own shortcomings.

What dishonest tactics? She can tell me if she does not think that science should be able to detect the undetectable if it exists.
But if whe does not think that then why expect me to offer a scientific way to detect the undetectable? Or is that dishonest also since she does not really expect me to offer a scientific way, she just wants to show there is no scientific answer and that as such there is no answer. Or is that dishonest also?
When I do offer an answer of "faith" that is unacceptable, a non answer however. So do I make up an answer that she might accept or just leave it at that, the truth? Faith is the way, and without that faith we will not accept the existence of God or spirit.

 

[Brian2]

The bible is the claim of the bible god.
Just like the quran is the claim of allah.

The Quran is evidence for the Quran God and for Muhammad.

The bible is no more evidence of god as claimed alien abductees are evidence of aliens or bigfoot spotters are evidence of bigfoot.

You might want to learn the difference between claims and evidence.

You might want to learn what the general definition of evidence is.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't need to demonstrate that the spaghetti monster does not exist to say that it does not exist.

I would, but I also don't need to say that it doesn't exist. I can say that I don't believe it exists because I have no supporting evidence that it does.

I did say that a disembodied mind is alive imo and has no origin or source.

I assume that you are referring to the god you believe created our world. You also said that all life comes from previous life. This is where the special pleading comes in. You want your god to be credited with creating other life, the existence of which you claim points to such a god as its source. You want that god to be considered an exception, but why would it be? If that god is life that didn't come from previous life, your thesis that this is necessary is immediately defeated. Nor does it help to reclassify disembodied mind as non-life, since any life it created would also be life from non-life.

That is the hypothesis that disagrees with what we know about where all other life has come from.

Abiogenesis is contradicted by nothing we know.

the stories and characters have to be confirmed by independant evidence before being accepted.

Yes. Being mentioned in the Bible is evidence that the Bible writers wrote those words, not that what they wrote was correct.

I also say that the stories are not metaphors or allegories. So there is no need to rebutt anything.

Regarding biblical myths, your choices are to believe that they are history, symbolic, or wrong guesses. There is no evidence of those stories and characters symbolize anything in reality. If you don't call them symbolic or speculation, then the ones contradicting you are the scientists.

I have not hears of the sorites paradox but understand the slowness of evolution and that parents are always the same kind as the offspring. This of course means that you would be saying that a microbe is a human being, biologically.

Maybe you should read about the sorites paradox before making a comment like that, which is, of course, incorrect. No, a microbe is not a human being. Over deep time, the one's offspring transformed into the other. There was no precise moment when this happened, no first human. Why? Because there is no precise definition of human that allows one to find a generation in which the ancestor didn't qualify as human but its offspring did. Human is what's known as an imprecise predicate for this reason.

Sorites is ancient Greek for heap or pile. How many grains must be collected to call them a heap? Which added grain makes a non-heap into a heap. There's no answer because heap is a vague predicate. There are many other examples of the kinds of gradual transitions, such as at what wavelength does red become orange? At what moment does night become day? After what fraction of his hair falling out does a man become bald? At what moment can we call facial growth a beard?

I see no reason to open myself to the existence of unicorns, Thor or my inner Thetan.

And lacking a sufficient reason, you don't believe in them, right? That's how the skeptic and critical thinker feels about *all* unsupported claims including claims about gods.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I see no reason to open myself to the existence of unicorns, Thor or my inner Thetan.

Great. Now consider that I feel the exact same way about your particular god, or indeed any god.

What dishonest tactics?

The strawman argument.

When I do offer an answer of "faith" that is unacceptable, a non answer however.

That is indeed a non-answer.
On "faith", you can believe literally anything. Including the existence of unicorns, Thor and your inner Thetan.

The reason for this is that "faith" is not a pathway to truth. It is mere gullibility. It is what you need to invoke to believe things that have no evidence.
What is the difference between your "faith" in the christian god and a muslim's "faith" in allah or a scientologist's "faith" in his inner thetan.
The answer is: nothing.

Faith is the way, and without that faith we will not accept the existence of God or spirit.

Or the existence of unicorns, thor, inner thetans, ghosts, allah, visjnoe, etc.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Quran is evidence for the Quran God and for Muhammad.

No. Claims aren't evidence of themselves.

You might want to learn what the general definition of evidence is.

I met The Ghost That Never Lies last night.
He told me that your religion is a lie.



Is this a claim that requires evidence, or is it evidence that your religion is a lie?

 

[Brian2]

The claim and the evidence for it are never the same thing. They are different kinds of things. Evidence is what the senses present to the reasoning faculty. It's the sights, sounds, smells, etc. of conscious experience, which the mind compares with memory, and using reason, elicits inferences from it about what reality is like. Claims are ideas in symbolic (human, artificial, conventional) language that might or might not be supported empirically (through the external and bodily senses).

The Bible is just words in the form of ink on paper. It makes claims about reality - about things it alleges exist and things it alleges happened. It's not evidence about reality except that some people had those thoughts and eventually wrote them down. We can't even assume that the writers believed them themselves, but you believe them. That's faith. It skips the evidence of the senses part and goes directly from claim to belief.

You also should learn what the general definition of evidence is.

The Bible is evidence that the Bible was written. If you want to confirm or disconfirm any of its claims, you need to put it down and go look at the world. In that way, we have determined that there never was a global flood but that there was a King David, for example.

Again you need to learn what the general definition for evidence is.

If you can't produce evidence of spirits, you can't convince those who require evidence before belief that your claim is anything more than your imagination speaking. Think about that from the other side. I make a claim to you that contradicts your belief set, but can't show you anything that distinguishes my belief from my imagination. Your choices are to believe me by faith or reject my claim. That's precisely the face you present with claims about spirits. You offer others nothing to make them believe that you aren't just imagining that they exist.

I offer what the Bible tells us about God and what He has done, and what it says about the experiences of people with that God.
You otoh reject that as evidence and try to say how parts of the Bible have been shown to be false, as if that is needed to show that mere claims are not evidence.
But you cannot show that the Bible is false so you go back to the mere claims,,,,,,,,,,,,,, claim, even though the Bible convinces people of it's authenticity all the time.
But of course it is not only the Bible which does that, it is God doing it with people who are open to believe in Him.

You've essentially restated what I just wrote. Are we in agreement on this then? You believe by faith and therefore have nothing to show others in support of your belief, which has no persuasive power with some? If that's your position, we're in accord here.

We aren't in accord as I have things to show others in support of my beliefs and some would believe them but probably not people who have decided that they need to have things that are falsifiable and who are likely to reject things spiritual by occam's razor.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I offer what the Bible tells us about God and what He has done, and what it says about the experiences of people with that God.
You otoh reject that as evidence and try to say how parts of the Bible have been shown to be false, as if that is needed to show that mere claims are not evidence.
But you cannot show that the Bible is false so you go back to the mere claims,,,,,,,,,,,,,, claim, even thought the Bible convinces people of it's authenticity all the time.
But of course it is not only the Bible which does that, it is God doing it with people who are open to believe in Him.

You could take all this, replace "bible" with "dianetics" and "god" with "inner thetan" and say the exact same thing about scientology.

But you, as per your own acknowledgement, are "not open" to "believe" in your inner Thetan.


Consider how none of this nonsense is convincing to you concerning scientology.
Why then would you expect your bible thumping to be convincing to us?
Why, in fact, is it convincing TO YOU?


Double standards....

We aren't in accord as I have things to show others in support of my beliefs

As does Tom Cruise. But that doesn't convince you either of his, and your own, inner Thetan, does it?

and some would believe them but probably not people who have decided that they need to have things that are falsifiable and who are likely to reject things because spiritual by occam's razor.

What's wrong with requiring some type of verifiable evidence for extra-ordinary claims before believing them?
Why don't you believe in your inner Thetan?
Why aren't you open to it?

You said you had no reason to?
What kind of reason would you require?

 

[Brian2]

Great. Now consider that I feel the exact same way about your particular god, or indeed any god.

I do, I know that.

The strawman argument.

Let her tell me what she thinks of it.
In the meantime is it a dishonest strawman argument when you only answer with "The strawman argument" and ignore the other things I said about it.

That is indeed a non-answer.
On "faith", you can believe literally anything. Including the existence of unicorns, Thor and your inner Thetan.

The reason for this is that "faith" is not a pathway to truth. It is mere gullibility. It is what you need to invoke to believe things that have no evidence.
What is the difference between your "faith" in the christian god and a muslim's "faith" in allah or a scientologist's "faith" in his inner thetan.
The answer is: nothing.

The answer would be the object of our faith. The nature of the faith might be the same however, a sincerely held belief.

Or the existence of unicorns, thor, inner thetans, ghosts, allah, visjnoe, etc.

True, and we will not have any world view without faith.
So faith is the way to all truth and errors.
But to someone who thinks they are different to other people and do not have faith because their beliefs and way is superior and does not need faith, ..................hmmm............. sounds like unjustified faith to me.

 

[Brian2]

No. Claims aren't evidence of themselves.

Is there any other evidence for the Quran than the Quran?

I met The Ghost That Never Lies last night.
He told me that your religion is a lie.



Is this a claim that requires evidence, or is it evidence that your religion is a lie?

If you believe that it was The Ghost that Never Lies, then that is a claim and is your evidence.

 

[Brian2]

You could take all this, replace "bible" with "dianetics" and "god" with "inner thetan" and say the exact same thing about scientology.

But you, as per your own acknowledgement, are "not open" to "believe" in your inner Thetan.


Consider how none of this nonsense is convincing to you concerning scientology.
Why then would you expect your bible thumping to be convincing to us?
Why, in fact, is it convincing TO YOU?


Double standards....

Come on, you know you love my "Bible thumping", it's the spice of life for you.

As does Tom Cruise. But that doesn't convince you either of his, and your own, inner Thetan, does it?

No it doesn't, and your atheist/skeptic thumping does not convince me of your beliefs or world view. If I was open to that then it might, and hearing enough good arguments for your worldview might open me up to that but I don't hear that and I don't even hear good arguments against my beliefs.

What's wrong with requiring some type of verifiable evidence for extra-ordinary claims before believing them?
Why don't you believe in your inner Thetan?
Why aren't you open to it?

You said you had no reason to?
What kind of reason would you require?

The Bible has verifiable evidence for those who are open to believe but those who are not open and use occam's razor manage to make stuff up about the Bible and believe that instead of what the Bible tells us. So they do not believe Biblical prophesies.

If I believed in my inner Theban then I guess that would be evidence that it is true for me. But I already have a faith and I usually don't believe things that contradict that faith.
I'm not sure what kind of reason I would require to believe in my inner Theban. I think I would have to have lost my faith in Jesus and be looking for something else for a start.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In the meantime is it a dishonest strawman argument when you only answer with "The strawman argument" and ignore the other things I said about it.

No. I was only referring to the part where you were putting words in @SkepticThinker 's mouth.

The answer would be the object of our faith. The nature of the faith might be the same however, a sincerely held belief.

Woosh. That's the sound of the point going over your head.
The point is about why something is believed, not what is being believed.
As I said in the very quote you are responding to: on faith, you can believe anything.
The point is about what this type of faith is, not about what you put faith in.

True, and we will not have any world view without faith.

False. I have a worldview. I don't need to appeal to any "faith" for it.

So faith is the way to all truth and errors.

No.

But to someone who thinks they are different to other people and do not have faith because their beliefs and way is superior and does not need faith, ..................hmmm............. sounds like unjustified faith to me.

You make zero sense once again.
I don't require "faith" to "not have faith".
What nonsense again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is there any other evidence for the Quran than the Quran?

I assume you meant "other than the quran" and that this was a typo?
In that case, it implies that the quran is evidence of the quran, which is false - as I just explained.

The answer is: no, there is no evidence for the quran.
The quran is only evidence of the book / religion existing. It is not evidence that what it claims is true.
The quran, like the bible and any other scripture, is a collection of claims.

Claims require evidence. Claims are not evidence.

If you believe that it was The Ghost that Never Lies, then that is a claim and is your evidence.

And you have to audacity to tell me that I need to learn what "evidence" is.
I don't know what else to say here....................

Willful ignorance is not something I can help you with

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Come on, you know you love my "Bible thumping", it's the spice of life for you.

Don't flatter yourself.

No it doesn't

Why not?

and your atheist/skeptic thumping does not convince me of your beliefs or world view.

I'm not trying to sell you any beliefs or worldviews.

If I was open to that then it might, and hearing enough good arguments for your worldview might open me up to that but I don't hear that and I don't even hear good arguments against my beliefs.

I'm not giving you any argument "against" your beliefs.
Instead, I'm pointing out that your argument FOR your beliefs are terribly inadequate AND I am informing you that you yourself reject the exact same type of argumentation whenever they are given for other beliefs that you and I both reject, for the exact same reason.

Like unicorns, Thor and inner Thetans.

The Bible has verifiable evidence for those who are open to believe

Of the exact same kind as any other religion. But you don't think any of those are convincing, do you?
So other then the "object" of your belief, what is the actual difference between YOUR faith and the faith of Tom Cruise?

but those who are not open and use occam's razor manage to make stuff up about the Bible and believe that instead of what the Bible tells us.

What stuff am I making up?
Is it the same kind of stuff that you are making up concerning scientology by any chance?

So they do not believe Biblical prophesies.

I have no reason to. Just like you have no reason to believe in Scientology's dianetics.

If I believed in my inner Theban then I guess that would be evidence that it is true for me.

The way you define "evidence" makes "evidence" completely worthless.
It is indistinguishable from mere claims and beliefs.

But I already have a faith and I usually don't believe things that contradict that faith.

Bingo. This should be a hint that what you believe likely isn't true.
You're basically admitting that your belief is arbitrary and that you have no good rational reason to pick yours over another religion.

Consider now WHY you believe that you won't float off into space and instead fall back to earth when you jump.
Consider WHY you believe this is the case due to the gravitational pull of the earth as a result of its mass instead of invisible fairies pushing you down.
Consider WHY you believe in gravity instead of "intelligent falling".

Then compare that with the reasoning you just gave.

I'm not sure what kind of reason I would require to believe in my inner Theban. I think I would have to have lost my faith in Jesus and be looking for something else for a start.

Indeed. As I said: arbitrary.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

You haven't refuted it at all. All you've said is you think it could be a local flood. Which is just like, your opinion, man. And it doesn't match up with what the story actually says.

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

This was in response to, "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 point is that we know that is not how languages developed across the world."

Notice how your response doesn't address what I said.

The point is it's just a story in an old book that doesn't reflect the realty of how languages actually developed across the world.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We are talking about different types of evidence here.

I'm talking about evidence. You're talking about believing something on faith, without any evidence.

God can reveal Himself to us when we are open to that revelation.

Or so you claim but we have no verifiable evidence of this.

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

No Brian, it's YOUR claim that YOU have detected the undetectable. I'm just trying to figure out how you think you've managed to do this and so far you've offered nothing but faith.

Please stop trying to project your irrationality and your failings onto others.