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

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Then Harry Potter Books are evidence that wizards exist.

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

You said they are undetectable but that you've somehow detected them. You haven't said how yet.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

I've already explained to you what evidence is in the academic sense, and why your sincerely held beliefs alone aren't evidence that they are correct. Occam's razor comes into hypothesis formation regarding evaluating evidence, all of which is obtained empirically in order to be called evidence. The preferred narrative is the one that accounts for all relevant evidence most parsimoniously. Let's examine an example:

The cat is nowhere to be found and the front door is open. What are some of the possible narratives that account for these two? One is that the cat is still in the house. Another is that it walked out of the door. Another is that an angry ex broke in and abducted the cat, leaving the door open. Another is that the cat was abducted by extraterrestrials whose spacecraft blew the door open. Another is that Jesus opened the front door and took the cat to heaven. They all explain the evidence. Occam says to start with the first two, because they require the fewest assumptions be true and are therefore the most likely to be correct.

Do you know anything about probability? When the odds of A are 1 in 2 - say the outcome of a coin flip - and the odds of B are 1 in 6 - say the outcome of rolling a die, if we need both to happen, say flip heads and roll a six, we multiply them: 1/2 x 1/6 = 1/12. The more probabilistic conditions we attach, the longer the odds of them all obtaining. If we need an abductor, the odds go up. If the abductor needs to be nonhuman, the odds go up even more. If that nonhuman has to be supernatural, the odds go up even more. And if that supernatural abductor has to be Jesus specifically, well, you narrative just got less likely again.

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

I gave you a good definition. You didn't comment yet, but maybe you haven't seen it yet, either. If you think you can find fault with it, give your counterargument that explains why mine is wrong. The essential difference between our definitions of evidence is that I limit it to the evidence of the senses, and you include unevidenced beliefs like Bible passages and your intuitions about spirits, for example. Make your case for why the latter should be included, or accept that it is YOU that needs to learn what evidence is.

you cannot show that the Bible is false

Why do we keep coming back to this? Much has been falsified, and none of it that hasn't been confirmed need be believed.

The nature of the faith might be the same however, a sincerely held belief.

There are two paths to sincerely held beliefs. One is empiricism - evidence. Such beliefs can be called correct if they correspond to experience properly evaluated and it they successfully predict outcomes. Such ideas cannot be successfully rebutted, another quality of correct ideas (knowledge, truth). Of course, being immune to rebuttal (falsification) is also true of unfalsifiable beliefs, which are distinguished by their uselessness at predicting nature.

Others include beliefs from such sources as imagination, intuition, delusion, and indoctrination. Altogether, they comprise faith, or insufficiently justified belief.

My sincerely held beliefs are of the former category, since empiricism is the only method I employ to decide what is true about reality. Unfalsifiable religious beliefs fall into the latter, and so I hold none.

we will not have any world view without faith.

My worldview includes nothing believed by faith. Nothing. Many consider that impossible, but learning to evaluate evidence properly and limiting one's belief set to what that method reveals is a habit of thought that can be cultivated like saying please and thank you.

 

[Brian2]

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

So now you aren't even referring to the part where you ignored the words that came out of my mouth.
All you are doing is justifying calling my argument a dishonest strawman.

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.

I answered the question of what the difference is in the nature of the belief and I agreed with you.

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

Well you don't appeal to any faith for it, but the faith exists whether you appeal to it or not imo

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

It's true, you don't need faith in God or Jesus to not have faith in them but you do need faith to have faith in your way. It makes no sense to say that you don't.

 

[Brian2]

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.

The more evidence for claims the better but in the absence of more evidence people have believed the claims that were reported in the Quran, the witness 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

It looks as if you are now saying that the Ghost the Never Lies actually does lie.

 

[Brian2]

Why not?

I already have a faith that is the truth.

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

Different skeptics go to different lengths in their making up of stuff. Some go as far as to say that Jesus did not exist and Moses and Abraham did not exist and the Exodus was made up after the Exile and the story of Jesus was made up and the gospels written by people who did not know Jesus or what anything about Him.
Then others don't go that far but stop somewhere between "The Bible is true" and there. But in the end it is all stuff that is made up (or gleaned from people who have made it up) and believed by skeptics instead of believing what is written in the Bible and the evidence for it.
It sort of boils down to "So much for being sceptical".

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

You have no reason to deny Biblical prophecies except scepticism that they are true. Sounds like a fallacy of logic. Incredulity.

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

I define it in a general sense and in a subjective sense.

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.

Intelligent falling, I like that. Designed so that we fall and don't float off into space.

Indeed. As I said: arbitrary.

Believing something else is a choice. It might be arbitrary, I don't know.

 

[The Hammer]

If you don’t, care to explain the evidence there is for god?

There is no evidence. Why would nay God want to show themselves to someone begging for evidence?

Mystery is more important in the cosmos than revelation and prophets.l and truth.

I believe because I've experienced the Gods.

That is the only true way to believe without "faith".

But that is not an easy path, and it is never the same for each person, it must be walked alone. The difficulty is finding them for yourself. And learning to not talk about the experience itself either.

Because language does not do the Gods justice.

 

[Brian2]

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.

Yes that is my opinion

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.

Sorry, I meant that the story does not mention "angels".
But yes the story does not reflect how science had determined the evolution of language and if that determination is correct then the Tower of Babel story is wrong.
But whether we see the Tower of Babel story as referring to all languages in the world or to just the languages in that local land after the local flood is determined by our view of the flood, which imo can be read to be a large local flood,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, something which is confirmed imo by the story of Gilgamesh.

 

[Brian2]

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

You are talking about verifiable evidence, I'm just talking about evidence in general, things which bring people to believe something.

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.

No it's my claim that God has revealed Himself to me.

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

Sorry.

 

[Brian2]

Then Harry Potter Books are evidence that wizards exist.

How can a book that we know is a fiction, be evidence for wizards?

 

[YoursTrue]

I already have a faith that is the truth.



Different skeptics go to different lengths in their making up of stuff. Some go as far as to say that Jesus did not exist and Moses and Abraham did not exist and the Exodus was made up after the Exile and the story of Jesus was made up and the gospels written by people who did not know Jesus or what anything about Him.
Then others don't go that far but stop somewhere between "The Bible is true" and there. But in the end it is all stuff that is made up (or gleaned from people who have made it up) and believed by skeptics instead of believing what is written in the Bible and the evidence for it.
It sort of boils down to "So much for being sceptical".



You have no reason to deny Biblical prophecies except scepticism that they are true. Sounds like a fallacy of logic. Incredulity.



I define it in a general sense and in a subjective sense.



Intelligent falling, I like that. Designed so that we fall and don't float off into space.



Believing something else is a choice. It might be arbitrary, I don't know.

I would like to comment that when a person likes something and must make a choice, there are various factors to keep in mind. Now with religion, it can be possible that the person has no real choice, for instance in the case of family or cultural situation.

 

[Brian2]

I would like to comment that when a person likes something and must make a choice, there are various factors to keep in mind. Now with religion, it can be possible that the person has no real choice, for instance in the case of family or cultural situation.

Yes sometimes there is only one truth which the people we trust present to us, and so we choose that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes sometimes there is only one truth which the people we trust present to us, and so we choose that.

Exactly. That's the way it works in universities and sometimes religion.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes sometimes there is only one truth which the people we trust present to us, and so we choose that.

Yes regarding the people we trust. And some conclusions make more sense than others but, like anything, we have to examine things as carefully as possible.

 

[Brian2]

I've already explained to you what evidence is in the academic sense, and why your sincerely held beliefs alone aren't evidence that they are correct. Occam's razor comes into hypothesis formation regarding evaluating evidence, all of which is obtained empirically in order to be called evidence. The preferred narrative is the one that accounts for all relevant evidence most parsimoniously. Let's examine an example:

The cat is nowhere to be found and the front door is open. What are some of the possible narratives that account for these two? One is that the cat is still in the house. Another is that it walked out of the door. Another is that an angry ex broke in and abducted the cat, leaving the door open. Another is that the cat was abducted by extraterrestrials whose spacecraft blew the door open. Another is that Jesus opened the front door and took the cat to heaven. They all explain the evidence. Occam says to start with the first two, because they require the fewest assumptions be true and are therefore the most likely to be correct.

Do you know anything about probability? When the odds of A are 1 in 2 - say the outcome of a coin flip - and the odds of B are 1 in 6 - say the outcome of rolling a die, if we need both to happen, say flip heads and roll a six, we multiply them: 1/2 x 1/6 = 1/12. The more probabilistic conditions we attach, the longer the odds of them all obtaining. If we need an abductor, the odds go up. If the abductor needs to be nonhuman, the odds go up even more. If that nonhuman has to be supernatural, the odds go up even more. And if that supernatural abductor has to be Jesus specifically, well, you narrative just got less likely again.

Yes sincerely held beliefs alone aren't evidence that they are correct and Occam's Razor alone does not lead to correct beliefs, just to the order of investigation of various options.

I gave you a good definition. You didn't comment yet, but maybe you haven't seen it yet, either. If you think you can find fault with it, give your counterargument that explains why mine is wrong. The essential difference between our definitions of evidence is that I limit it to the evidence of the senses, and you include unevidenced beliefs like Bible passages and your intuitions about spirits, for example. Make your case for why the latter should be included, or accept that it is YOU that needs to learn what evidence is.

I cannot find out if my religious beliefs are right through my senses, but I am convinced by what the Bible tells me and so that is evidence for my beliefs.
If you think that you can find out about religious beliefs through your senses then go ahead, but for me there are different types of evidence for different things.

There are two paths to sincerely held beliefs. One is empiricism - evidence. Such beliefs can be called correct if they correspond to experience properly evaluated and it they successfully predict outcomes. Such ideas cannot be successfully rebutted, another quality of correct ideas (knowledge, truth). Of course, being immune to rebuttal (falsification) is also true of unfalsifiable beliefs, which are distinguished by their uselessness at predicting nature.

Others include beliefs from such sources as imagination, intuition, delusion, and indoctrination. Altogether, they comprise faith, or insufficiently justified belief.

My sincerely held beliefs are of the former category, since empiricism is the only method I employ to decide what is true about reality. Unfalsifiable religious beliefs fall into the latter, and so I hold none.

OK

My worldview includes nothing believed by faith. Nothing. Many consider that impossible, but learning to evaluate evidence properly and limiting one's belief set to what that method reveals is a habit of thought that can be cultivated like saying please and thank you.

So you use empiricism but cannot say that that is the only way to find the truth unless your world view includes something believed by faith.

 

[Brian2]

Yes regarding the people we trust. And some conclusions make more sense than others but, like anything, we have to examine things as carefully as possible.

It is certainly a good idea to examine our beliefs when we grow up to be an adult. I guess teenage rebellion can have a good effect of the teens examining things for themselves and should not be suppressed completely.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

I see that I misread that post. The problem with a local flood is that it cannot do what the Bible said that the flood was supposed to do.

 

[Audie]

I've already explained to you what evidence is in the academic sense, and why your sincerely held beliefs alone aren't evidence that they are correct. Occam's razor comes into hypothesis formation regarding evaluating evidence, all of which is obtained empirically in order to be called evidence. The preferred narrative is the one that accounts for all relevant evidence most parsimoniously. Let's examine an example:

The cat is nowhere to be found and the front door is open. What are some of the possible narratives that account for these two? One is that the cat is still in the house. Another is that it walked out of the door. Another is that an angry ex broke in and abducted the cat, leaving the door open. Another is that the cat was abducted by extraterrestrials whose spacecraft blew the door open. Another is that Jesus opened the front door and took the cat to heaven. They all explain the evidence. Occam says to start with the first two, because they require the fewest assumptions be true and are therefore the most likely to be correct.

Do you know anything about probability? When the odds of A are 1 in 2 - say the outcome of a coin flip - and the odds of B are 1 in 6 - say the outcome of rolling a die, if we need both to happen, say flip heads and roll a six, we multiply them: 1/2 x 1/6 = 1/12. The more probabilistic conditions we attach, the longer the odds of them all obtaining. If we need an abductor, the odds go up. If the abductor needs to be nonhuman, the odds go up even more. If that nonhuman has to be supernatural, the odds go up even more. And if that supernatural abductor has to be Jesus specifically, well, you narrative just got less likely again.

I gave you a good definition. You didn't comment yet, but maybe you haven't seen it yet, either. If you think you can find fault with it, give your counterargument that explains why mine is wrong. The essential difference between our definitions of evidence is that I limit it to the evidence of the senses, and you include unevidenced beliefs like Bible passages and your intuitions about spirits, for example. Make your case for why the latter should be included, or accept that it is YOU that needs to learn what evidence is.

Why do we keep coming back to this? Much has been falsified, and none of it that hasn't been confirmed need be believed.

There are two paths to sincerely held beliefs. One is empiricism - evidence. Such beliefs can be called correct if they correspond to experience properly evaluated and it they successfully predict outcomes. Such ideas cannot be successfully rebutted, another quality of correct ideas (knowledge, truth). Of course, being immune to rebuttal (falsification) is also true of unfalsifiable beliefs, which are distinguished by their uselessness at predicting nature.

Others include beliefs from such sources as imagination, intuition, delusion, and indoctrination. Altogether, they comprise faith, or insufficiently justified belief.

My sincerely held beliefs are of the former category, since empiricism is the only method I employ to decide what is true about reality. Unfalsifiable religious beliefs fall into the latter, and so I hold none.

My worldview includes nothing believed by faith. Nothing. Many consider that impossible, but learning to evaluate evidence properly and limiting one's belief set to what that method reveals is a habit of thought that can be cultivated like saying please and thank you.

Cultivating that manner of thought seems
preferable to thinking that Belief in the face
of overwhelming evidence against is some sort of
high virtue.

 

[Audie]

I see that I misread that post. The problem with a local flood is that it cannot do what the Bible said that the flood was supposed to do.

There's that. There's also the lil prob that
"local" makes the ark pointless- and the author(s)
to be liars.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is certainly a good idea to examine our beliefs when we grow up to be an adult. I guess teenage rebellion can have a good effect of the teens examining things forFthemselves and should not be suppressed completely.

Some of us (like me) take a long time to learn. That's another reason why I'm looking forward to everlasting life and continuing to progress in pleasing God and thereby enjoying the life HE wants us to enjoy. Thanks!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So now you aren't even referring to the part where you ignored the words that came out of my mouth.
All you are doing is justifying calling my argument a dishonest strawman.

I didn't ignore anything of relevance.

I answered the question of what the difference is in the nature of the belief and I agreed with you.

So you agree that "faith" is not a pathway to truth and that on "faith" you can literally believe anything?
Cool.

However, it doesn't bode well for your faith based claims.

Well you don't appeal to any faith for it, but the faith exists whether you appeal to it or not imo

Please support that statement. Tell me what my supposed "faith" is. If it turns out you are correct, I will thank you and instantly stop doing it.
However, I expect nothing but strawmen. Prove me wrong.

It's true, you don't need faith in God or Jesus to not have faith in them but you do need faith to have faith in your way. It makes no sense to say that you don't.

What way?