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

[Sheldon]

What do you mean? This is how you test the fruit in someone’s life, even your own.

It's just a subjective viewpoint you are making.

If I say I’m a believer and my life is full of the activities listed in A. Even you would say no way.

No I wouldn't. I just lend no credence to unevidenced subjective anecdotal testimony, that's the primary difference between us. Or at least between how you and I reason anyway.

The biblical narratives about Jesus are pure hearsay, the authorships of the 4 gospels are unknown, and none of the claims, including that there were eye witnesses to any events, can be substantiated.

Eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable anyway. For extraordinary claims that involve supernatural magic they'd be pretty meaningless even if you had any, which you don't for anything Jesus is alleged to have said or done. One would also to objectively admit that any eyewitness claim form an epoch of extreme ignorance and supervision could not be simply accepted as accurate and unbiased.

Lets put it this way, suppose you did have independently substantiated eye witness accounts to say the burial, including sealing of the tomb, and then an unexplained empty tomb happened. Lets say you had signed affidavits from not just supporters, but from detractors, and I'll throw in the testimony of reliable Roman guards, who swore they never moved from the tomb.

It still would not be sufficient objective evidence for a supernatural event, since all you would have is an unusual and inexplicable event. You can't explain something by pointing to the lack of an explanation, this is called an argument ad ignorantiam fallacy, it is by definition irrational reasoning.

All you have is subjective hearsay, compiled decades after the alleged events, by biased supporters of the belief. You're so far from sufficient objective evidence it's about as a low a bar as one could set for belief.

 

[Polymath257]

So now you just redefine science to fit what you want.

No. I define science as the use of the scientific method. That involves observation, hypothesis formation, prediction, testing and reworking. it requires trying to find when the ideas are *wrong*.

This was first done by Al Haytham with optics and then Galileo and Kepler with motion. it didn't really get moving in physics until about 1700 and in biology, not until about 1800.

Modern science is a fairly recent discovery that has opened up many avenues of investigation. prior to that, most inquiries were done primarily by philosophy and faith. That is why people thought living things sprang into existence out of rags: that was the speculation prior to rigorous testing and was common among those with *faith'.

So, no, you are the one that doesn't seem to understand how science works. There *have* been bad mistakes in science , although they are usually at the *beginnings* of a subject, not after it is developed. What is interesting is that the basics tend to remain when there are revolutions in science: light still moves as a wave, even though it is also a particle.

 

[Polymath257]

Galileo was opposing what was the accepted science at the time.

No, he was opposing the accepted *faith* of his time in Aristotelian philosophy.

What Galileo proposed was the scientific method: actually look at what happens in order to test our ideas. Aristotle taught that we only needed to think about things and not actually look.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. I define science as the use of the scientific method. That involves observation, hypothesis formation, prediction, testing and reworking. it requires trying to find when the ideas are *wrong*.

This was first done by Al Haytham with optics and then Galileo and Kepler with motion. it didn't really get moving in physics until about 1700 and in biology, not until about 1800.

Modern science is a fairly recent discovery that has opened up many avenues of investigation. prior to that, most inquiries were done primarily by philosophy and faith. That is why people thought living things sprang into existence out of rags: that was the speculation prior to rigorous testing and was common among those with *faith'.

So, no, you are the one that doesn't seem to understand how science works. There *have* been bad mistakes in science , although they are usually at the *beginnings* of a subject, not after it is developed. What is interesting is that the basics tend to remain when there are revolutions in science: light still moves as a wave, even though it is also a particle.

Well, philosophy is still intertwined with science in some cases. So it is not over yet.

 

[Five Solas]

There is, and can only be one answer, I believe because I have been granted faith by God.
Now I believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit and all God has done for my salvation.
Evidence of that will be when Jesus comes again in power and in glory to judge me and all the other living and the dead.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, he was opposing the accepted *faith* of his time in Aristotelian philosophy.

What Galileo proposed was the scientific method: actually look at what happens in order to test our ideas. Aristotle taught that we only needed to think about things and not actually look.

And to some people think that we don't have to think, we only have to look.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is, and can only be one answer, I believe because I have been granted faith by God.
Now I believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit and all God has done for my salvation.
Evidence of that will be when Jesus comes again in power and in glory to judge me and all the other living and the dead.

And I have been granted faith by another God than your God.

 

[Sheldon]

Paul did meet Jesus on the road to Damascus,

An unevidenced anecdotal claim for a supernatural event, it is pure hearsay by definition.

that was first hand.

That is pure hearsay, to anyone who knows what hearsay means.

His life was changed after that just like with everyone who meets Jesus.

At the age of 12 my life changed forever when I watched the first Star Wars movie, like countless others, this doesn't make it real. I believe this has been explained enough times now. The effect of a belief, does not lend any credence to that belief. I have also explained that plenty of people make this identical claim for other religions, and other deities, so that rather refutes your assumption.

 

[Polymath257]

No you only think you do. It's quite possible we are wrong about the very shape of reality.

Very possible. But we have a few details because we have *tested* our ideas to the place we know they are reliable.

For example, you can use your computer and cell phone. you can do that because we understand a bit about how electromagnetic radiation works.

 

[Five Solas]

And I have been granted faith by another God than your God.

Good for you.

(I was simply trying to give the most basic, biblical answer a Christian could give. So, at least you know where I get my ideas from.)

 

[Polymath257]

Let's see it from the right angle.

You are 30 years old. Then, for you 29 years old is the past, and 40 years old is your future.

Well, in physics you are not 30 years old, applying physics you have orbited 30 times around the sun. Then, the time data "years" is just a word that have replaced the phrase "orbits made around the sun"

The physical reality is the 30 orbits around the sun, while the years are just an invented measure of each period of earth surrounding the sun. Then, time is nothing but a measure. By consequence, all your ideas about time are just erroneous.

[/QUOTE]


Or you can describe it as a certain number of oscillations of a particular type of light.

The orbits are how we measure time. It is *one* way of doing so and was the most accurate until relatively recently. Now we have more accurate ways,

EVERYTHING in physics is defined operationally: by how it is measured. That is true for time, but it is also true of electrons and energy.

Time exists *because* it can be measured. Just like distance exists because it can be measured. neither are 'made from' other things. Neither are parts of other things. But both exist and can be measured and we can understand their dynamics.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Or you can describe it as a certain number of oscillations of a particular type of light.

The orbits are how we measure time. It is *one* way of doing so and was the most accurate until relatively recently. Now we have more accurate ways,

EVERYTHING in physics is defined operationally: by how it is measured. That is true for time, but it is also true of electrons and energy.

Time exists *because* it can be measured. Just like distance exists because it can be measured. neither are 'made from' other things. Neither are parts of other things. But both exist and can be measured and we can understand their dynamics.[/QUOTE]

Well, you don't have to believe in existence to do science.

 

[Polymath257]

If you’re saying that the Bible is a myth, Noah’s Ark and the Flood never happened, Genesis is myth, Jesus didn’t rise from the dead then you have misinterpreted the Bible which is the Word of God.

Oh, the Bible says those things. But the fact that they didn't happen is what shows the Bible to be unreliable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh, the Bible says those things. But the fact that they didn't happen is what shows the Bible to be unreliable.

Is that absolute or what?

 

[Sheldon]

That was the story. it was probably just an epileptic seizure. oh, did his companions see Jesus or not? The answer depends on which telling of the story you read. So even Paul couldn't get his facts straight.

Dehydration, hunger, heat stroke, all can produce strong hallucinations, and this is accepting the hearsay claim is remotely accurate. I am always surprised how low a bar for belief many people are willing to accept when they are emotionally invested in the belief.

 

[ElishaElijah]

That was the story. it was probably just an epileptic seizure. oh, did his companions see Jesus or not? The answer depends on which telling of the story you read. So even Paul couldn't get his facts straight.

Or how you read the accounts yourself. What facts are different? An epileptic seizure changes Paul’s life and even gives Him a new name. Seizure enables Paul to work miracles, write letters of authority and power in Jesus Name. Well is that your view?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Or how you read the accounts yourself. What facts are different? An epileptic seizure changes Paul’s life and even gives Him a new name. Seizure enables Paul to work miracles, write letters of authority and power in Jesus Name. Well is that your view?

Well, you believe that you are Right in effect. I don't know that so I do it differently.

 

[Sheldon]

If you’re saying that the Bible is a myth, Noah’s Ark and the Flood never happened, Genesis is myth, Jesus didn’t rise from the dead then you have misinterpreted the Bible which is the Word of God.

The geological evidence unequivocally shows there has never been any global flood remotely like the Noah flood myth. Genesis gets even the most basic chronological facts about the formation of our solar system and the universe wrong, it is directly contradicted by the overwhelming evidence for and fact of species evolution. Why would I believe in supernatural magic like resurrections when they not only can't be supported by any objective evidence, but are entirely based on subjective hearsay, compiled long after the events they purport to describe? Claiming the bible must be true evidence for its claims, because it is the "word of a deity", is so obviously an irrational circular reasoning fallacy, why would i lend it any credence at all?

You may not care about facts, objective evidence, or logical consistency in your reasoning, but I certainly do.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Well, you believe that you are Right in effect. I don't know that so I do it differently.

Seizures and hallucinations don’t change a person the same way that Paul’s life was changed so people should rule that out.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Seizures and hallucinations don’t change a person the same way that Paul’s life was changed so people should rule that out.

You take your beliefs for granted. Okay, I also take mine for granted. Now what?