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

[PearlSeeker]

I can't remember if it was you that I mentioned the following to but have you read "A Book Forged In Hell: Spinoza's Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular Age" by Steven Nadler?

Interesting. No, I haven't read it. I also can't remember if you mentioned it before.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Jesus specifically directed his message to the Jews. He explicitly said it was not for others.

Paul changed that.

Except for after He rose from the dead Jesus said this:
“And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭28:18-20‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

and this before He rose:
“And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.”
‭‭John‬ ‭10:16‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[ElishaElijah]

That is lacking. There is no such testimony. Not even the Bible makes that mistake. This is not even "physical evidence".

So what? You need more than an observation for it to qualify as evidence. This is why I keep telling you that you should learn what is and what is not evidence. The marine fossils found on mountains are evidence against the flood. The flood predicts only one thin layer of fossils at the most. Almost everything that was alive at the time of the flood would have died. Whether in the oceans or on dry land. If you ever tried to maintain a saltwater aquarium this would be obvious to you. Any significant change in salinity or temperature will kill whatever one has in a tank. We do not see one small layer of fossils. We see mountains made out of fossils. That could not have come from the flood. Do you understand this?

The fossils we see are not the fossils that we could get from a flood.


So what? Without a testable hypothesis these are by definition not evidence for a flood. This phrase will be repeated.


See above. Also the sediment is evidence against the flood due to the nature of it. There are formations with thousands of layers of dry and wet, where it dried out almost totally every year to the point of depositing gypsum or even halite. How many times did the flood dry up all of the way? You are not even looking skin deep at the sediments. When one uses a testable hypothesis they are evidence against a flood.


Oh moesss! I am sorry but you could not be more wrong. There are quite a few layers that can only be deposited slowly. Very find clay cannot be rapidly deposited. A flood leaves poorly sorted layers behind. And then even worse there are deposits like chalk. Extremely well sorted. Very tine marine life that at best grow slowly in calm warm waters. The cliffs of Dover refute the flood. Once again you need to learn what is and what is not evidence. Without a testable hypothesis by definition you do not have evidence. All you have is an ad hoc explanation. That is worthless in the world of the sciences and the are almost always easily refuted as all of yours have been here.

As to rapid erosion that is laughable too. The only "rapid erosion" that is seen is from the rather rare post glaciation floods such as the Channeled Scablands of easter Washington, but again, there is a better non magic flood explanation:

Channeled Scablands

And here is a picture that cannot be explained with the Flood Model:

Would you like to know how we know that?



You would need to be more specific for that one, but again, even if you do not do that without a testable hypothesis that is by definition not evidence.

Would you like to know what you need for scientific evidence? It would make you a better debater and you would not end up refuting yourself as you just did.

EDIT: You did a bit of a Gish Gallop here, you posted a bunch of claims without any support. so that means that refuting one would refute them all, but I just gave a quick explanation of how you were wrong in every single example. If you want to go into more detail or want more evidence on any of them I will be more than happy to discuss one failure of yours at a time.

Refute away, that’s how it goes everyone refutes the other. As I said before if people want to continue to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or believe the evolution tree of life then fine. How is that helping you out in life? Does it draw you closer to God or drive you farther away?
As for me I will continue to eat from God’s tree of life which is Eternal Life and peace with God.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I don't think that you understood that quote. He did not like atheists that simply said "It is natural" without trying to find out why and how we know that it is natural. Just saying "It is natural" alone is no different than saying "God did it". The sense of awe that Einstein, and many other scientists have is on the order of:

"Wow! I wonder why that is the way that it is/"

I understand it slightly differently:

"Wow! There is something at play that is bigger than my/our understanding.

Einstein:

The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.​

 

[dybmh]

dybmh. Why do you accept these articles? whats your methodology of acceptance?

Thank you for pointing this out. On reflection it is honestly my own bias that brings me to accept them.

 

[metis]

Interesting. No, I haven't read it. I also can't remember if you mentioned it before.

It's by far the best book I've read on Spinoza's theology, and as you may be aware of Einstein saying he believed in "Spinoza's God", which is pretty much where I'm coming from in general, btw.


Added: I visited the Portuguese Synagogue when in Amsterdam that Spinosa had attended [and eventually got kicked out of] and took a tour of it-- fascinating, let me tell ya. Has all mahogany wood and no lights, only candles and it's so beautiful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Neither one was correct as we understand things now. So we are most likely wrong too.
Galileo’s views were not entirely correct, either. He believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe.

Correct, but don't make the mistake of thinking that there is only one level of being wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We're very far from being alone on this--Falwell, Swaggert, Baker, ...

But then, maybe you're sinless.

That may be. But at least Ted Haggard is completely heterosexual:

 

[Subduction Zone]

Refute away, that’s how it goes everyone refutes the other. As I said before if people want to continue to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or believe the evolution tree of life then fine. How is that helping you out in life? Does it draw you closer to God or drive you farther away?
As for me I will continue to eat from God’s tree of life which is Eternal Life and peace with God.

No, your claims are easily refuted. You cannot do the same.

And interestingly you just admitted that your own thoughts are irrational. There is no choice in thought when one reasons rationally. Lastly I am no closer or further from God than you are. But I doubt if you understand why.

 

[Sheldon]

No

One has disproven the Exodus... they just haven't found solid evidence. In an area where a jeep can be buried 40 feet deep in 40 years, that's no surprise.

Utter nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand it slightly differently:

"Wow! There is something at play that is bigger than my/our understanding.

Einstein:

The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.​

Sorry, but your misunderstanding of Einstein does not mean that he believed in a god. Why do theists try to smear his reputation that way?

 

[Sheldon]

Total nonsense. They would have written them as myths if that's what they were. They didn't. They named real places and things.

A bare unevidenced assertion about the intentions and meanings of unknown authors, from an epoch of ignorance and superstition.

Yeah, I'm gonna just point and laugh at that level of hubris.

 

[Sheldon]

What you are missing is that the modern science method doesn't answer anything but a few " how" questions, if indeed those are accurate. Faith was needed and still is, to answer the " Why?" questions.

Hilarious nonsense, scientific theories answer why questions, faith is about as useful as a chocolate teapot in answering anything other than "what you want to believe without a shred of objective evidence".

 

[Sheldon]

I believe I am evidence of God.

I don't believe you are.

 

[Sheldon]

That may be. But at least Ted Haggard is completely heterosexual:

I don't say this often, but that was outstandingly funny...well done sir...

 

[metis]

That may be. But at least Ted Haggard is completely heterosexual:

TOO FUNNY!!!

 

[Sheldon]

I believe you are correct. Evidence of God is not scientific evidence and never will be.

Now can you work out why that might be the case?

Clue for you, there is no scientific evidence for mermaids, or unicorns, or leprechauns or garden fairies etc etc etc..take your time...

 

[Sheldon]

ElishaElijah said: ↑
And other archeologists validate the story.

We are not talking pretend archaeologists,

Indeed we are not, but clearly @ElishaElijah is, since it was not a scientific source he cited, but a creationist propaganda website.

 

[Sheldon]

Yet his attitude toward "music of the spheres" or "beautiful harmony of the structure of this world" is far from atheism.

Yeah, that appears to be your subjective belief, not Einstein's. not that it matters, Einstein's beliefs or lack thereof are no more compelling than the alchemy or the bs of astrology that Sir Isaac Newton believed in.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Now can you work out why that might be the case?

Clue for you, there is no scientific evidence for mermaids, or unicorns, or leprechauns or garden fairies etc etc etc..take your time...

Science isn't the standard for truth, it is just one tool to gain understanding, just as religious scriptures are a different way of seeking truth.