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

[Subduction Zone]

Okay. Fair enough. I suspected this would happen. That is how it is.

The "see for yourself" argument is never very convincing.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I don't know what you're telling me here. There is a naturalistic explanation for why we're here (the causal why, not the intentional why), and "I don't know" was my answer. Naturalistic explanations exclude intent because there is none

You don't know that either. In fact, the natural world certainly looks like it was intentional.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't know that either. In fact, the natural world certainly looks like it was intentional.

Does it? Skin deep it might. But not when one takes a deeper look.

 

[Wildswanderer]

What you are calling answers are what I call faith-based guesses, which I told you I don't consider answers. When I say answers, I mean knowledge, which means demonstrably true ideas.

Obviously they believe in ideas that were demonstrably true from their perception.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Does it? Skin deep it might. But not when one takes a deeper look.

Even more when one looks deeper. DNA by accident for example, is laughable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Obviously they believe in ideas that were demonstrably true from their perception.

And that they never tested properly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even more when one looks deeper. DNA by accident for example, is laughable.

Aah, no one claims that it was by accident, except for creationists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The "see for yourself" argument is never very convincing.

That is your rule, that you won't doubt. To learn this, you have to become a strong/general philosophical skeptic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is your rule, that you won't doubt. To learn this, you have to become a strong/general philosophical skeptic.

Give me a valid reason to doubt it. You will need more than sophistry and word salad.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Give me a valid reason to doubt it. You will need more than sophistry and word salad.

Well, try this:
The five modes (tropes of Agrippa the Skeptic) -the mode of disagreement, regress, relativity, hypothesis, and reciprocity- are a list of tools used by ancient sceptics to guide dogmatic people towards suspending their judgement.

Here is one list:
Agrippa the Skeptic - Wikipedia

So here is the test for your - test your concept of valid and see if you can avoid all 5, but only you can do it, because it is about your thinking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, try this:
The five modes (tropes of Agrippa the Skeptic) -the mode of disagreement, regress, relativity, hypothesis, and reciprocity- are a list of tools used by ancient sceptics to guide dogmatic people towards suspending their judgement.

Here is one list:
Agrippa the Skeptic - Wikipedia

So here is the test for your - test your concept of valid and see if you can avoid all 5, but only you can do it, because it is about your thinking.

No concept is going to be perfect. That is a reality we have to face. As a result your goal is unattainable for anyone. The best one can is to be aware of those pitfalls and avoid them the best that one can. That is why I say "Show me something better a d I will change my mind."

The difference here is that I am arguing with those that do not avoid those pitfalls, they embrace them.

 

[PearlSeeker]

58 pages. What evidence do we have so far?

1. Personal experience of higher consciousness.

2. Awe inspiring structure of universe seems to be a manifestation of an underlying superior intelligence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No concept is going to be perfect. That is a reality we have to face. As a result your goal is unattainable for anyone. The best one can is to be aware of those pitfalls and avoid them the best that one can. That is why I say "Show me something better a d I will change my mind."

The difference here is that I am arguing with those that do not avoid those pitfalls, they embrace them.

I can't show you something better, because there is nothing to show, because that better is your first person thinking/feeling. And as long as that doesn't dawn on you, what that means in regards to objective evidence and reality, you will subjectively claim that your method is in effect objectively better in regards to evidence and objective reality. And just don't understand that you have done the same as some religious believers.

You are conflating show as:
: to demonstrate or establish by argument or reasoning.
: to point out : direct attention to "as in showed the view from the terrace".

You are asking for a reason to think differently, but as long as that doesn't register with you as something you do in your mind, then you will deny that it is relevant, because your thinking is better without realizing that you are thinking.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Then I would change my beliefs. My goal is to know as many correct things possible.

Well the Bible says we die once and after that the judgement. Seems this life is the time to make a decision, once you die it’s too late.
“And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭9:27-28‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The same one it started?

Piltdown man wasn't started by a scientist.

 

[Riders]

The problem is that you only have a belief. Your cure could be due to the cumulative work that led up to your "come to Jesus" moment. Your belief probably helped you, but that is not evidence that is real. That is why I so often ask people "how would you test your beliefs" and trust me, Christians are not the only ones afraid to do that. And yet they all claimed to know even though if they were right other people on this forum who also never tested their beliefs had to be wrong.

One can not even begin to claim to know until one has properly tested one's beliefs. And a test that only involves confirmation bias is never proper. There has to be a clear and reasonable way that one's beliefs could fail.

I went to a Pentecostal church that taught I had to speak in tongues to get the infilling of the Holy Ghost. I spoke in tongues after I got baptized but looking back I think it was psychological, emotional rambling, and trembling.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I went to a Pentecostal church that taught I had to speak in tongues to get the infilling of the Holy Ghost. I spoke in tongues after I got baptized but looking back I think it was psychological, emotional rambling, and trembling.

There is a lot of false teaching and fake stuff. When God gives you a gift, fills you with His Spirit I wasn’t left with I wonder if that was real or just an emotional thing. I was a new man. Everything changed for me, my desires were different as well as how I looked and perceived life.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is a lot of false teaching and fake stuff. When God gives you a gift, fills you with His Spirit I wasn’t left with I wonder if that was real or just an emotional thing. I was a new man. Everything changed for me, my desires were different as well as how I looked and perceived life.

Consider this: Thomas Theorem - If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.

So it is real to you that is a gift from God? Well, I accept that. But that doesn't make it real to me, yet you insist your God is real for us all. How come you have to claim it has to real to us all? How come you don't accept it as real to you as you?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Consider this: Thomas Theorem - If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.

So it is real to you that is a gift from God? Well, I accept that. But that doesn't make it real to me, yet you insist your God is real for us all. How come you have to claim it has to real to us all? How come you don't accept it as real to you as you?

I can tell that God isn’t a reality for some people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is a lot of false teaching and fake stuff. When God gives you a gift, fills you with His Spirit I wasn’t left with I wonder if that was real or just an emotional thing. I was a new man. Everything changed for me, my desires were different as well as how I looked and perceived life.

And again, this is fairly common among all religions. That means that it really is not evidence for your God, unless you want to admit that those same events for non-Christians are evidence for their Gods.