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

[ElishaElijah]

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.

There is only 1 Truth, everyone has to determine that for themselves and then live with that decision.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Though not recorded on tape there are claims of ex-Pentecostals being told by their pastor "Just fake it, we all do at times". So not really "proof" but a good indication that it is man made nonsense.

Once again, there would be a way to test this. Many Pentecostals claim to understand each other. Take two of them. Put them in separate rooms where they could only hear each other, and have them read off of a script a message, not of their choosing, that they would need to translate for the other. If they got the message across accurately, no need for a word for word, that would indicate that perhaps they was something more there. But if they do not openly make that claim this test would only show that one does not understand the babbling of the other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is only 1 Truth, everyone has to determine that for themselves and then live with that decision.

But you have no way of knowing if you have that 1 TruthTM.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Faith-based guesses? Can you offer an example of a guess based on faith?

Anything believed without sufficient evidentiary support must be believed by faith, which is guessing. People believe that their holy books are divinely inspired without sufficient evidence that they are. They're guessing.

There is a naturalistic explanation for why we're here

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

I *DO* know that, and so do you. The multiverse hypothesis and the abiogenesis hypothesis are naturalistic explanations for why the universe and the life in it are here.

Perhaps you meant that I don't know that the naturalistic explanation is the correct one, but I've already acknowledged that.

DNA by accident for example, is laughable.

Not to the people investing millions of dollars into millions of hours of research into how DNA arose naturalistically.

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

Disagree. Just as I once did, they believe those ideas without demonstration that they are correct, which is what makes those beliefs faith-based. Faith-based ideas can never be called correct, because they cannot be shown to be correct. If somebody has guessed correctly, they can't know it until that fact has been demonstrated, at which time the belief is justified and no longer a guess.

 

[ElishaElijah]

But you have no way of knowing if you have that 1 TruthTM.

I already told you that God gave me the Holy Spirit as a guarantee, He is the evidence and proof that someone has been born again and in a right relationship with God.

 

[Viker]

There is only 1 Truth, everyone has to determine that for themselves and then live with that decision.

1 Truth will always be subjective and a personal conclusion. There is truth and many are in front of it and can not see it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already told you that God gave me the Holy Spirit as a guarantee, He is the evidence and proof that someone has been born again and in a right relationship with God.

And Lisa the Multicolored Giraffe told me that you are wrong.

Do you see how weak that your claim is now? Once again, other people from other religions have the same beliefs that you do. They believe the "God told me" nonsense just as strongly as you do. If all you have is "God told me so" then you are no different from them or even any different from some of the serial killers we have seen in the past that were also told by God.

One needs a proper way to verify such claims. Otherwise your claim is just a dime a dozen and is refuted by others that say the same thing with other Gods.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Do you see how weak that your claim is now?

No I don’t see that, all your comment tells me is that you don’t have the Holy Spirit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No I don’t see that, all your comment tells me is that you don’t have the Holy Spirit.

You are right. It is very difficult to have something that does not exist. It is a pity that you insist on wearing horse blinders.

I will try to find you specific examples.

 

[Bird123]

You cannot go accusing others of making assumptions without being able to support the claim. One cannot get the whole story in the headline either so shortcuts are allowed. Here is the longer version that would not fit into the title:

There are no reliable examples of evidence of God so why do you believe?

That is too long to fit into a title here. No one has made any assumptions. One has noted that there is no reliable evidence for God. If you have some please present it. And don't give me a "look at the trees" argument. If you do so you might as well admit that you do not have any reliable evidence either.

Roughly 7 billion people alone on Earth. Has every stone been turned over? Has every avenue of possibility been searched? Clearly, the answer is no.

I have pointed the direction where evidence can be found. Though I won't do it for you,nonetheless, the evidence does exist. I can only conclude assumptions are being made.

Maybe, it's all in the accuracy of the wording. Instead of there are no reliable examples. They should say they have found no reliable examples.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[ElishaElijah]

You are right. It is very difficult to have something that does not exist. It is a pity that you insist on wearing horse blinders.

I will try to find you specific examples.

Literally or figuratively?
This I do:
“fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭12:2‬ ‭NIV‬‬

 

[Sheldon]

Your faith in a deity, has led you to live a life consecrated to that deity, and a religious purpose. Again I don't see how this evidences the belief itself at all? More importantly as I and others have tried to point out, that type of faith enables others to arrive at belief in very different religions and deities. Which demonstrates that as a method for validating the belief it is demonstrably unreliable.

Yes my trust in God as well as the power He gave me by filling me with the Holy Spirit has done this.

Any particular reason you entirely ignored the rest of my post, and clipped the emboldened red from your quote? As if we didn't know, do you really think such dishonesty represents compelling debate?

You do this endlessly, reel off unevidenced claims and declarations of faith, then ignore the responses.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes my trust in God as well as the power He gave me by filling me with the Holy Spirit has done this.

I don't believe you, and even were it true, it is an anecdotal unevidenced claim. A claim many use to lead to contradictory beliefs in different deities and religions. You keep ignoring this fact and repeating your claim, that suggests you have no credible answer.

 

[Sheldon]

Every belief is subjective.

I believe the world is not flat, that's not a subjective belief. I believe that species evolve slowly over time, and that's not a subjective belief. You are woefully wrong here again.

 

[Sheldon]

. Most people are theists and have an answer.

Another argumentum ad populum fallacy, and if they had an answer beyond unevidenced archaic superstitious creation myths, they have failed to demonstrate it for millennia.

 

[Sheldon]

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it untrue.

Straw man fallacy, no one is claiming that. I disbelieve theistic claims for a deity, because they are entirely unsupported by any objective evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Literally or figuratively?
This I do:
“fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭12:2‬ ‭NIV‬‬

Figuratively of course. Fooling oneself only keeps on blind. It does not lead to the truth.

 

[Sheldon]

And if you’re wrong? Because you don’t know for sure, then what?

Atheism isn't a claim or belief, it is the lack or absence of belief in a deity or deities, so saying I can't be sure is an odd claim? You can't be sure you aren't being shadowed by an invisible dragon, does that mean you lend the idea some credence? I don't believe there is any risk of course, for the same reason I don't believe in an extant deity. Given that humans have imagined literally thousands of deities, I could as easily what if you're wrong, your the one claiming to be sure after all, and you disbelieve in almost the exact number of deities as me, except for one.

 

[Sheldon]

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

No it doesn't, that's just wishful thinking.

 

[Sheldon]

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

What's laughable is the rate at which you produce straw man fallacies, who claimed DNA was an accident? Also how does adding inexplicable magic from an unevidenced deity explain it?

DNA on it's own, is sufficient objective evidence to demonstrate shared ancestry.