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

[Sheldon]

Obviously you don't understand what I mean by change.

Since it's your claim, you are entirely culpable for not explaining it properly, especially if you are defining words arbitrarily. The word change can be Googled for its commonly understood definition.

 

[Sheldon]

The natural laws were put in place by a wise Creator and law maker.

Demonstrably incorrect, humans created these laws, they are descriptive not proscriptive. The people who created your religions were unaware of them, and so they're not in your bible.

That’s what I see.

Subjective opinion, and sorry but woefully ill informed as well.

I don’t think it’s possible for laws to make themselves.

Straw man fallacy, who said they could, humans created scientific laws, that is axiomatic, again they are descriptive not proscriptive, it seems you are keen to ignore this fact.

 

[Sheldon]

Another empty unsupported claim.

There does not appear to be any need for such a creator.

Nor a shred of objective evidence. Notice after decrying science relentlessly, @ElishaElijah is now implying scientific laws are evidence for a deity, you have to see the irony of such inconsistency and bias.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Isn't that a statement that faith is nothing but hope? And what is the substance of hope? Nothing but a statement of preference.

Also, it's incorrect. Faith is insufficiently evidenced belief, nothing more or less. We believe things by one of two methods: compelling evidence properly understood (critical thinking), and belief without this. The latter is faith

And evidence of things not seen? That's an incoherent idea. It's not evidence if it isn't evident. The mind receives messages from the physical world. These are evidence when the senses and the mind apprehends them. Evidence of what is a different matter, and requires one be facile in reasoning to arrive at sound conclusions after considering what has become evident.

You've accepted by faith that a perfect, loving God exists, and so you see nothing else from this god. Other have mentioned the Garden and Flood stories. No unbeliever considers the deity in those stories blameless, but every unbeliever does. That's the evidence of a faith-based confirmation bias. Only those wearing it see a blameless god, because they assume it before examining the evidence. Even if you can't see past that, perhaps you can notice this dichotomy and try to account for it as I have. Why do all of these people outside of Christianity disagree with the understanding of believers, people you assume are wrong?

Everything hinges on how one processes evidence. Does he use it to derive sound conclusions, or does he use it to confirm his faith-based beliefs?

If I didn’t believe there was a God I would’ve never called out to Him for help. When I called if He didn’t answer and do something for me I wouldn’t be here saying He did. Not sure what would’ve become of me, hopeless, jail, dead, living on the streets. But no, in my right mind, successful, a family, full of hope, peace, purpose and know where I’m heading.

Yes, I know. You had a personal success associated with a god belief, and credit the god rather than the belief. Maybe you're right, but maybe you're wrong. Maybe you benefitted from a false belief. I personally have no problem with that, and like may others, have indicated support for that. I wouldn't take your faith away if I could. That would harm you.

It would be nice if you could show the same respect for my words to you that I show for yours to me. Did you notice that this comment addresses what you wrote, but yours before it ignores everything I wrote?

I commented on the awkward phrase evidence of things not seen, how it was an incoherent concept. You didn't respond. Why didn't you try to rebut it if you consider the comment wrong? Why do you think I wrote that to you? To disregard it?

I commented on confirmation biases. Did you even see that? If so, there's no evidence that you did in your reply.

I'll tell you what I have told others. I believe that one has a duty to give as well as take in these discussions. It's not all about you. It's not all about what on your mind. There is another participant who also has ideas he'd like considered. When you post like that, you are saying that you don't care what others are here for, and you don't care if there is nothing in the discussion for them. This is the problem that leads to so many relationships failing. We must always ask how much we are giving and try to imagine if that's a fair trade in the eyes of the other, because as soon as they feel like there's nothing in the relationship for them, that one side just takes without giving, they're going to look elsewhere. One must ALWAYS ask, what's in it for the other guy? Why should he continue to entertain my questions and reply to my questions when I ignore all of his.

Why don't you start with a reply to this comment? Please address it responsively. Agree explicitly with the parts you agree with or explain why you disagree where you do if you do. Anything that indicates that you read these words, made a good faith effort to understand them, and a good faith effort to address what was on the other guy's mind as if they and he are worthy of your consideration.

 

[Wildswanderer]

He knows his audience will also recognize that the watch cannot be natural, but not think that about the remainder of the surroundings.

Sounds like you totally missed the point of the story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sounds like you totally missed the point of the story.

No, we understand the failed argument.

 

[Sheldon]

faith is the substance of things hoped for,

You have just defined unevidenced wishful thinking.

 

[Sheldon]

faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

So faith is evidence for real mermaids and unicorns then, I guess there really is nothing you can't believe using faith. Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Failing again and again, and being forced (so much for omnipotence and omniscience) to resort to endless barbarity cruelty, and even indiscriminate global genocide is success to you? I'd hate to see what you consider a fail.

Your comments

Reflecting the biblical narratives, yes, did you have a point? Or perhaps you think a deity with limitless power and knowledge should not be expected to any better than string failures together in tandem, interspersed with violence, barbarity and indiscriminate slaughter, even a global genocide?

I'm inclined to disagree I must say, though luckily this is another reason to be cheerful that such a deity is not supported by a shred of objective evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

What information do you have about that? I have this:
How Did We Get the Bible - Lifeway

First Council of Nicaea, (325).

 

[samtonga43]

So faith is evidence for real mermaids and unicorns then, I guess there really is nothing you can't believe using faith. Quod erat demonstrandum.

No, Sheldon. You've pulled the verse out of context. But I suspect you know this.

 

[Sheldon]

How is that? I see mankind failing, then God fixing what mankind messed up.

An omniscient deity would by definition have known what was going to happen. If it couldn't anticipate putting a tree that was expressly verboten to touch, directly in harms way, was not a great plan, what does that suggest? Note it's reaction in the biblical narrative was anger and cruelty, a theme that continues in multiple other narratives. It didn't accept any culpability for this idiotic lack of foresight, despite be omniscient. Instead cursing not just the two humans who ate some fruit, but all of their offspring forever. It did such a bang up job, that it required countless wars of ethnic cleansing, rape and sex trafficking female prisoners, and indiscriminate murder, and endorsing slavery, and stoning children to death, it even committed an egregious act of global genocide.

Thankfully it's just an imaginary deity, like all the rest.

 

[Sheldon]

No, Sheldon. You've pulled the following out of context. But I suspect you know this.

Nope, he said that faith was "evidence of things unseen", it was a logical extrapolation.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe in and trust God because of the evidence. God has proven Himself over and over to be trustworthy. I cannot deny the evidence. To deny facts is ludicrous.

Great, can you demonstrate this evidence, or any of these facts? Only all you offered so far was a subjective claim that the universe was "evidence" for a creator deity. It's hard to imagine a more meaninglessly subjective claim.

 

[Sheldon]

What? a fractal is a term used to describe geometric shapes containing detailed structure at arbitrarily small scales, usually having a fractal.

Clearly a typo, like your lowercase a to start a sentence.

 

[Sheldon]

You do not understand what faith is. One cannot have faith in a person, for example, without first knowing that person. One's faith is based on prior knowledge.

Religious faith has a specific definition, as opposed to the primary definition of the word, all you need do is look in any dictionary.

noun

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
   "this restores one's faith in politicians"
   
   
2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

You are ***STAFF EDIT*** conflating the two, to misrepresent how religious faith is defined.

 

[Sheldon]

Think about what you say first. Faith is not the opposite of evidence. One has faith BECAUSE OF the evidence.

Nope, you are again falsely conflating the religious faith with it's primary definition.

noun

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
   .
2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

The second is unequivocally a belief held without sufficient evidence. You could of course just demonstrate the best evidence you think there is for a deity. Instead of using sophistry and semantics to quibble about faith.

 

[Sheldon]

My presupposition is that God exists and that He created the universe. Please falsify my presupposition.

A presupposition is not evidence, and why would anyone need to falsify a bare unevidenced claim? it's also an unfalsifiable premise the way you have presented it, thus it is not just unevidenced but meaningless.

Watch, My presupposition is that Leprechauns exists, and that they created the universe. Please falsify my presupposition.

You are skirting pretty close to an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy as well.

 

[Sheldon]

Who said it is. Who said anyone thinks the Bible is true because they believe in it?

Several theists have claimed exactly this, in this thread.

You are criticising your own strawman.

Nope, you need to read the thread.

I believe in and trust God because of the evidence.

Great, demonstrate it, and then we can take a look.

 

[ElishaElijah]

It would be nice if you could show the same respect for my words to you that I show for yours to me.

Sorry about that, I didn’t realize I wasn’t respecting your words. Not intentional