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

[Sheldon]

I already gave you the definition of hearsay evidence in an above post. My personal testimony is not hearsay when I tell it to people, it’s first hand, me.

I quoted the definition, it's personal to you (allegedly), not to others you pass it on to see, I have received your unsubstantiated claim, so to me it is hearsay, this is not that hard surely?

Look up the definition.

I just quoted it for you?

noun

1. information received from other people which cannot be substantiated

Now I will try bullet points.

1. I have received information from another person, you,
2. I don't know it to be true.
3. Ipso facto to me your claim is hearsay.

Eye witness is someone who was at the scene, hearsay is when the person wasn’t. So simple

Very simple I'd thought, now take your time, am I an eye witness to your experience, or....have I just received a claim from you, a claim I do not know to be true? This would make the claim hearsay to me, yes?

 

[Sheldon]

There is objective evidence of God,

This is not true, I can only infer you don't know what objective evidence means.

The extrapolation about unicorns was a hypothetical, it seems no explanation can disavow you off the notion it was a claim about theists and unicorns, ah well.

Your example of dark matter is conflating two different definitions of the word faith, I even quoted these for you, all you'd need to do is consult any dictionary. lets try one last time...

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.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I quoted the definition, it's personal to you (allegedly), not to others you pass it on to see, I have received your unsubstantiated claim, so to me it is hearsay, this is not that hard surely?



I just quoted it for you?

noun

1. information received from other people which cannot be substantiated

Now I will try bullet points.

1. I have received information from another person, you,
2. I don't know it to be true.
3. Ipso facto to me your claim is hearsay.



Very simple I'd thought, now take your time, am I an eye witness to your experience, or....have I just received a claim from you, a claim I do not know to be true? This would make the claim hearsay to me, yes?

I’m an eyewitness and it’s a proven fact that God changed me and not a result from some trick. God has done the same thing throughout history for thousands of years. The people that don’t believe this just simply means they haven’t had that experience.
You trust in the science that says we possibly came from a cosmic explosion, there was light then miraculously from that explosion a life form, then billions of years, this life form through natural selection presto chango, into everything we see today, humans, trees, slugs, bugs, animals, marine life, viruses, bacteria etc. After all we share 70% DNA with a slug which is possibly your great great to the million grandmother. How’s that make you feel? Slimy? Or Smart? Oh yeah where did the gas and stuff come from for the explosion? A cosmic fart did it! Nice one!

 

[nPeace]

This is not true, I can only infer you don't know what objective evidence means.

The extrapolation about unicorns was a hypothetical, it seems no explanation can disavow you off the notion it was a claim about theists and unicorns, ah well.

Your example of dark matter is conflating two different definitions of the word faith, I even quoted these for you, all you'd need to do is consult any dictionary. lets try one last time...

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.

That the best you can do - cherry pick one line. Lol
I have seen this too often to be surprised. There is nothing here worth wasting my time on.

 

[Sheldon]

I’m an eyewitness

Yes, and I am not, thus I have received a claim from another person that I do not know and cannot substantiate as true, ipso facto it is hearsay to me.

it’s a proven fact that God changed me, and not a result from some trick.

Nope, I have done you the courtesy of accepting your claim, but it clearly is not a proven fact.

God has done the same thing throughout history for thousands of years.

I don't believe you, and the claim, (that a deity is responsible) which is all you have offered, is also made for many other religions and many different deities. You have not once addressed that fact.

The people that don’t believe this just simply means they haven’t had that experience.

Or seen any objective evidence demonstrated for the the claim. Since the profound change does not evidence the belief. Again this claim reaches contradictory conclusions, see different deities and religions being cited as causal using the same claim.

You trust in the science that says we possibly came from a cosmic explosion,

Science doesn't that?

there was light then miraculously from that explosion a life form,

Not even remotely a scientific claim.

then billions of years, this life form through natural selection presto chango, into everything we see today, humans, trees, slugs, bugs, animals, marine life, viruses, bacteria etc. After all we share 70% DNA with a slug which is possibly your great great to the million grandmother. How’s that make you feel?

Like you desperately need to learn something about evolution from an unbiased source.

Slimy? Or Smart? Oh yeah where did the gas and stuff come from for the explosion?

What explosion, I have no idea what you're talking about, and I suspect you don't either. However if you're referring to the singularity of the big bang it did not involve an explosion, and if you want to know what physics currently understands about ti then go learn, as you are embarrassing yourself here, and I'm not remotely au fait with the theory, but can see this parody is cringeworthy nonsense.

A cosmic fart did it! Nice one!

If you say so, however this is a ludicrous straw man, ironically it is no less ridiculous than the biblical creation myth, I'm guessing the irony is wasted on you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

People who study abiogenesis for a living don't understand it. Because it's not anything close to a proven concept.

What makes you say that? You have admitted that you know nothing of it. And since you do not even understand evolution you are in no position to make that claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m an eyewitness and it’s a proven fact that God changed me and not a result from some trick. God has done the same thing throughout history for thousands of years. The people that don’t believe this just simply means they haven’t had that experience.
You trust in the science that says we possibly came from a cosmic explosion, there was light then miraculously from that explosion a life form, then billions of years, this life form through natural selection presto chango, into everything we see today, humans, trees, slugs, bugs, animals, marine life, viruses, bacteria etc. After all we share 70% DNA with a slug which is possibly your great great to the million grandmother. How’s that make you feel? Slimy? Or Smart? Oh yeah where did the gas and stuff come from for the explosion? A cosmic fart did it! Nice one!

Amazingly wrong.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Not even remotely a scientific claim.

Didn’t you post the Origin of the Universe by NASA
Or maybe you’re playing it safe and all you can prove on that is there is a physical world and universe.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Amazingly wrong.

Let’s here your summary

 

[Sheldon]

Wildswanderer said: ↑
People who study abiogenesis for a living don't understand it. Because it's not anything close to a proven concept.

What makes you say that? You have admitted that you know nothing of it. And since you do not even understand evolution you are in no position to make that claim.

Whilst this is true, I'd rather focus on the hilarious irony of him disparaging an idea, because it's not proven.

"Scientists have discovered the building blocks of DNA in meteorites that landed in North America and Australia, Reuters reports, suggesting that the basic ingredients for life may have originated in outer space. Until now, scientists had detected three of the five basic chemicals that make up DNA and RNA.

Until now, scientists had detected three of the five basic chemicals that make up DNA and RNA. But in a new study published in the journal Nature Communications, a team of researchers led by Yasuhiro Oba, an astrochemist at Hokkaido University in Japan, detail their latest discovery: the two missing puzzle pieces.

The two nucleobases, purine and pyrimidine, were discovered in meteorites that fell in Canada, the US, and Australia between 1950 and 2000.

The research could change the way we understand the early processes that allowed life to form on our planet not long after the formation of the solar system."

<CITATION>

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let’s here your summary

No, bring up your claims one at a time if you want to go over them.

 

[ElishaElijah]

No, bring up your claims one at a time if you want to go over them.

I don’t but you said amazingly wrong and your view on our origin is?

 

[Sheldon]

your view on our origin is?

That I don't believe it was from an unevidenced deity, using inexplicable magic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t but you said amazingly wrong and your view on our origin is?

The evidence strongly supports abiogenesis. There is no evidence for magic.

 

[samtonga43]

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

Context is key.
(Hebrews 11)

 

[Bird123]

Reality has always been electrified with entities whose auras are baptized in freedom. Throughout history, humans have been interacting with the infinite via superpositions of possibilities.

Try as you might. Reality will never be exactly what you want it to be. It's best to Discover what actually is. It will prove to be better anyway.

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

 

[Polymath257]

For example, faith is required to have confidence in Dark Matter. It cannot be seen, but there is evidence it is there. Thus scientists are confident about it.

Scientists have confidence in our understanding of dark matter precisely to the degree it can be tested. And to the extent we cannot test it, we do not have confidence in it.

So, it is *possible* that our understanding of gravity is at fault and that there is no dark matter. We have attempted to formulate other descriptions of gravity that would eliminate dark matter and have failed in that.

So, no, I don't think that is the same type of faith at all. When has religious faith *ever* been tested with the idea of showing it wrong?

It's still faith, in that sense, but it's not what Hebrews is referring to.
Paul is addressing Christian believers, who have their confidence in the living God.
Not Dark Matter. Not unicorns... speaking of strawman.

And what difference does it make that it is confidence in a 'living God' if there is no way to test that confidence? it looks to be *exactly* the same sort of evidence that is given for unicorns.

There is objective evidence of God, which has been presented to you time and again, and you have dismissed it time and again... as was mentioned in the text I also referenced, in Romans 1.

And yet, how that is actually evidence is never explained. What the alternatives are that are shown wrong is never detailed. And how the tests are done to attempt to show the idea wrong is never given. How Romans 1 constitutes evidence at all is beyond me.

...and I keep

I don't know why I keep doing that, but maybe I am a hard head. One more time.
The evidence that the Bible is accurate, and reliable (historically, scientifically, prophetically, practically), and demonstrated to be so, both internally and externally, is evidence it is of Divine origin.
That is objective evidence.

Except that it isn't. it is NOT accurate historically (there was no Exodus or global flood). It is NOT accurate scientifically (way too many examples to go into all of them). And it is only accurate practically if you give up most of modern civilization. And there is no such thing as accurate prophecy beyond science.

It is a claim, which is backed up by objective evidence. So are the more than 100 claims it makes elsewhere.

Except that it isn't. Just ask the vast majority of Biblical scholars. They will go into detail all of the places where the Bible is simply inaccurate.

Question. Why do you believe in the origin of life claims, and, or the origin of man claims, when there is no objective evidence for them?

The origin of life claims are speculation. They are the most plausible thing we have at this point. My overall confidence level is not very high. As for the origin of man, there is much more objective evidence. In fact, the evidence for the evolution of humans is one of the best examples of evolution we have.

Let's do one at a time.
Please provide the objective evidence for the origin of life, and the universal common ancestor.

We know there was no life on Earth 4.5 billion years ago. We know there was life on Earth 3.8 billion years ago. That is evidence life on Earth first existed between 4.5 billion and 3.8 billion years ago.

The evidence for the most recent common ancestor is in the objective qualities of the chemistry of metabolism across all types of life on Earth together with what we know about how reproduction works.

 

[Polymath257]

A trick of psychology, man you need to go to a rehab and share that insight.

Hey, it seems to be an individual thing. What works for you might not work for others.

And, what we see is that a wide variety of psychological tricks work for different people.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't care how life evolved if you can't explain why there is life.

How is that not answered by giving the mechanisms for life evolving?

Life is a complex collection of chemical reactions that is able to maintain internal state and reproduce.

 

[Polymath257]

I’m an eyewitness and it’s a proven fact that God changed me and not a result from some trick. God has done the same thing throughout history for thousands of years. The people that don’t believe this just simply means they haven’t had that experience.

I am more than willing to believe such experiences exist. What I am skeptical of is your interpretation of those experiences.

You trust in the science that says we possibly came from a cosmic explosion, there was light then miraculously from that explosion a life form, then billions of years, this life form through natural selection presto chango, into everything we see today, humans, trees, slugs, bugs, animals, marine life, viruses, bacteria etc. After all we share 70% DNA with a slug which is possibly your great great to the million grandmother. How’s that make you feel? Slimy? Or Smart? Oh yeah where did the gas and stuff come from for the explosion? A cosmic fart did it! Nice one!

OK, so you show how little you know about what the science actually says.

No, it was NOT an explosion in the usual sense of the term. Life didn't start for over 9 billion years after the expansion started. And it wasn't for another 4 billion years or so before humans showed up.

No, it was not a sudden appearance of gas. Sorry you've been misinformed.