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

[ppp]

Hearsay would be if I said I know a friend who had a spiritual experience that changed their lives.
My testimony is firsthand experience, of what God did for me pertaining to my life, whether you believe it or not is irrelevant.
But I can’t really speak about the hearsay of other religious experiences, if they want to enter this conversation then that’s different.

If you relating your experiences and your alleged cause of those experiences is not hearsay, then the people of other religions who report their experience and the purported causes are also not hearsay. You cannot have it both ways. I have no reason to think you have any greater understanding of your experiences than any of them do. You cannot all be right, but you can all be wrong.

 

[nPeace]

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.

Can you test it? Have you?
List of unsolved problems in physics
The following is a list of notable unsolved problems grouped into broad areas of physics.

Some of the major unsolved problems in physics are theoretical, meaning that existing theories seem incapable of explaining a certain observed phenomenon or experimental result. The others are experimental, meaning that there is a difficulty in creating an experiment to test a proposed theory or investigate a phenomenon in greater detail.

Dark matter: What is the identity of dark matter? Is it a particle? If so, is it a WIMP, axion, the lightest superpartner (LSP), or some other particle? Or, do the phenomena attributed to dark matter point not to some form of matter but actually to an extension of gravity?

So you do not have confidence Dark Matter exist.
Okay, so is there any evidence of Dark Matter? Or is there no evidence of Dark Matter?

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?

Please explain. You lost me. Sorry.
a) There is no Dark Matter? b) There is Dark Matter? c) You don't know if there is Dark Matter? ...and the evidence is not there?

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.

You are the one claiming you can't test it. What do you think the Bible is?
All scientists do not agree that macro-evolution is as simple as the claim it is micro on steroids.

And yet, how that is actually evidence is never explained.

Not true. It has been explained... and there are a lot of hands waving. What more is there to do?

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.

Not true. That has been done also... and there is a lot of silence... and more waving hands.

How Romans 1 constitutes evidence at all is beyond me.

Romans 1 is not the evidence. Romans 1 says what the evidence is... in part.

Except that it isn't. it is NOT accurate historically (there was no Exodus or global flood).

Says you... and other opinions. Opinions are a dine a dozen. They neither prove, nor refute anything.

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.

That's not true. We have been through this. No need to repeat it.
Here we go again.

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.

The majority of scientists believe in myths. So what's new. What does that have to do with anything... except being an Argumentum ad populum or argumentum ab auctoritate... or both

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.

Most reasonable to you. The majority disagree, but I make no appeal to popularity.

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.

Okay, so inferences from fossils, and genetics is your objective evidence, yes?

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.

You are certain that you are not wrong, yes or no?
Can you explain why scientists disagree on this?

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.

This concept is an idea that you cannot be sure of, yes, or no?

The LUCA is not thought to be the first life on Earth, but rather the latest that is ancestral to all current existing life.
While there is no specific fossil evidence of the LUCA, it can be studied by comparing the genomes of all modern organisms, its descendants.

LUCA is a proposed idea (hypothesis), yes?
Why do you accept these... I call them myths? Do they not require faith?
I think they require more faith, than faith in a creator. Don't you? Please explain why not.

There is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth.​

- Fred Hoyle​

Is that the reason scientists disagree? They are proposed ideas to explain what they infer, or interpret from a body of existing facts?

 

[ElishaElijah]

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

Yeah the power source is God otherwise there is none or you’d have found it but you don’t have anything, nothing. Like I said I will let you start with a room and set it up however you want to for a perfect environment, and you can’t use any mechanical devices or human input.Once you set it up just let it go and see what happens. I guarantee you won’t end up with what we have here on earth. Everything in that room that’s unattended will die off or end up full of weeds and disease.

 

[ElishaElijah]

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



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.

Just reading NASA’s page, makes no sense and seems to go against physics. You have to have an energy source at the beginning, if an eternal God is not that source what is? Eternal energy source with no governing laws and can change on a whim? That’s some kind of belief and faith based on nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah the power source is God otherwise there is none or you’d have found it but you don’t have anything, nothing. Like I said I will let you start with a room and set it up however you want to for a perfect environment, and you can’t use any mechanical devices or human input.Once you set it up just let it go and see what happens. I guarantee you won’t end up with what we have here on earth. Everything in that room that’s unattended will die off or end up full of weeds and disease.

Then why is there no evidence for this "power source"? And there is no such thing as "a perfect environment". The Earth's environments have varied quite a bit over its 4.55 billion year history. And your uneducated guarantee does not mean a thing. Perhaps if you knew just a little science you might have some credibility, but in matters of science you refuse to learn even when others offer to help you to do so.

All you have is an iron age myth.

 

[ElishaElijah]

If you relating your experiences and your alleged cause of those experiences is not hearsay, then the people of other religions who report their experience and the purported causes are also not hearsay. You cannot have it both ways. I have no reason to think you have any greater understanding of your experiences than any of them do. You cannot all be right, but you can all be wrong.

Not sure what your talking about, I haven’t said when people explain there personal experience it is hearsay, it’s not. I said I can test that. But when someone else says other people have had spiritual experiences then that is hearsay. Just talking about someone else hypothetically.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just reading NASA’s page, makes no sense and seems to go against physics. You have to have an energy source at the beginning, if an eternal God is not that source what is? Eternal energy source with no governing laws and can change on a whim? That’s some kind of belief and faith based on nothing.

Once again you clearly lack the education to have a valid opinion about something going against physics. You may have heard the answer, but you probably ignored it. Cosmologists have measured the total energy of the universe. What is it? What does that tell us?

EDIT: Thanks to @We Never Know . Fixed it.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Then why is there no evidence for this "power source"? And there is no such thing as "a perfect environment". The Earth's environments have varied quite a bit over its 4.55 billion year history. And your uneducated guarantee does not mean a thing. Perhaps if you knew just a little science you might have some credibility, but in matters of science you refuse to learn even when others offer to help you to do so.

All you have is an iron age myth.

Produce something, I have, God is the Creator, He came to Earth, became a man, died for our sins, was buried, rose from the dead. Anyone trusting in Him will be forgiven, be born again of the Spirit, adopted into His family, receive the gift of Eternal Life. He answered me when I called out to Him for help and gave me what He promised.
What have your views promised you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Produce something, I have, God is the Creator, He came to Earth, became a man, died for our sins, was buried, rose from the dead. Anyone trusting in Him will be forgiven, be born again of the Spirit, adopted into His family, receive the gift of Eternal Life. He answered me when I called out to Himnfor help and gave me what He promised.
What have your views promised you?

Wait a second. You do not "have" that. You only have that belief. You can't support that claim. And I can't make you believe anything , unless you agree to reason rationally. When one reasons rationally belief is not a choice.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Once again you clearly lack the education to have a valid opinion about something going against physics. You may have heard the answer, but you probably ignored it. Cosmetologists have measured the total energy of the universe. What is it? What does that tell us?

How much energy do you have?

 

[ppp]

Not sure what your talking about, I haven’t said when people explain there personal experience it is hearsay, it’s not.

I am not sure that is so. But I will take your word for what you intended.

I said I can test that.

How do I test you? What is the objective failure condition for your claim. Objective failure condition means that I don't have to depend on your assertion to determine a failure result.

But when someone else says other people have had spiritual experiences then that is hearsay. Just talking about someone else hypothetically.

Hearsay is "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate." You tell me that you had a spiritual experience. Neither you nor I can substantiate that claim. I cannot demonstrate to myself, or to others that you know, or are capable of knowing, what you are talking about. From what I have seen, neither can you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How much energy do you have?

Come on, you can do better than that. A dodge like that is the same as you admitting that you are wrong.

 

[We Never Know]

Once again you clearly lack the education to have a valid opinion about something going against physics. You may have heard the answer, but you probably ignored it. Cosmetologists have measured the total energy of the universe. What is it? What does that tell us?

"Cosmetologists have measured the total energy of the universe."

All of it, including the unobserveable? Including dark matter and energy?

 

[We Never Know]

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

How life came to be and has since evolved are two completely different subjects.

 

[ppp]

How much energy do you have?

E = mc^2

Solve for E

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Cosmetologists have measured the total energy of the universe."

All of it, including the unobserveable? Including dark matter and energy?

Yes.

EDIT: Oh boy!

Cosmologists. Doh!!

 

[We Never Know]

Yes.

EDIT: Oh boy!

Cosmologists. Doh!!

Oh boy!

Tell me... How can they measure what isn't known or understood?(dark matter, dark energy, the unobservable universe, etc)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh boy!

Tell me... How can they measure what isn't known or understood?(dark matter, dark energy, the unobservable universe, etc)

By its gravity. Or observed gravitational effects. They have estimated this by observing the Cosmic Background Radiation of the Big Bang itself. That gives us the geometry of the universe and if a universe is "flat" that means it has zero total energy. Still looking for the right article but this explains a bit why they expected that before it was discovered:

What's the Total Energy In the Universe?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And here is one on how the universe has been measured to be Flat:

What shape is the universe?

 

[We Never Know]

By its gravity. Or observed gravitational effects. They have estimated this by observing the Cosmic Background Radiation of the Big Bang itself. That gives us the geometry of the universe and if a universe is "flat" that means it has zero total energy. Still looking for the right article but this explains a bit why they expected that before it was discovered:

What's the Total Energy In the Universe?

From your link.... "Its probably zero.

So otherwise we aren't sure.