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

[ElishaElijah]

That is confirmation bias.

Your diagnostic tools are faulty and for sure you must not know what confirmation bias is, seems to be a mantra for unbelievers.

 

[ElishaElijah]

That is confirmation bias. In the U.S. there are 2 million people in jail, 2.8 million die annually, 1/2 million people are homeless. Do you think some or most of those people asked God for help? Never mind the 7 million children who die every year under the age of 7. Do you think all of their relatives are not praying all day?
People who do end up going through those things sometimes don't make it but others use it as a point to grow from and end up with good lives anyways. Some may blame a God for help, others don't.
Some people say going to jail for a time was the best thing to happen because it got them on the right track.
Stuff happens. None of this suggests a God. A God that helps people here and there while leaving millions of very sick children in hospitals? This is all likely confirmation bias.

Prayer studies have actually been done. It doesn't work.

The results showed that prayers had no beneficial effect on patients' recovery 30 days after surgery. Overall, 59% of patients who knew they were being prayed for had complications, compared to 51% of the patients who did not receive prayers. The difference was not considered statistically significant.
Largest Study of Prayer to Date Finds It Has No Power to Heal

Largest Study of Prayer to Date Finds It Has No Power to Heal.

The question is did a God show up and perform miracles fro you or did things just happen to work out? Because many times things actually work out. Especially when a person thinks Allah, Krishna or whomever God is helping. That is a powerful emotional tool. And there are stories of Krishna helping people yet we know he is not real.


"
“He is the reason I stood up on my own feet. When no one was there, he was. He helped me to love myself and to heal my wounds.

People with desires, bad phases, and a state of sorrows will once again become happy if they understand Krishna’s Consciousness.

To act with Krishna’s Consciousness is to free the s"

Will Krishna save me from any situation?
Yes, why not?

Krishna is the best friend for anyone, you just have to love him and surrender to him completely. If you Surrender to his beautiful divine Lotus Feet and have unbreakable trust and faith in him then he will! Just spend as much as time with him as possible, generate a personal bond with him, surrender, and most importantly, LOVE him selflessly. Then you will get the best savior in the world and no one can do anything to you!!!
https://www.quora.com/Will-Krishna-save-me-from-any-situation

If this is your study on prayer then I’m wondering who people were praying to, was is stammering lips, rosary beads, lighting candles, witchcraft, vain repetition or was is prayer from a person born again with a relationship and covenant with God through Jesus Christ. I love getting together with God and communicate with God by prayer everyday. So I don’t think you even understand prayer in the first place.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Precisely, we know natural processes are possible, but we have zero objective evidence that unexplained magic, or anything supernatural is possible. We may not know how organic life originated, but there is no reason whatsoever to imagine it involved inexplicable magic, and if it did we will never know, since magic is inexplicable by definition.

 

[joelr]

If a person rejects God what other choice do they have? But know this for certain, if there is a car there is a plan, manufacturer, an engineer. A purpose for the vehicle and also a common design for things that work well, the wheel, the engine etc. Bike, wheel barrow, motorcycle etc.
Life is like this in the world we live in, this is universally understood.
We have building codes, structural principles that we use that are universal. Yet when it comes to spiritual things and Creation all this is thrown out the window by some people.

You are taking things that we know have designers and imposing that onto things that may not need designers. The Earth was not designed? Life evolved from single cells. Suns, black holes, galaxies, all happen in nature. People don't "reject" God when it comes to physical laws? There is no evidence for a God. You are invoking a fictional character to start laws? Cosmologists have many possibilities. One is a vast multiverse, there could be infinite big bangs, each with different expressions of the basic laws. There could be eternal big bangs from very simple to more complex. The big bang is believed to have started with one unified law. The 4 fundamental forces arose as the universe expanded. They emerged. These are all other choices?
There is no God outside of religious fiction. Hindus say Brahman or Vishnu created everything Muslims say Allah, Christians say Yahweh and on and on.....this disagreement demonstrates this isn't a universal principle but regional fiction.
How can billions of people including scholars who study all other religions theology and evidence feel they are completely correct while billions of others feel the same about other Gods?

Scientists are not debating basic laws of science because they can be shown to be true.
You didn't address my point, in the past religious people claimed God caused all phenomenon, rain, drought, illness, night, day, healings, good fortune, they were wrong. Why repeat that mistake just because science has pushed it's frontier farther? It's the same claim and probably the same mistake.

You also have to demonstrate a God before you start giving him duties and attributes. What God?

 

[Polymath257]

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?

I have about a 97% confidence level that dark matter exists. It is still possible that a modification to our understanding of gravity will make it unnecessary. All attempts to formulate such a modification have failed to fit the evidence so far.

Even if it does exist, we do not know what it is made of. There are several different possibilities, but we need to verify the candidates actually exist in the amounts required. My confidence for any of the possibilities is very low.

That said, a model with extra mass fits the dynamics of galaxies as we see them, including what is required for them to form. It also fits the gravitational lensing studies, which no other possible explanation does. That is very strong evidence for it to be out there.

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?

See above. There is strong evidence of its existence, but it is not conclusive. Alternative explanations have been tried and have not worked out

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.

All agree that 'micro on steroids' is the primary mechanism. There may be others.

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

Please give links to the explanation.

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

Give links showing where the alternatives were explored and tested.

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

It doesn't even actually do that. Instead, it is a diatribe saying how everyone else is silly and wrong. it doesn't even state what evidence would be. Have you read it? I just did.

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

But the 'opinions' are those of Biblical scholars and archeologists that have studied the area. They have concluded *often against their own biases* that the Exodus never happened.

And the 'opinions' in regard to the flood are from geologists that have studied what flood remains look like and what the actual evidence is. They have concluded *often against their own biases* that no universal flood happened.

These are not just the delusions of a few people who don't know anything. These are careful scholars that have spent time learning and understanding what the evidence is and have made conclusions based on that evidence.

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

And the previous times, all that happened is that the 'prophecies' were said to be innumerable without actually giving any that qualify as actual prophecy.

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

No, it is NOT simply an argument ad populum. Those qualified by having learned the relevant material and who have thereby become experts *are* qualified to make judgements. And when the majority of those who are so qualified agree about something that *does* make it much more likely to be true.

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

And now *you* are making an argument ad populum. Are the majority experts in the subjects involved?

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

yes, the fossils and genetics are the *objective evidence* from which we make inferences that lead to conclusions. If you disagree with the inference, show what alternative fits the evidence better. And yes, it has to fit what we have objectively learned about the fossils and genetics (as well as comparative anatomy, geology, etc).

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

On this topic, we have about a 98-99% confidence level about the timing. Our confidence level about the specific mechanisms is low, though.

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?

Hoyle did his work many decades ago, before we found the evidence we have now. Hoyle also believed in a steady state universe that has since been disproved. it was one of the possibilities at one time, but has been eliminated by more data.

 

[Sheldon]

Context is key.
(Hebrews 11)

Well of course I responded to it in the context it was offered. However I have read that passage through as well, and it offers no cogent explanation to refute the (hypothetical) point I was making, perhaps you can offer what you think it means and why, that you think I have missed, and then I would be happy to address that.

Biblical claims of course are hearsay, they cannot be otherwise unless they can be substantiated by sufficient objective evidence, or independent corroboration at the very least. So far example claiming that "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh." Tells me nothing me nothing, since it is a hearsay unevidenced claim for an event, and an unevidenced conclusion. One cannot approach such claims objectively if as has been suggested, one starts from a position of faith it is true, the idea is preposterous sorry.

 

[Sheldon]

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!!

Know that non-locality requires exploration. The most creative non-locality you will ever undertake is the act of creating growth.

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

 

[joelr]

Jesus said “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through me.”

Yes in John. This is the consensus in historicity-
Gospel - Wikipedia
The four canonical gospels were probably written between AD 66 and 110.[5][6][7] All four were anonymous (with the modern names added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.[8] Mark was the first to be written, using a variety of sources.[9][10] The authors of Matthew and Luke both independently used Mark for their narrative of Jesus's career, supplementing it with a collection of sayings called the Q source and additional material unique to each.[11] There is near-consensus that John had its origins as the hypothetical Signs Gospel thought to have been circulated within a Johannine community.[12] The contradictions and discrepancies between the first three and John make it impossible to accept both traditions as equally reliable

not reliable. Especially John. So that isn't evidence any more than the Hindu scriptures are of Krishna

This is the same Jesus I have come to know, He gave me His Spirit and I’ve been born again.

You have come to know an idea in your head. Just as those who come to know Krishna and Allah. Uttering the words "I'm born again" helps intensify the psychological experience but people have been doing this with Gods since Mesopotamia. I'm sure you didn't see, hear or literally talk with any Jesus.

He rose from the dead to prove that He is the One True God. No one can receive the Holy Spirit any other way.

During the 2nd Temple Period the Jewish nation was occupied by the Greeks. During that time Hellenism was sweeping through all the religions in the region. Some of the changes coming from Greek myths were, souls that can be redeemed and go to heaven, heaven is a place for not only God (as the OT says) but all cult members, dying rising savior demigods (son/daughter of the supereme God) who after 3 days rose again and through their passion get followers into the afterlife. Baptism, eucharist and so on. All Hellenism adopted by many religions including Judaism.

So it's a Greek myth that was adopted by Judaism. There are at least 6 known pre-Jesus resurrecting savior demigods in other religions.

 

[Polymath257]

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

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

Yes, actually. The total amount of energy (in the form of the total curvature) leaves a signature on the cosmic background radiation. We can measure that signal and use it to match the parameters in our models.

One of the pieces of evidence for dark matter is precisely the difference between the amount of energy obtained from this signal and the amount we actually see when we look at the universe. It is not, by far, the only piece of evidence.

In order for there NOT to be dark matter, the signal that we detect has to have a *very* different explanation. And nobody has been able to come up with such (in spite of many people trying).

 

[Polymath257]

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

So otherwise we aren't sure.

The problem is that zero is a very specific number. All measurements have uncertainties. In this case, that means we can only be certain that the curvature is in a certain range around zero.

So, the curvature is between -.004 and +.004 over the range that we have seen.

I would point out that if the curvature is positive, the total energy of the universe is guaranteed to be zero. A zero or negative curvature allows for the *possibility* of a small non-zero total energy.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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.

I understand the concepts of both.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Why would anyone be concerned about what you care is valid? That's not a cogent or rational argument, it is simple bias. No scientific theory or fact currently fully understands the origins of organic life, yet curiously the only theories and facts creationist waste their time cherry picking to deny, happen to be the ones that contradict core doctrine or biblical myths. One would have to be pretty blinkered or inept, not to see the obvious bias in such a position.

 

[joelr]

If this is your study on prayer then I’m wondering who people were praying to, was is stammering lips, rosary beads, lighting candles, witchcraft, vain repetition or was is prayer from a person born again with a relationship and covenant with God through Jesus Christ. I love getting together with God and communicate with God by prayer everyday. So I don’t think you even understand prayer in the first place.

No born again Christians do not have a higher mortality rate with disease. Older Christians who "pray properly" do not have a longer life expectance or beat statistics on disease mortality rates.
I was Christian, I understand the confirmation bias.

When you don't get what you hoped for you say "God has something better in store". And you keep saying that until something works out. This is how life happens for everyone.
Except you believe you are speaking with an invisible magic being.

Even though the apologetic is "God doesn't have to prove himself" or a few others, why not pray to Jesus and ask for an 8 digit number that I have taken from pi?
Why don't you ask him what my favorite Bach piece is?
OR, maybe you could just convert me! YOu ask Jesus what evidence I need to hear that will convince me that he is real. I am always open to new evidence! Jesus will know that.
There are a few great ways you can demonstrate how you communicate with God everyday.

 

[Sheldon]

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

We get it, it doesn't sound very appealing, but denying reality in favour of a comforting falsehood won' change reality. Far better to face the truth, and change what we can change.

 

[Sheldon]

Sorry, but you don't get to play that way. If you cannot understand evolution then there is absolutely no way that you can understand abiogenesis so it would be pointless to try to explain to you. Also, moving the goalposts is just another way of admitting that you are wrong since we know that evolution occurred regardless of how it started.

Precisely, Einstein's theory of general relativity doesn't explain the origins of life, nor does any other scientific theory or law, yet they don't seem to worry about that, obviously because it doesn't contradict any part of their religious beliefs...

 

[Polymath257]

And many think earth is flat. That doesn't make it so.

What they thought 2000 years ago was thought to be right.

Actually, 2000 years ago, Eratosthenes had a pretty good estimate of the size and shape of the Earth.

We advanced and said that stone age crap was was wrong. What we think today is thought to be right and we will advance more.

What will be thought in 2000 more years will be thought to be right and we again will say that crap 2000 years ago was wrong.

Probably. But the *way* that science progresses isn't how you seem to think it does.

For example, Newton's laws of motion are *wrong*. newton's law of gravity is *wrong*. They have been replaced by general relativity.

But the *way* Newton's laws are wrong is instructive. They can be and *are* used to send probes to other planets, to design buildings, etc. They are very good *approximations*, usually good enough for any job that needs to be done.

It is only in cases where a very high degree of accuracy is required that general relativity is used. The calculations in relativity are much more complicated and usually that extra degree of accuracy is not needed.

So, while Newton's laws are *wrong*, they are still used because they are good approximations that are easier in practice. General relativity gives much more accuracy.

So, the laws of physics as we understand them are almost certainly *not* perfectly accurate. They may get replaced by more accurate laws that cover more possible scenarios. But even if that happens, the laws we have now are very good approximations. The results we have found won't go away. The measurements of the curvature of the universe won't go away. They will become more accurate, not be eliminated.

This is how science progresses: by increased accuracy in all descriptions.

 

[Sheldon]

Rhyme and reason will play a role, but why on Earth would justice? Justice is a human invention. (Well not really. Many animals have a sense of justice too) Okay so justice is an evolved sense.

Again this is demonstrably correct, and if the unevidenced assertion a deity is perfectly just exists, then one need only defer to Epicurus for a cogent refutation, at least of the that type of deity that possesses omniscience and omnipotence, and omnibenevolence or is perfectly merciful. Since we live in a world with ubiquitous suffering.

 

[Sheldon]

So, while Newton's laws are *wrong*, they are still used because they are good approximations that are easier in practice. General relativity gives much more accuracy.

I'm guessing he will leap on the word wrong here, and fail to see your qualifiers about accuracy in all circumstances.

In fact, I'd bet my house on it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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

Not really. You would be more accurate to say we have theories about both. But again, who cares about point A to point B if we don't even know where life came from?

 

[Polymath257]

Not really. You would be more accurate to say we have theories about both. But again, who cares about point A to point B if we don't even know where life came from?

The way to learn about where life came from is to more fully understand where it is now first. So learning about point A to point B is the first step to learning how and why it arose.