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

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I consider that there's actually evidence for a designer and no evidence for multiple universes

It's the same evidence explained differently.

Lol, atheist talk out both sides of their mouth on this. Do you know how many times you all have told me evolution isn't blind chance?

As best we can tell, there is no intention involved in evolution or any other physical process prior to the advent of intelligent life, when people started building the machines theists that actually are examples of intelligent design . Maybe you are getting confused about the difference between random and nonrandom processes, equating them with unintended and intended. If enough matter accretes in space, it will organize itself into a spheroid. That is a directed process, but not directed by intelligence or intent. It's also not a random process just because it is not orchestrated by an intelligence.

To believe that the watch was designed but the ocean and beach were an accident takes an imbecile.

Or an education. I'm sure that you're aware that people who believe those things tend to cluster in universities. Yet you call them imbeciles because they contradict a holy book.

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

Others do care. And we can explain why there is life. We just need to flesh in the chain connecting the evolution of simple organic molecules to cells capable of maintaining a far-from-equilibrium status and reproducing. Amino acids to polypeptides and proteins, nucleotides to nucleic acids, lipids to lipid membranes. It all occurs spontaneously.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

People who study abiogenesis for a living don't understand it.

Sure they do. Like I told you when we were discussing evolution, the mechanisms are well understood even if the exact pathways have yet to be elucidated. We may never know what the first living population or the last common universal ancestor looked like. There are likely no fossil records, and probably multiple paths from nonlife to life, so identifying exactly what happened may not be possible, but we can live with that if it's the case. It wouldn't weaken either hypothesis as the theistic apologist likes to imply when he brings up these gaps in knowledge.

who cares about point A to point B? It's irrelevant if we don't know why we exist.

To you, perhaps, but not to the scientific community. And not to me. All knowledge is relevant. Consider the evolution of the human brain and mind. That is very relevant in understanding human psychology. We identify older reptilian structures and their associated behaviors, then superimpose the mammalian brain and its instincts, and then finally the human parts of the brain (intellect and conscience). We understand why we get conflicting impulses, what credence to give them, and how to manage them. I don't need to know where life came from for that kind of understanding to be relevant.

You keep offering your opinions as some kind of metric, as if you finding something irrelevant makes it that to others. You must know by now that that is not how your opinions are understood by others who do see relevance that you have missed there.

.if we are just accidentally created, meaning doesn't exist.

Once again, to you, perhaps. I find life meaningful believing that it and the rest of the universe may have arisen naturalistically. In fact, I question what you mean by meaning in life. How does the existence of an intelligent designer for life add meaning to it? Meaning to whom? The deity? I don't consider eternally praising a deity a meaningful existence. If that's where we're headed, meaning will sharply decline transitioning from this kind of existence to that one. It's like being part of the audience of a TV show where the applause sign keeps going on and one is instructed to give homage to the show.

I noticed that you had no comment about the following, and that you continue to offer nothing more that raw dissent and have waiving - how things seem to you and what you can't believe. Can we assume that that is because you cannot defend your claims against against rebuttal? You would if you could, right? :

"Do you ever rebut? It seems that all you do is dismiss comments with the wave of a hand and issue more unevidenced claims that don't address the argument made. A rebuttal is a specific kind of dissent, no other type having any value in dialectic. It is a counterargument that if correct, makes the argument it counters incorrect. If one's reply doesn't do that or even attempt to do that, it is irrelevant to the debate topic."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Christians don't have faith in unicorns. They have faith in God, and God's promises. Why? There is evidence of God, and the reliability of his promises. There is no evidence of unicorns.

This is confirmation bias, too. I can tell you from personal experience that the promises of Christianity are not kept. No Spirit will give you discernment, prayers are not answered, you will not be able to move mountains with faith, etc.. Why is it that I could see that, but so many believers never do?

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. It's still faith, in that sense

That's a different sense than religious faith, which is insufficiently supported belief. Once supporting evidence is introduced, belief commensurate with the quality and quantity of available evidence is justified belief, a different word with a different definition. The belief that there is an otherwise unseen source of gravity pervading the universe that organizes galaxies is justified belief based in evidence, not to be conflated with religious faith, which is by definition, belief based in desire and hope. Doesn't Hebrews say as much? Faith is the substance of things hoped for (hope is insubstantial) and the evidence of things unseen (evidence is evident).

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.

How about if one evaluates that same evidence and comes to the opposite conclusion - that the Bible is inaccurate? What should he think about those who disagree but can't see biblical internal contradiction, contradictions with science and history, and weak prophecy beside failed prophecy? That he can't recognize the difference between these things and what believers claim to see, or that the believer is reading scripture through a faith-based confirmation bias?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If a person rejects God what other choice do they have?

What atheists reject is the claims of others that they have experienced a god. Gods are always a possibility unless they are ruled out, which hasn't happened yet. An alternative to theism is agnostic atheism, my position. And we have excellent evidence that the universe doesn't need a designer. It didn't need a builder, and it doesn't need a ruler. It assembled itself automatically and it runs itself automatically day to day. There are almost no jobs left for a deity. Maybe one created the cosmic seed and set it in expansion mode, or maybe one created the first life, but really, what other jobs are there for a deity? Matter organized itself into galaxies of solar systems without intelligent intervention. The first life can evolved into the tree of life without supervision. The sun moves through the sky without Apollo's help, and nobody is throwing bolts of lightning at us or pushing electrons through wires, or causing water to make snowflake designs when it freezes.

What does the universe need with a god? Like I said, there gaps for it fill are very small now, and we have naturalistic hypotheses for those. Isn't the chief argument for theism that a god is needed to explain existence and life? Not any more.

you must not know what confirmation bias is, seems to be a mantra for unbelievers.

One of my favorite resources on the topic comes from a young earth creationist (YEC) and geologist, Glenn Morton, who became an old earth creationist as he studied geology. He describes his confirmation bias as a YEC using the device of a demon who sat at the portal of his awareness screening ideas and throwing those that disagreed with his faith-based belief out to protect him from contradictory evidence. The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: February 2002

Confirmation bias isn't hard to spot. It's evident whenever you read somebody writing things like there is no contradiction in the Bible or biblical prophecy is evidence of divine prescience. You look at what they look at and go, "Huh?" You see it in the election hoax believers and the antivaxxers. They simply don't see evidence, and Morton's Demon is why.

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.

This sounds like what an empiricist would tell a faith-based thinker.

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.

Do you have sufficient evidentiary support for the statement above?

Yes. So do you. I know this by applying reason to experience. All beliefs are either justified or unjustified. The former are believed by correctly interpreting evidence (and confirming that fact through testing), the latter skip that step. Both are called faith at times, but that's an ambiguous (equivocal) way of using language that predisposes the uncareful to fallacy by conflating them. For that reason, I call only the latter faith in discussions like these.

 

[Polymath257]

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Robert Jastrow

Except that isn't what actually happens. The theologians reinterpret their beliefs in light of what science discovers. They then claim to have been there all along.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t think the human mind can comprehend these questions, yet here we are.
The Bible says when we see Him we will be like Him and I believe in that moment is when I will get that understanding.
“Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.”
‭‭I John‬ ‭3:2-3‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

That was a dodge and not an answer. But just for your info, why couldn't there have always been energy?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol, there's no such thing.

Oh my, yes there is. Sadly you just confirmed that you do not even know what is and what is not evidence. No wonder you are so confused at times.

Now, instead of constantly breaking the Ninth Commandment, which has to happen when you do not understand the concept of evidence and talk about evolution, would you like to learn what evidence is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I consider that there's actually evidence for a designer and no evidence for multiple universes, not that it would change the need for a creator.

But we have established that you do not understand the concept of evidence in this context.

 

[an anarchist]

I believe because God can prove to me that He is real in a matter of seconds, and no amount of “science” or evidence can disprove His existence in any amount of time. God is the best “proof” of Himself. If you want proof, ask Him.

I once made a thread with the same attitude.
How to prove God.
Tell me, what happens when God "proves himself in a matter of seconds". How does this look like exactly?

 

[Sheldon]

It's everything that gives life meaning..if we are just accidentally created, meaning doesn't exist. And some atheists are honest enough to admit that.

People give their own lives meaning subjectively, and that includes religious beliefs, which as we have seen time and again of course are entirely subjective. It's just wishful thinking to imagine this means there is an overarching purpose to the existence of life. It also requires that you deny facts like species evolution. Some theists are honest enough to accept the fact of species evolution of course, but then they have to violate Occam's razor, by adding an imaginary deity, using inexplicable magic.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Total nonsense. They would have written them as myths if that's what they were. They didn't. They named real places and things.

Spiderman comics name real places and things as well. So does Dan Brown in his fictional novels.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Spiderman comics name real places and things as well. So does Dan Brown in his fictional novels.

That is good news. I always did like Spidey and now we learned that he is real.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And I think that's nonsense. What "meaning" do you get to suppose you were created, but for no reason that you can know about? Man can invent tools to heal and tools to kill. For all you know, your God might have created all of the universe just as a weapon against some other universe, and how would you know otherwise?

You want meaning for yourself? It's yours to find -- for yourself. Just as, if you have kids, you don't, at the moment of their birth pronounce, "Okay, this is the doctor, this one's a plumber, and this girl, yes, I think ballet dancer would be right," and then expect them all to do precisely that. No, they find their own life's work -- they find their own meaning. Nobody need give it to them.

Our lives work isn't enough to give life meaning. This is obvious by the millions who are working thier tails off and seeing a shrink because they are depressed.
Ecclesiastes:"Moreover, when God gives someone wealth and possessions, and the ability to enjoy them, to accept their lot and be happy in their toil—this is a gift of God."

Without God in the picture it's just;

Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.”

3 What do people gain from all their labors
at which they toil under the sun?
4 Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.
5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.
6 The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.
7 All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.
8 All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.
9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
11 No one remembers the former generations,
and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow them.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Spiderman comics name real places and things as well. So does Dan Brown in his fictional novels.

But they aren't claiming to be real history...at least I hope not!
The Bible is and does.

 

[Wildswanderer]

when people started building the machines theists that actually are examples of intelligent design .

We are made of machines within machines within machines.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Our lives work isn't enough to give life meaning. This is obvious by the millions who are working thier tails off and seeing a shrink because they are depressed.
Ecclesiastes:"Moreover, when God gives someone wealth and possessions, and the ability to enjoy them, to accept their lot and be happy in their toil—this is a gift of God."

Without God in the picture it's just;

Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.”

3 What do people gain from all their labors
at which they toil under the sun?
4 Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.
5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.
6 The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.
7 All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.
8 All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.
9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
11 No one remembers the former generations,
and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow them.

And now you know why Ecclesiastes is my favourite book in the Bible. It's the only one trying to tell the truth.

There really is no meaning unless you create that meaning yourself. Otherwise, you are merely alive -- until you are not.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Except that isn't what actually happens. The theologians reinterpret their beliefs in light of what science discovers. They then claim to have been there all along.

You really don't understand the quote. When science finally figures it out they will find the theists knew it long ago.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And now you know why Ecclesiastes is my favourite book in the Bible. It's the only one trying to tell the truth.

Then you don't get the book, because it's pointing to God as the only source of meaning.

"Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind."

 

[Wildswanderer]

But we have established that you do not understand the concept of evidence in this context.

No that's just your confusion.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Oh my, yes there is. Sadly you just confirmed that you do not even know what is and what is not evidence. No wonder you are so confused at times.

Now, instead of constantly breaking the Ninth Commandment, which has to happen when you do not understand the concept of evidence and talk about evolution, would you like to learn what evidence is?

We aren't talking about evolution, remember?