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

[Polymath257]

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

That's your interpretation. But it isn't the only one. Another one is that he shows how little we know and how fruitless certain types of questions are.

"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."

Which, given the context of the book as a whole, is a cop-out. It is more of a bone tossed out to the religious authorities than anything else.

 

[Polymath257]

Seriously? From the very first verse.

Really? From the very first verse, it seems to be telling a story, not giving history.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And that is why we can dismiss much of it. We can check it against archeology and other written histories and see whether it is accurate.

And what we find is that it isn't.

Luke's nativity is a favorite. And when they ask "which historian" one of the main ones is a historian that they rely on quite frequently. Josephus recorded when Quirinus first entered Judea and when he had the first Roman census in the area. It was long after Herod was dead.

 

[Polymath257]

Luke's nativity is a favorite. And when they ask "which historian" one of the main ones is a historian that they rely on quite frequently. Josephus recorded when Quirinus first entered Judea and when he had the first Roman census in the area. It was long after Herod was dead.

So many people seem to think the Bible is the only book from that area and time. Or that it is even the most reliable one.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Really? From the very first verse, it seems to be telling a story, not giving history.

Probably better look up the definition of History. @Wildswanderer is correct about the Bible being history. Look at the names of the books Acts, Chronicles, all through the Bible the words are they not written in the records, all through Kings etc.
his·to·ry
(hĭs′tə-rē)
n. pl. his·to·ries
1.
a. A chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events: a history of the Vikings.
Definition of history


1: TALE, STORY
2a: a chronological record of significant events (such as those affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causesa history of Japan

 

[Subduction Zone]

Probably better look up the definition of History. @Wildswanderer is correct about the Bible being history. Look at the names of the books Acts, Chronicles, all through the Bible the words are they not written in the records, all through Kings etc.
his·to·ry
(hĭs′tə-rē)
n. pl. his·to·ries
1.
a. A chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events: a history of the Vikings.
Definition of history


1: TALE, STORY
2a: a chronological record of significant events (such as those affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causesa history of Japan

Why did you cherry pick?

 

[Sheldon]

Just reading NASA’s page, makes no sense and seems to go against physics.

Publish your findings, I would think fame fortune and possibly a Nobel prize in Physics beckon, at the very least.

You have to have an energy source at the beginning, if an eternal God is not that source what is?

Two common logical fallacies right there, a begging the question fallacy and an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, forget cutting edge physics, if you can't even make a rational argument. Didn't you claim you studied logic at college?

Eternal energy source with no governing laws and can change on a whim?

You're describing an imaginary deity. certainly nothing in Physics, but please do quote NASA's astronomers making that claim, as this is hardly the first time you have misrepresented it, conveniently offering no quote for comparison.

 

[Sheldon]

Not sure what your talking about,

Seemed crystal clear to me, the identical anecdotal claims you make are made by others who cite a very different religions and different deities as the cause. I've explained this innumerable times, you have yet to address it cogently.

I haven’t said when people explain there personal experience it is hearsay, it’s not.

Their (not there (sic)) personal subjective beliefs, are hearsay by definition, when they offer them to others, as you have done.

I said I can test that.

This is also unevidenced hearsay. Publish the results of your test, will it stand up to objective scrutiny or peer review? claiming you tested yourself, and that you are happy it passed this test is meaningless hearsay.

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

You are making an unsubstantiated anecdotal claim for an experience, to you it is not hearsay, but to others it is by definition hearsay, that is what the word means.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

Those are unevidenced claims. unevidenced claims are not a demonstration of objective evidence. The more you demonstrate you can't tell the difference the less credence your claims take on in any proper debate.

 

[Sheldon]

Probably better look up the definition of History. @Wildswanderer is correct about the Bible being history. Look at the names of the books Acts, Chronicles, all through the Bible the words are they not written in the records, all through Kings etc.
his·to·ry
(hĭs′tə-rē)
n. pl. his·to·ries
1.
a. A chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events: a history of the Vikings.
Definition of history


1: TALE, STORY
2a: a chronological record of significant events (such as those affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causesa history of Japan

Many of the narrative sand myths in the bible have been falsified, Exodus did not happen as described based on decades of archaeological evidence, and no, you can't just wave it away with a link to unaccredited creationist site claiming they are archaeologists, making claims that are unscientific and not peer reviewed. The geological evidence demonstrate unequivocally that no global flood has occurred, and again creationist woo woo doesn't refute scientific evidence.

The creation myth gets the most basic chronological facts about the formation of our solar system wrong, a planet with vegetation existing before the sun for example, Humans created using inexplicable magic in their current form, when we know for an objective fact they evolved, as have all living things.

This is before we even start with the fact there isn't a shred of objective evidence to support the existence of any deity, or any supernatural event.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[Sheldon]

ElishaElijah said: ↑
Wrong about what? Science answer is as funny as yours would be.

An inability to understand does not make something funny.

Oh I don't know, some of these responses are pretty funny you have to admit. NASA are wrong because "goddidit", that is pretty funny tbh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Many of the narrative sand myths in the bible have been falsified, Exodus did not happen as described based on decades of archaeological evidence, and no, you can't just wave it away with a link to unaccredited creationist site claiming they are archaeologists, making claims that are unscientific and not peer reviewed. The geological evidence demonstrate unequivocally that no global flood has occurred, and again creationist woo woo doesn't refute scientific evidence.

The creation myth gets the most basic chronological facts about the formation of our solar system wrong, a planet with vegetation existing before the sun for example, Humans created using inexplicable magic in their current form, when we know for an objective fact they evolved, as have all living things.

This is before we even start with the fact there isn't a shred of objective evidence to support the existence of any deity, or any supernatural event.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

All defeated by the ostrich defense:

If I don't allow myself to see it, it did not happen!

 

[Sheldon]

But know this for certain, if there is a car there is a plan, manufacturer, an engineer.

Well done, and those things represent objective evidence of design. Do cars occur naturally? Does anything for which we have objective evidence of design, like the evidence you just described, ever occur naturally, give even one example?

FYI, evidencing the design of cars don't need or demonstrate an unevidenced deity, or inexplicable magic do they. So a very poor analogy all around, as just like Paley's watch, you have actually created an argument against your belief in a supernatural designer creator.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I’ve been reading through a couple of threads, and I see that it is said that there is no evidence for a god, it’s an unfalsifiable idea. We all agree on this? If you don’t, care to explain the evidence there is for god?
I’m in agreement. I used to believe my personal experiences to be subjective evidence for god, but I know now that’s not the case. I am not a theist anymore because I recognize I was a Christian thanks almost completely to my environment. That’s why I believed. I was brought up in it. Wasn’t because of any proof or anything,
So, theists, why do you believe? Is it mainly because of your environment and geographical location? There is no proof for god (right?), so what logically keeps you believing? Or is logic not supposed to be a factor when it comes to faith? Is it too jarring, the idea of leaving the comfort that religion and belief in a god brings?
I am curious about personal evaluations on why you believe. It can’t be because of logic, as there is no proof of god, right?

I would word it somewhat differently. Evidence certainly exists for the existence of God, but it doesn't rise to the level of proving God's existence.

For example, most people look at the universe and see something that is clearly designed. It's an intuition, like, if you went to Mars and found a computer, you would intuit that the computer was made by some sort of sentient being. This ability to intuit design is basically good and helpful, but it is not imperfect. We sometimes intuit wrongly, and that is certainly true of this particular intuition. So it is evidence, yes, but not without question.

 

[Sheldon]

No one can receive the Holy Spirit any other way.

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

Unevidenced claim...

This is the same Jesus I have come to know,

Unevidenced claim...

He gave me His Spirit and I’ve been born again.

Unevidenced claim...

He rose from the dead to prove that He is the One True God.

Unevidenced claim...

Sigh...

We really must start teaching critical thinking to children, and informal logical fallacies. the sooner the better, no time to lose.

 

[ElishaElijah]

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.

I see what you’re saying about what does the universe need with a God? My view is there wouldn’t be a universe without God and it’s Jesus Christ who holds everything together.
God needs nothing but decided to create man for fellowship, love and blessing, so we could share in His holiness. This is what I see in the Gospel

 

[Sheldon]

Evidence certainly exists for the existence of God

I don't believe you, please demonstrate what you consider to be the most compelling piece of "evidence" for any deity?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Unevidenced claim...



Unevidenced claim...



Unevidenced claim...



Unevidenced claim...

Sigh...

We really must start teaching critical thinking to children, and informal logical fallacies. the sooner the better, no time to lose.

You better start learning something well maybe you are cause I just thought of this : you’re learning but not able to know truth.
“always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
‭‭II Timothy‬ ‭3:7‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[Sheldon]

For example, most people look at the universe and see something that is clearly designed. It's an intuition, like, if you went to Mars and found a computer, you would intuit that the computer was made

Why do people keep rehashing Paley's watchmaker fallacy? No I would not intuit that at all, I would know it was designed because there is objective evidence to demonstrate it is. Furthermore they never appear naturally, as you and Paley just demonstrated by contrasted them with a natural surrounding, the irony of course is palpable.

The most obvious flaw is that you and Paley are positing that everything is created and designed, so why place a watch on a beach or a computer on Mars? If your belief had any credence, you'd be looking a watch on an infinite pile of watches, or a computer on an infinite pile of computers. Pretty ironic given creationist keep claiming complexity donates design, then placing watches and computers on Martian dust or a sandy beach.

 

[Sheldon]

You better start learning something well maybe you are cause I just thought of this : you’re learning but not able to know truth.
“always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
‭‭II Timothy‬ ‭3:7‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Is there an English version of that vapid non-sequitur?