• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

ppp

Well-Known Member
You made a comment that made me think of my own experience. I used to make fun of people who believed in Jesus and the Bible. Until I believed. God changed me, I know that. I love the song "Amazing Grace." Because I know it's talking about me. :)
This is the same language that people use when shilling astrology, homeopathy and a flat earth.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Let’s see, before I met God debt, wrecked cars, over due bills, in trouble with the law, worry, pain, sexual disease, unwanted pregnancy, theft, isolation from society.
After prayer and God’s deliverance, peace, purpose, success in life, marriage, health, relationships restored, provision for family of 16, 25 years of marriage, Eternal Life, Hope, Contentment.

If this is a matter of a trick of psychology or just try harder and tough it out then go ahead and try, but I found that when God intervenes some is effortless, some isn’t but He gives supernatural power to overcome.

I was in a recovery program, I saw people overcome this and far more. Every day regular people have debt, car issues, bills, court dates, physical pain, disease, mental illness and more, Most people experience several points in their life where many of these and other challenges are in play. This is called normal life. Of all the people who I've known or heard about what was happening the majority eventually got things under control, got a secure job, bought a house, has a family, good health, and are happy. This requires exactly ZERO supernatural power, the human brain is equipped to deal with this and FAR WORSE and survive, find ways out and continue to live a happy life. POW went through years of starvation, torture and emotional terror and abuse and were still able to have good lives upon their return.
Nothing about any of that is supernatural. Humans do not need supernatural power to overcome difficult times. For 200,000 years humans dealt with surviving in the wild, in harsh conditions, lack of food and water and simple cuts and tooth issues could kill you by 20 years old. The modern age has given us all sorts of advantages but we are equipped to survive.

The peace, hope, contentment is great. But all religions offer it. But you know Islam and Hinduism are not real. But they inspire people in the exact same way as Christianity does. I found this to be literally true after I dated a woman in Islam and then a Hindu. I went to group meetings and heard all the same stories I heard about how CHristianity transforms and gives hope and the whole thing.
When one believes a deity is working with them it gives inspiration. Even if it's fiction. It indeed is all psychological.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
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?


You just produced a claim from non-eyewitnesses, anonymous myth that copies earlier Greek myths? You also didn't demonstrate that magic powers actually helped you? You just explained you had challenges and overcame them? You didn't say you grew a new limb or was raised from being dead for 3 days? Every human faces ridiculous challenges and eventually can end up with life completely turned around. Millions of convicts come out of prison after a life of crime, drugs, STD and many other issues and finally settle in a good job and raise a family.
Some are religious, some ask Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Krishna, and many other deities. These myths help give comfort and strength.
Also many are not the least interested in these myths and do it just by being inspired to live a better life.
You have not produced anything except a mundane claim, a transformation made by millions of people in all religions and non-religious people as well which is only evidence that people can change their lives. Not evidence of their God being real.


Here is a summary of the traits of the dying/rising savior demigods found in religions before Jesus. From Dr Carrier, Biblical historian

The general features most often shared by all these cults are (when we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

  • They are personal salvation cults (often evolved from prior agricultural cults).
  • They guarantee the individual a good place in the afterlife (a concern not present in most prior forms of religion).
  • They are cults you join membership with (as opposed to just being open communal religions).
  • They enact a fictive kin group (members are now all brothers and sisters).
  • They are joined through baptism (the use of water-contact rituals to effect an initiation).
  • They are maintained through communion (regular sacred meals enacting the presence of the god).
  • They involved secret teachings reserved only to members (and some only to members of certain rank).
  • They used a common vocabulary to identify all these concepts and their role.
  • They are syncretistic (they modify this common package of ideas with concepts distinctive of the adopting culture).
  • They are mono- or henotheistic (they preach a supreme god by whom and to whom all other divinities are created and subordinate).
  • They are individualistic (they relate primarily to salvation of the individual, not the community).
  • And they are cosmopolitan (they intentionally cross social borders of race, culture, nation, wealth, or even gender).
You might start to notice we’ve almost completely described Christianity already. It gets better. These cults all had a common central savior deity, who shared most or all these features (when, once again, we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

  • They are all “savior gods” (literally so-named and so-called).
  • They are usually the “son” of a supreme God (or occasionally “daughter”).
  • They all undergo a “passion” (a “suffering” or “struggle,” literally the same word in Greek, patheôn).
  • That passion is often, but not always, a death (followed by a resurrection and triumph).
  • By which “passion” (of whatever kind) they obtain victory over death.
  • Which victory they then share with their followers (typically through baptism and communion).
  • They also all have stories about them set in human history on earth.
  • Yet so far as we can tell, none of them ever actually existed.
This is sounding even more like Christianity, isn’t it? Odd that. Just mix in the culturally distinct features of Judaism that it was syncretized with, such as messianism, apocalypticism, scripturalism, and the particularly Jewish ideas about resurrection—as well as Jewish soteriology, cosmology, and rituals, and other things peculiar to Judaism, such as an abhorrence of sexuality and an obsession with blood atonement and substitutionary sacrifice—and you literally have Christianity fully spelled out. Before it even existed.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
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.


You definitely don't understand the big bang model. In the early universe during the first micro-second the universe was compressed to the size of a particle. All of the energy in this universe and all of the spacetime (as well as all the matter also in the form of energy) was compressed into this small volume. It was denser than a black hole. Unimaginable amounts of energy in this compressed quantum object.

Where did the compressed tiny particle of immense energy come from? We do not know? It may have come from spacetime? Spacetime is probabalistic, meaning given enough time something like this can happen. The total energy is actually zero, gravity is negative energy and when the negative/positive is measured they balance out. There may be more universe or spacetime that this emerged from. There may be a multiverse that we cannot imagine. We do not know. Throwing fictional deities from myths at gaps in scientific knowledge has been going on forever.
Rain, disease, drought, weather, sun/moon movement, everything not understood was done by Gods of whichever society you lived in. Even in Newtonian times there were a few unanswered questions about the motion of planets. They actually assumed God stepped in and did it"? God of the Gaps is always wrong.
But no one had demonstrated any Gods so that isn't even a real thing to postulate. You have to prove some God exists.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
[
You definitely don't understand the big bang model. In the early universe during the first micro-second the universe was compressed to the size of a particle. All of the energy in this universe and all of the spacetime (as well as all the matter also in the form of energy) was compressed into this small volume. It was denser than a black hole. Unimaginable amounts of energy in this compressed quantum object.

...

That depends on how far you go and claim knowledge. If you go all the way to a singularity then that is not a fact. That is a theory in theoretical physics and a theory in standard physics.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Without God where did this energy originate? Because that’s where your faith is, my faith is that God is the Eternal Source and He proved that to
me.
No you overcame challenges and got inspired by a fictional character you though was real. That gave you motivation and hope. Beyond out local universe is not yet known. There may be a vast multiverse that will help answer the questions about the big bang.

A creative force in no ways needs to be conscious either. The Hindu Brahman is an impersonal source of creation. You choose to believe in a king-in-the-sky because that is the God model used by the Israelites (they borrowed from the Canaanites because they emerged from Canaanite culture around 1200 BC). Early Yahweh stories even had him with Ashera as a consort, a Canaanite Goddess.
 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
It started out fun, then the consequences, when I tried to quit is when I realized I was addicted and from 1983-1987 tried to quit, parents forced me into rehab and thought it was a joke. The addicts and alcoholics sending me to checking out for them.
A moment of honesty happened when the counselor asked me why I was putting poison in my body and I didn’t have an answer, realized i couldn’t quit and was probably going to die from this. That’s when I prayed in my room and cried out to God, He was there in that room and although I didn’t see anything He delivered me, no withdrawal, no more smoking, no more drugs, no more alcohol. It was instant. Now the character issues and making amends was different, being delivered like that enabled me to work out all that by working the 12 Steps, in the process I got saved and was born again, I can tell the difference being born again because I have the grace to overcome temptation and sin where before I had no defense against these things.


You may not have been drinking enough each day to go into full detox. Those exact stories happen with Allah, Krishna, the Law of Attraction and many other religions. Having a deity to fixate on is a powerful psychological tool. Being free from drugs and believing in a religion is more than enough motivation to cause you to not want to "sin". These stories are as old as religion. They exist for every God, demigod and can easily be found now online.

It just shows belief can be a powerful psychological tool. It doesn't demonstrate anything supernatural. And yes, the children in cancer wards are met with Pastors and Priests and are genuine as any other person praying. But 7 million under 7 still die.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Seriously? From the very first verse.
All myths claim to be historical. All Hindu books, Greek myths, Persian myths.

Historians know Genesis is not history as do Biblical archaeologists. Like other myths sometimes some history is included in scripture. Kings, wars, towns, cities, holidays are often included in myths about Herecles or Krishna.

Religion, Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel

K.L. Sparks, Baptist Pastor, Professor Eastern U.

As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible's account of early Israel's history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israel's origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel's history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. Its primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all), who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories); he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn 'what actually happened' (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002, pp. 37-71; Maidman 2003). As a result, the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are
 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
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

Historians and biblical archaeologists completely disagree, on everything. You have bought into apologetics and assumptions. The poster who said "stories" was spot on with the consensus of all scholarship.

NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets | Archeology of the Hebrew Bible | PBS
William Dever, Professor Emeritus of the University of Arizona, has investigated the archeology of the ancient Near East for more than 30 years and authored almost as many books on the subject.

"The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people."

"
We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported events mean.

"" We have no direct archeological evidence. "Moses" is an Egyptian name. Some of the other names in the narratives are Egyptian, and there are genuine Egyptian elements. But no one has found a text or an artifact in Egypt itself or even in the Sinai that has any direct connection. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I think it does mean what happened was rather more modest. And the biblical writers have enlarged the story."

"
No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt."

"So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically."


"
Q: If the Bible's story of Joshua's conquest isn't entirely historic, what is its meaning?

Dever: Why was it told? Well, it was told because there were probably armed conflicts here and there, and these become a part of the story glorifying the career of Joshua, commander in chief of the Israelite forces. I suspect that there is a historical kernel, and there are a few sites that may well have been destroyed by these Israelites, such as Hazor in Galilee, or perhaps a site or two in the south."

Q: The Bible describes it as a glorious kingdom stretching from Egypt to Mesopotamia. Does archeology back up these descriptions?

Dever: The stories of Solomon are larger than life. According to the stories, Solomon imported 100,000 workers from what is now Lebanon. Well, the whole population of Israel probably wasn't 100,000 in the 10th century. Everything Solomon touched turned to gold. In the minds of the biblical writers, of course, David and Solomon are ideal kings chosen by Yahweh. So they glorify them.

Now, archeology can't either prove or disprove the stories. But I think most archeologists today would argue that the United Monarchy was not much more than a kind of hill-country chiefdom. It was very small-scale.

Q: One of the astonishing things is your discovery of Yahweh's connection to Asherah. Tell us about that.

Dever: In 1968, I discovered an inscription in a cemetery west of Hebron, in the hill country, at the site of Khirbet el-Qôm, a Hebrew inscription of the 8th century B.C.E. It gives the name of the deceased, and it says "blessed may he be by Yahweh"—that's good biblical Hebrew—but it says "by Yahweh and his Asherah."

Asherah is the name of the old Canaanite Mother Goddess, the consort of El, the principal deity of the Canaanite pantheon. So why is a Hebrew inscription mentioning Yahweh in connection with the Canaanite Mother Goddess? Well, in popular religion they were a pair.

"Generally, Moses is seen as a legendary figure, whilst retaining the possibility that Moses or a Moses-like figure existed in the 13th century BCE"
For instance, according to William G. Dever, the modern scholarly consensus is that the biblical person of Moses is largely mythical while also holding that "a Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century B.C

"r J. Van Seters concluded that "the quest for the historical Moses is a futile exercise. He now belongs only to legend"

The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth[........It expounds themes parallel to those in Mesopotamian mythology,
Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology,[....
Genesis 2 has close parallels with a second Mesopotamian myth, the Atra-Hasis epic – parallels that in fact extend throughout Genesis 2–11, from the Creation to the Flood and its aftermat




Christian mythology - Wikipedia - Christian mythology is the body of myths associated with Christianity. The term encompasses a broad variety of legends and narratives, especially those considered sacred narratives. Mythological themes and elements occur throughout Christian literature, including recurring myths such as ascending to a mountain, the axis mundi, myths of combat, descent into the Underworld, accounts of a dying-and-rising god, a flood myth, stories about the founding of a tribe or city, and myths about great heroes (or saints) of the past, paradises, and self-sacrifice.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
It’s not a look, it’s a thought or a feel. He manifests in different ways. For me, it’s often that He answers my questions through clear thoughts. I know full well it’s not my own thoughts answering because I don’t possess the kind of intelligence that I receive. Sometimes, I am told to do something in order to get the answer, and when I do it, I find the answer to my question.

Please ask for one of these:
-a 14 digit number I took from pi
-my favorite Christian music song
-how will gravity be quantized into quantum mechanics
-what does he want to tell me to convince me he is real, so far the evidence has been terrible. But since you have a direct connection we can finally get good evidence.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
...and all fictional characters. Not so, the Bible.
The Bible names real people, in real places, associated with real event... and archaeologist confirm it.
That's not fiction. That's fact.
Like SpiderMan some are real (the Mayor, the town) some are fake Spiderman, supernatural beings.
Let's see what archaeologists have to say.....

-"Generally, Moses is seen as a legendary figure, Van Seters concluded, 'The quest for the historical Moses is a futile exercise. He now belongs only to legend.' .

William Dever, Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona, has investigated the archeology of the ancient Near East for more than 30 years
William Dever: From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.

We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories

-But no one has found a text or an artifact in Egypt itself or even in the Sinai that has any direct connection. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I think it does mean what happened was rather more modest. And the biblical writers have enlarged the story.

-
So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.

-
If the Bible's story of Joshua's conquest isn't entirely historic, what is its meaning?
Why was it told? Well, it was told because there were probably armed conflicts here and there, and these become a part of the story glorifying the career of Joshua, commander in chief of the Israelite forces. I suspect that there is a historical kernel, and there are a few sites that may well have been destroyed by these Israelites, such as Hazor in Galilee, or perhaps a site or two in the south.

The Bible describes it as a glorious kingdom stretching from Egypt to Mesopotamia. Does archeology back up these descriptions?
The stories of Solomon are larger than life. According to the stories, Solomon imported 100,000 workers from what is now Lebanon. Well, the whole population of Israel probably wasn't 100,000 in the 10th century. Everything Solomon touched turned to gold. In the minds of the biblical writers, of course, David and Solomon are ideal kings chosen by Yahweh. So they glorify them.

The Bible would have us think that all Israelites embraced monotheism relatively early, from Moses's time on. Is that contrary to what archeology has found?
The portrait of Israelite religion in the Hebrew Bible is the ideal, the ideal in the minds of those few who wrote the Bible—the elites, the Yahwists, the monotheists. But it's not the ideal for most people. And archeology deals with the ordinary, forgotten folk of ancient Israel who have no voice in the Bible. There is a wonderful phrase in Daniel Chapter 12: "For all those who sleep in the dust." Archeology brings them to light and allows them to speak. And most of them were not orthodox believers.

However, we should have guessed already that polytheism was the norm and not monotheism from the biblical denunciations of it. It was real and a threat as far as those who wrote the Bible were concerned. And today archeology has illuminated what we could call "folk religion" in an astonishing manner.

One of the astonishing things is your discovery of Yahweh's connection to Asherah. Tell us about that.
In 1968, I discovered an inscription in a cemetery west of Hebron, in the hill country, at the site of Khirbet el-Qôm, a Hebrew inscription of the 8th century B.C.E. It gives the name of the deceased, and it says "blessed may he be by Yahweh"—that's good biblical Hebrew—but it says "by Yahweh and his Asherah."

Asherah is the name of the old Canaanite Mother Goddess, the consort of El, the principal deity of the Canaanite pantheon. So why is a Hebrew inscription mentioning Yahweh in connection with the Canaanite Mother Goddess? Well, in popular religion they were a pair.


As we have seen Genesis is a re-working of Mesopotamian myths. The flood story is almost verbatim the Gilamesh flood story. The even more literal and stunning borrowings come during the 2nd Temple Period where everything changed to Persian/Greek myths.
 
Last edited:

Firelight

Inactive member
Please ask for one of these:
-a 14 digit number I took from pi
-my favorite Christian music song
-how will gravity be quantized into quantum mechanics
-what does he want to tell me to convince me he is real, so far the evidence has been terrible. But since you have a direct connection we can finally get good evidence.

He doesn’t want to convince you that He is real. He wants you to ask Him for yourself if He’s real. No one else can do that for you. It’s your relationship with Him that needs building and only you and He can do that together. He’s sorry about any disappointments of the past and you need to try again. He misses you.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
He doesn’t want to convince you that He is real. He wants you to ask Him for yourself if He’s real. No one else can do that for you. It’s your relationship with Him that needs building and only you and He can do that together. He’s sorry about any disappointments of the past and you need to try again. He misses you.

Well, I have asked that of Her and yes, She is real to me. But She is not your God and He is not my God.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
This is controversial. He definitely put many artificial aspects into it, but used a living cell for some of the metabolism. So it is 'partly artificial'.

In any case, it is definite progress towards *completely* artificial life.

I would also point out that we have been able to extend the genetic code by adding new transfer RNA and thereby new amino acids to the encoding. That also uses previously live cell metabolism, but with artificial proteins.

Again, progress but not a home run.
I know that, but the point is that even if man made artificial life from scratch that would not necessarily mean tht we solved the problem of abiogenesis completely. In face if we do solve it completely then we will still not be able to make life using it. The process likely took millions of years and we do not have millions of years to demonstrate that we know something.

In other words when people make the rather ignorant argument that "man has not made life yet" that is what is expected when or if we do understand abiogenesis.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
To consider the universe is almost like considering God, because -- while scientists may claim to have the answer -- they really don't. And while it may seem logical in their minds about the universe, it really isn't logical for at least two reasons. One is that they figure some initial explosion or shall we say, expansion, started the whole things, like suns, moons, planets, supernovas (the "Big Bang"),

Do you realize that the sun, moon, Earth, stars, planets, etc didn't come directly out of the Big Bang? Between the start of the expansion and the first star was millions of years, almost a billion. It was about 9 billion years before our sun, moon, and Earth formed. And they formed by very different processes than what happened in the initial expansion.

the second reason is that the human mind (unlike animal minds) cannot fathom someone or something always there, without beginning and without end.

Why not? I don't find it particularly difficult.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Last I read was an article from NASA which claimed they found the first molecule or something like that ever in the universe. My reaction is -- what??? :) No matter what chemical terms they used -- what??? they found the first molecule in the universe, or something like that. What?????

Atoms existed before molecules. Molecules are made up of atoms linked together by chemical bonds. When it was too hot, no molecules could form.

The report you mentioned detected some of the earliest molecules. We know that because the universe was too hot prior to that to form molecules.

They aren't talking about detecting an individual molecule.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
You might have misread it or the writer might have screwed up. What was observed for the first time ever was the First Type of Molecule in the Universe. It was helium hydride and I have not read the full article yet but I am very sure that they observed it by its absorption spectrum:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/the-universe-s-first-type-of-molecule-is-found-at-last

That was how helium was first observed and that was in the Sun.


OK, that title was rather misleading.

They found they type of molecule that *would have been* the first type to appear. They didn't find it when it would have initially existed, but much, much later.

So, the prediction is that helium hydride would have been the first type of molecule that ever formed. They did NOT make the detection of that original formation.

Instead, they found this molecule in a much more recent event. But it was the first time this molecule had been detected in space.

I can see why that article would lead to confusion.
 
Top