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

[SkepticThinker]

Jesus Christ came and proved this, are you going to argue till He returns or seek Him out? Find out if what I say is true.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[ppp]

Good grief... have you been following the thread at all? It's the whole point. The question is if life can come from non life.

You are not thinking very clearly. Which probably accounts for imprecise verbiage. What you said is that "Life begets life". No one disputes that. There for it is irrelevant. What is under dispute is your actual position that only life results in life. Which you have utterly failed to demonstrate. Do you even know what life is? Do you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t know what all your yapping is about. I don’t recognize any of those names you list. God already knows your and GF names and where you both live. I don’t care to know. I’m not out to prove to you that God exists. You asked me to answer one of your questions and I did. You either care to believe in and develop a relationship with God, or you don’t……and ….. you don’t. Not my problem.

That is a pity because that is where quite a few of the roots of your faith come from. Genesis is mostly rewriting of Babylonian myth.

 

[ElishaElijah]

If you have faith in it.

Having faith in the Scriptures is irrelevant to this particular issue. The issue is did Paul change the message of the Gospel? The answer is no from what the Scriptures say.

 

[ElishaElijah]

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

And just because you say there is no evidence when there is plenty means nothing. The Bible is the best recorded evidence whether you wish to receive that or not. There is also other evidence that’s been shown. Is there evidence to the contrary? No

 

[We Never Know]

What if god and nature(mother nature) are synonymous?

You can see credited affects but can't see either
Both are credited to creating things including life
Both are all around us(nature is, god too if you believe such)


You all would probably still bicker

 

[ppp]

And just because you say there is no evidence when there is plenty means nothing. The Bible is the best recorded evidence whether you wish to receive that or not. There is also other evidence that’s been shown. Is there evidence to the contrary? No

The Bible is not the evidence. It is just the set of claims that you parrot.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Why do you find it funny?
Are you not familiar with the expression "a mountain of evidence"? Or do you challenge the statement that there is a mountain of evidence for natural processes? I hope it is the former because the latter would be pretty worrying.

a mountain of something/mountains of something | meaning of a mountain of something/mountains of something in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English | LDOCE

I don’t have a problem with natural processes because in Genesis God shows us that very thing and what I was saying in the word salad. Now put your favorite dressing on it and eat up and enjoy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Having faith in the Scriptures is irrelevant to this particular issue. The issue is did Paul change the message of the Gospel? The answer is no from what the Scriptures say.

Of course the Bible would not say that. Try to get outside of the tight little Christian box that you force yourself into.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t have a problem with natural processes because in Genesis God shows us that very thing and what I was saying in the word salad. Now put your favorite dressing on it and eat up and enjoy.

Genesis is actually incredibly strong evidence against the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And just because you say there is no evidence when there is plenty means nothing. The Bible is the best recorded evidence whether you wish to receive that or not. There is also other evidence that’s been shown. Is there evidence to the contrary? No

No, the Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence. Until someone somewhere demonstrates that the Bible is reliable, and no one has ever come close, then it will only remain the claim.

 

[ElishaElijah]

The Bible is not the evidence. It is just the set of claims that you parrot.

And the evidence, historical record with eyewitness testimony, whether you want to use it or accept that is your decision.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And just because you say there is no evidence when there is plenty means nothing. The Bible is the best recorded evidence whether you wish to receive that or not. There is also other evidence that’s been shown. Is there evidence to the contrary? No

I didn't say there was no evidence. What I said was that you have asserted something without providing evidence. And so I dismiss it just as easily as you asserted it, because you haven't provided any evidence for me to consider.

The Bible is where you got your claims from. The very claims you are asserting here without evidence.

Also, nobody needs to provide "evidence to the contrary" when no evidence has been submitted in favor of your position. Hence my comment.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And the evidence, historical record with eyewitness testimony, whether you want to use it or accept that is your decision.

What eyewitness testimony?

 

[ElishaElijah]

I didn't say there was no evidence. What I said was that you have asserted something without providing evidence. And so I dismiss it just as easily as you asserted it, because you haven't provided any evidence for me to consider.

The Bible is where you got your claims from. The very claims you are asserting here without evidence.

Also, nobody needs to provide "evidence to the contrary" when no evidence has been submitted in favor of your position. Hence my comment.

And you saying the Bible can’t be used as evidence is just your opinion, it can be used and people will be held accountable at the last court appearance for it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Having faith in the Scriptures is irrelevant to this particular issue. The issue is did Paul change the message of the Gospel? The answer is no from what the Scriptures say.

And your interpretation is not the only one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And the evidence, historical record with eyewitness testimony, whether you want to use it or accept that is your decision.

What? Where? You appear to have never studied the Bible. Very little of it is historical record and almost none of it is eyewitness testimony.

And guess what pulls more weight in a court of law? Eyewitness testimony or forensic evidence (which is scientific evidence)? Let's say that a close friend of the accused states under oath the his friend was with him that day, that his friend was never at the crime scene and yet there was fresh DNA evidence of his friend being at the scene that day. Which evidence is more reliable? Let me put it this way, the friend would be facing charges of perjury and would need a lawyer.

We don't see that sort of testimony due to "discovery" The defense is allowed to know what evidence is going to be used against it, so wisely no one even tries to do this.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And you saying the Bible can’t be used as evidence is just your opinion, it can be used and people will be held accountable at the last court appearance for it.

The Bible is the claim. The evidence needs to come from somewhere outside the Bible. That's just how it works.

You don't accept the claims of the Quran at face value, do you? How about the claims of the Bhagavad Gita? Or the claims of the Agamas? Ask yourself why that is, and I think you'll find it's the same reason I don't accept the claims of the Bible at face value.

 

[ppp]

And the evidence, historical record with eyewitness testimony, whether you want to use it or accept that is your decision.

If you are talking about the gospels, they do not even claim to be eyewitness testimony. You are just making that up. Hell, the anonymous author of Luke even says that he or she is not an eyewitness. Read your Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you saying the Bible can’t be used as evidence is just your opinion, it can be used and people will be held accountable at the last court appearance for it.

No, it is a fact. This tells us that you do not understand the concept of evidence. If one tries to use it as "evidence" one fails because no person that reasons rationally would accept circular thinking relying on a book that has been refuted in many different places within it. By trying to claim that all of the Bible is true you end up refuting all of it.