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

[SkepticThinker]

No, we don’t ignore them, but we may consider asking further questions. Such as; did God actually “not answer “? Or was His answer different or not the answer expected or desired? What if God in His position of being All-knowing, All-wise, and a God of Love ( as the scriptures state ) has a different plan, direction, or better answer than the limited perspective of the one praying who thought they didn’t get an answer? What if the person praying is so focused on the specific answer they desire that they miss the answer God does give?

Okay, so my question to this would be, what does an answered prayer look like? How can we tell whether a prayer has been answered or not?

And what of the mothers of starving children around the world who are at this very moment, probably praying for God to save the lives of their children, whose prayers will not be answered?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well we aren’t talking about that as you well know, I hope. Why aren’t we 100% in executing what we know is the right thing to do?

Well, you brought it up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m not trying to have it both ways. I am saying there is only one way to know God. From my perspective, experience and what’s revealed in the scriptures I see that God desires people come directly to Him because it’s about more than evidence. It involves relationship with our Creator; which is the ultimate purpose for our existence.

You are when you try to claim people believe that they got help from God as evidence for God, but then refuse to see people who do not believe that they got help from God as evidence against that God.

Evidence cuts both ways or else it is not evidence. By rejecting what should be evidence against God, by your own standards, you make the supposed evidence for him worthless.

 

[InChrist]

Okay, so my question to this would be, what does an answered prayer look like? How can we tell whether a prayer has been answered or not?

And what of the mothers of starving children around the world who are at this very moment, probably praying for God to save the lives of their children, whose prayers will not be answered?

I hope to get back to responding to this later. It’s not like I haven’t thought about this before and I do have my perspective and thoughts, but I’m just about to head to town.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good job, great way to be. Although the Bible describes that we cannot do the good we want to do due to sin taking advantage, I found this to be true or else we should be 100%. We know we shouldn’t lie or be dishonest yet if we do anyway why is that, if this is not the case? You should be able to be in complete control of yourself all the time but we are not.

Sorry, but that is not a logical conclusion. It does not take "sin" to accomplish that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So? Debate isn’t about anyone telling me what I believe.

Debate should be about what a person knows. Unfortunately too many only have beliefs. If one knows something one can rationally defend that belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I hope to get back to responding to this later. It’s not like I haven’t thought about this before and I do have my perspective and thoughts, but I’m just about to head to town.

Talk to you when you return. I hope that you have a nice trip.

 

[We Never Know]

Debate should be about what a person knows. Unfortunately too many only have beliefs. If one knows something one can rationally defend that belief.

"Debate should be about what a person knows."

So basically...??
No one knows if a god does exists therefore they shouldn't debate it
And..
No one knows if a god doesn't exists therefore they shouldn't debate it

 

[Subduction Zone]

So basically...??
No one knows if a god does exists therefore they shouldn't debate it
And..
No one knows if a god doesn't exists therefore they shouldn't debate it

Did you not notice the title of the thread? It is not about whether God exists or not.

 

[We Never Know]

Did you not notice the title of the thread? It is not about whether God exists or not.

My post didn't go by the title of the thread, it went by your post content of...

"Debate should be about what a person knows."

 

[Subduction Zone]

My post didn't go by the title of the thread, it went by your post content of...

"Debate should be about what a person knows."

And we are debating the existence of evidence for God here. We are not debating the existence of God. That is a natural result of the title of this thread. And of course the literalists quite often refute their version of God through their own claims. That of course does not refute all versions of God.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If there is no evidence of God’s existence, I wonder why He says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord...
Isaiah 1:18 ...and why the scriptures place such emphasis on seeking wisdom, knowledge and understanding.

The Lord wants to reason with us? When and where would that be? Maybe you mean the scriptures, but one doesn't reason with anybody by reading their words. And as far as the scriptures containing "wisdom, knowledge and understanding," I haven't seen that even after reading it through three times and parts of it thousands of times. Maybe you consider the tenets of your faith wisdom, but if so, why? You might know that I used to be a Christian and left the religion. That meets my definition of wisdom, which is knowing what to pursue to achieve happiness. I am much happier as a humanist than I was as a Christian, which would explain why I've stayed with the former for almost four decades rather than return to the latter.

Seems to me that an infinite God, Creator of heaven and earth is more than capable of providing adequate evidence or proof of His existence to anyone who truly wants to know and seeks.

Me, too. It's a big part of why I gave up the religion.

Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you... Matthew 7:7

Except that didn't happen in my case.

I also know there are millions and millions around the world and throughout history to the present who have sought to know God, His existence, seeking His guidance, wisdom, that have found the evidence they needed and reasons to believe.

But that means nothing to the skeptic regarding the likelihood that they are correct. I believe that they are misinterpreting their own psychological state and seeing it as evidence of external perception.

Who are you to say or understand how an infinite God answers human prayers?

We are human beings judging the claims of other human beings about their gods. They say that their god answers prayer, and we see no evidence that that is the case. The believer says that the prayer was answered whatever followed it, but the skeptic needs to see evidence, which is never convincing if offered at all.

The skeptic will not be evaluating the evidence the same way that the believer does. He needs evidence of a god to say that he believes one exists, and evidence that it is infinite before agreeing to that.

Right now, we only have believers and their claims, such as that this god exists, is infinite, and answers prayer, and I for one have reached a tentative conclusion that they are guessing about an infinite god and wrong about prayer being answered.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Except for God’s covenant through Abraham that through him All the nations will be blessed.

How did that work out?

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.

The argument that Paul and Jesus contradicted one another is based in comparing contradictory scriptures. I realize that the believer doesn't see these, but that isn't relevant to the unbeliever's assessment.

Motivated reasoning - " the phenomenon in cognitive science and social psychology in which emotional biases lead to justifications or decisions based on their desirability rather than an accurate reflection of the evidence." Also called rationalization.

The Bible is the best recorded evidence [for God]whether you wish to receive that or not.

But it's not evidence for a deity. What it is evidence for is everything that is much more likely to be the case because of its existence. It's evidence that it was written. The sheer number of them is evidence that it is believed by many. The language in older translations suggests that it's been around awhile. And the words are evidence that it is filled with unsubstantiated claims. That's about it. All of those things are much more likely to be true because of the Bible, but not the claims inside, including that of divine authorship. In fact, the text, which contains nothing that you or I couldn't have written, is pretty good evidence that only human beings wrote it.

Is there evidence to the contrary? No

There is enough evidence against the existence of the god of the Christian Bible to rule it out for those able to evaluate it impartially. The evidence for biological evolution rules out that deity even if the theory were falsified tomorrow. That evidence doesn't go away. It just needs to be reinterpreted the light of the falsifying find. I can think of only one logically possible - a deceptive, powerful superhuman presence that set up the world to look like evolution had occurred, one that could be a product of the universe rather than its supernatural creator. Even if supernatural, it's not the god of Genesis, who doesn't lie, and who wants to be believed.

That was an empirical disproof, one based in evidence. There are also purely logical disproofs of the married bachelor variety (the imperfect perfect god, the tri-omni god who permits what would be gratuitous suffering if it existed).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

demonstrate life coming from something that's not alive

It's coming.

it's never happened that we know of.

That's not a deal killer for a creationist. Divine creation has never happened that we know of, either.

Besides, we don't expect to see naturalisitic abiogenesis happen except in the laboratory. Why? Because abiogenesis occurs over eons, and probably requires a sterile environment, as other life would be consuming and disturbing the ingredients before they became cells.

the odds against it make it impossible.

Naturalisitc abiogenesis almost certainly occurred, whether on earth or elsewhere followed by panspermia, and likely occurs everywhere that it is possible - pretty much the opposite of your hunch. What's the alternative? Divine creation? Exceedingly unlikely. Gods are exceedingly unlikely.

Creationists often cite the complexity of a living cell as an argument against it organizing itself, and then propose the thing least likely itself to exist undesigned and uncreated as a solution to the problem. Everything conceivable is more likely to exist uncreated than a god, including a multiverse, since everything else would be less complex.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Well, you brought it up.

In was talking specifically about the Anne Frank example wasn’t what I was meaning.

 

[ElishaElijah]

How did that work out?

Good

 

[ElishaElijah]

The argument that Paul and Jesus contradicted one another is based in comparing contradictory scriptures. I realize that the believer doesn't see these, but that isn't relevant to the unbeliever's assessment.

Explain the difference because unbelievers that see Paul and Jesus having a different message shows a lack of understanding of the Scriptures and the Gospel.
It is funny that most of the comments about God and the Scriptures from unbelievers are twisted.

 

[ElishaElijah]

But it's not evidence for a deity.

I agree with God on this in Romans:
I agree with the Scriptures on the evidence:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭1:18-22‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Notice “Clearly Seen”

 

[Wildswanderer]

So the question on the origin of life is whether that organization can occur spontaneously.

I never said otherwise.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It has everything to do with the topic.

Nope...the topic isn't eating to grow. It's how life originated.