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

[sayak83]

I don't know the details.

Firstly thank you for your honesty.
Secondly it shows why we cannot take creationist and ID "theories" seriously.

 

[Audie]

No.



Yes.



Shows folly in literal flood-believin.



I was speaking in general about secular assumptions being brought into the examining of the Bible, not specifically about the flood.
Those who study the Bible for example with the presumption that the supernatural is not true end up doing what they knew from the start would happen, they show the0Bible is not credible.

So it's against folly, not " god" to show the flood
is just a story. Good.

Re your last line, do you find that reading the
Bible with a presumption that the supernatural
is not true is non objective, and therefore intellectually dishonest?


If not, what is the problem with it.

 

[Audie]

Love is the highest virtue for Christians.
Scienctists when doing science probably do not bring in confirmation bias.
Since you are the one saying I have confirmation bias then you should be able to give me examples.
There is plenty of confirmation bias on this forum and I'm sure you would agree without examples.




Did I say that? Maybe I did. Please show me where so I can agree.

I said A highest virtue. Not " the".

You have not responded to my observation
that faith mandates intellectual dishonesty,
makes it a virtue.

I asked you for example to back your claim.
Turning it around to ask me for example is not fair play.

 

[Audie]

There may be no difference. I don't know and it does not matter.

Not difference between blind faith and proof.
Interesting.

 

[Audie]

Having what I call subjective evidence for God is not confirmation bias. Confirmation bias does not see other evidence which does not find a God in nature but physical mechanisms instead. I see that but also see my subjective evidence. It is not science that is the problem, it is skeptics who refuse to see any evidence for God, that sounds like confirmation bias to me.

Walking across campus wit this other girl,
we had this nice red autumn leaf fall at our feet.

"Oh, she says, " look, a Sign from God it
represents the Trinity!"

" So why" I ask, "does this (maple leaf) have
five parts?"

" Oh. You are right. It represents the Pentarch."

True story, but as a parable, how might you interpret this
as applied to your statement above?

 

[Audie]

Having what I call subjective evidence for God is not confirmation bias. Confirmation bias does not see other evidence which does not find a God in nature but physical mechanisms instead. I see that but also see my subjective evidence. It is not science that is the problem, it is skeptics who refuse to see any evidence for God, that sounds like confirmation bias to me.

Always trying to turn your issues back on others
isn't cool. Nor is making things up.
( see " refuse ")

 

[Polymath257]

There may be no difference. I don't know and it does not matter.

OK, there's where we disagree. If there is no difference, then eliminating the extra assumptions is the path of reason.

That is a *very* good reason to think no God exists.

So, it matters quite a lot.

 

[Brian2]

Firstly thank you for your honesty.
Secondly it shows why we cannot take creationist and ID "theories" seriously.

It might show why ID theories are not accepted as science, but it has nothing to do with science, it is subjective evidence that there is a creator God.

 

[sayak83]

It might show why ID theories are not accepted as science, but it has nothing to do with science, it is subjective evidence that there is a creator God.

It actually does not matter to most scientists on what the religion's personal beliefs regarding creation etc is as long as it is not taught as science in school and college biology classes or science classes are prevented from teaching evolution as legitimate science. As long as you agree that evolutionary theory is science and ID is not science, it does not matter to us if your faith believes the latter to be true based on your theology.

 

[Brian2]

Re your last line, do you find that reading the
Bible with a presumption that the supernatural
is not true is non objective, and therefore intellectually dishonest?


If not, what is the problem with it.

Some people read the Bible and believe it and others do not, that is fine. It is a subjective but that is what humans are when it comes to these things.
Reading it from the pov of belief in the supernatural or not can both be intellectually honest from your pov.

 

[Brian2]

I said A highest virtue. Not " the".

You have not responded to my observation
that faith mandates intellectual dishonesty,
makes it a virtue.

I asked you for example to back your claim.
Turning it around to ask me for example is not fair play.

It can appear that people are being intellectually dishonest when they are not being dishonest. To know that there are intellectual problems and to choose to live with those for the sake of your faith is not intellectual dishonesty unless you then go on to say that your evidence rebutts evidence to the contrary imo.
But if you think I have confirmation bias please show me where.

 

[Brian2]

Not difference between blind faith and proof.
Interesting.

How does not knowing what God did or would have done indicate blind faith and more than it indicates blind faith to say that science has found a possible mechanism, so God was not involved?

 

[Audie]

It can appear that people are being intellectually dishonest when they are not being dishonest. To know that there are intellectual problems and to choose to live with those for the sake of your faith is not intellectual dishonesty unless you then go on to say that your evidence rebutts evidence to the contrary imo.
But if you think I have confirmation bias please show me where.

It would be well if you read an article or two
on intellectual honesty / integrity.

 

[Brian2]

Walking across campus wit this other girl,
we had this nice red autumn leaf fall at our feet.

"Oh, she says, " look, a Sign from God it
represents the Trinity!"

" So why" I ask, "does this (maple leaf) have
five parts?"

" Oh. You are right. It represents the Pentarch."

True story, but as a parable, how might you interpret this
as applied to your statement above?

I don't know, you tell me how you would interpret it.

 

[Brian2]

OK, there's where we disagree. If there is no difference, then eliminating the extra assumptions is the path of reason.

That is a *very* good reason to think no God exists.

So, it matters quite a lot.

So a scientist who designs an environment and put all the right chemicals in place which she knew would react in a certain way for a particular outcome has nothing to do with the scientist and her design and knowledge and etc ??
So you presume "no God" and "God is and extra unneeded assumption", when you don't know that is the case.

 

[Audie]

I don't know, you tell me how you would interpret it.

It's no use for me to tell you what I see in it.

 

[mindlight]

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?

There is no proof of not-God either so this lengthy discussion is really just about demonstrating the limited scope of the scientific method. There is significant historical evidence and witness and most scholars agree there was a Jesus and since his church has been growing for 2000 years it seems that argument has been and remains compelling across numerous cultures. The most compelling arguments for Jesus are the ones about the impact of worldviews. Atheism has bred wars and millions of abortions and a rather infertile world outlook that is increasingly confused and losing hope in the future. Muslims are similarly war like and oppressive. Hindus in the dominant hindutva mode are increasingly oppressive. Christianity is the religion of the winners, the innovators and dominates in the places where people most want to live.

 

[Polymath257]

So a scientist who designs an environment and put all the right chemicals in place which she knew would react in a certain way for a particular outcome has nothing to do with the scientist and her design and knowledge and etc ??
So you presume "no God" and "God is and extra unneeded assumption", when you don't know that is the case.

If those same chemicals came together without the scientist, the same result would occur. All that the scientists does is provide the conditions for the chemicals to react.

If you looked at the situation, you would see the scientist bring the chemicals together. THEN they would react. So, you would be able to detect the operation of the scientist by the movement of the chemicals *before* the reaction.

In the case of God, are you proposing that the chemicals would NOT have come together otherwise? if so, then the fact that they came together *is* observational evidence of God. On the other hand, if they would have come together naturally anyway, then no God is required.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't know, you tell me how you would interpret it.

A leaf fell. No further interpretation required.

 

[Polymath257]

It might show why ID theories are not accepted as science, but it has nothing to do with science, it is subjective evidence that there is a creator God.

The term 'subjective evidence' is problematic in and of itself.