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

[Kenny]

Before I became a believer in God, the One I consider true, I thought all religions were a sham. Including the one I was born and raised in. But ... God reached me later on...there is no doubt in my mind.

That must have been an amazing journey. Thankful for that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am happy to hear you have become someone you wanted. So the story I want to share is about believing. I am from bouddhiste family and my mom told me one story:
One day a poor mother son had to go to northern india which is far away from theirs village so his mother ask his son if he can bring tooth of budha since that time Buddha have passed away and attained nirvana. The son promised his mother and went away after going away he wasn’t able to search for it and on his way back home he take a tooth from a dead dog and and when he reach he gave the tooth to his mother and lied that it’s Buddha’s tooth. The mother trusted the lied so much and she kept prying the and thinking it’s the bouddha tooth. Her 100%belief made the tooth turn into holly and shiny white tooth. We said it doesn’t matter if you don’t have huge and golden Buddha statue because it’s same as Buddha picture in piece of paper. In the end It’s the belief

And that is just a story that probably never happened.

Okay, so you are a Buddhist. There are many different varieties of Buddhism from those that think that the Buddha was just a man, but a very enlightened one to versions that think that he was god and did miracles.

There is nothing wrong with having a religious belief, but one should not give too much credence to any of them.

 

[Comi]

And that is just a story that probably never happened.

Okay, so you are a Buddhist. There are many different varieties of Buddhism from those that think that the Buddha was just a man, but a very enlightened one to versions that think that he was god and did miracles.

There is nothing wrong with having a religious belief, but one should not give too much credence to any of them.

how did you know it had never happened. Believing does not take anything.even if it were false and moral of story was about believe.
Buddha is a man that’s true. But he never said he is god and did miracle.He was a normal human like us and did so many good deed for many lives. Buddhism don't acknowledge a supreme god or deity. They instead focus on achieving enlightenment—a state of inner peace and wisdom. Individual are master of their own destiny.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am happy to hear you have become someone you wanted. So the story I want to share is about believing. I am from bouddhiste family and my mom told me one story:
One day a poor mother son had to go to northern india which is far away from theirs village so his mother ask his son if he can bring tooth of budha since that time Buddha have passed away and attained nirvana. The son promised his mother and went away after going away he wasn’t able to search for it and on his way back home he take a tooth from a dead dog and and when he reach he gave the tooth to his mother and lied that it’s Buddha’s tooth. The mother trusted the lied so much and she kept prying the and thinking it’s the bouddha tooth. Her 100%belief made the tooth turn into holly and shiny white tooth. We said it doesn’t matter if you don’t have huge and golden Buddha statue because it’s same as Buddha picture in piece of paper. In the end It’s the belief

Thank you for sharing. While I don't know much about Buddhism when you mentioned nirvana I realize even Buddha thought it was like never never land. I want to leave you on a positive note. The God that inspired the writing of the Bible promises a resurrection, meaning a return from death to life. I look forward to that. .

 

[YoursTrue]

That must have been an amazing journey. Thankful for that.

It was. I was so confused and got into "ungodly" things...I look back and am sorry I hurt my parents although they didn't help me religiously or teach me right from wrong. I do look forward, if it is God's will, to see them in the resurrection. I hope they will learn and be happy.

 

[YoursTrue]

That must have been an amazing journey. Thankful for that.

Thank you, Kenny. You are so kind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

how did you know it had never happened. Believing does not take anything.even if it were false and moral of story was about believe.
Buddha is a man that’s true. But he never said he is god and did miracle.He was a normal human like us and did so many good deed for many lives. Buddhism don't acknowledge a supreme god or deity. They instead focus on achieving enlightenment—a state of inner peace and wisdom. Individual are master of their own destiny.

Please note the word "probably". All sorts of religions have their own mythology. One thing to remember is that at the most only one can be right, but they all can be wrong. When it comes to miracle claims the odds are huge that all of them are wrong.

By the way, what you just did was wrong. You made a claim that put a burden of proof upon you. You offered no evidence for it. You should have just admitted that it was probably wrong. You can not demand that others show you why you are wrong.

 

[Brian2]

The argument is that there are no special cases here, which is why the fallacy is sometimes called special pleading (also, unjustified double standard). Is your god, who at a minimum contains all information possible and wields all power possible, more complex than a living cell? If your answer is yes, explain why you think your god is a special case and an exception to this logical argument - why it doesn't need a designer if a cell doesn't. I can answer for you: You can't, but if you disagree, feel encouraged to try.

You are the one who seems to know that God has to be complex. I thought that you didn't know about spirits and if they are complex or not.
Complex to me means made up of many parts all working together to form a single thing.
IOW there is nothing to answer, it is all in your imagination of what God might be.

Yes, but that is a metaphorical use of the word code, and different from a literal code, which does require an intelligent designer, since it is the substitution of one conventional set of symbols and agreed upon meanings for another. DNA is NOT that. If you don't address that distinction and my explanation of why it makes your insistence that codes need designers moot, we are done with that line of inquiry, and I consider the matter resolved if you don't attempt rebuttal (falsification).

The scientists who analysed genes used the word code because they could see that it was just that.
The thing of course that is missing is the knowing that it required an intelligence to design that.
We can work this out from seeing that it is a code and that codes need intelligent designers.

No, it doesn't.

True, the molecules did not agree on the meanings, but the designer did since the code needed a designer.

This is an incredulity fallacy as stated. Translate: I just don't see how it could have happened without a designer, so it didn't.

I just translate it as. It's evidence for a designer. But I also see things where science has found what it considers a possible way it could have happened naturally, and see them as evidence for a God. I also would keep seeing the genetic code as evidence for God even if science came up with a possible way genes could have developed naturally to be and do what they are and do. So it has nothing to do with whether it could have happened without a designer.
It is just one of those things that logically points to a designer.
And IF science one day said "We think we know how genes may have evolved to do what they do" that would mean that many people would then say. "It has been shown that God had nothing to do with it". But it would not show that at all.

The opposite is true. Invoking a god that explains and predicts nothing is adding complexity without improving over the naturalistic hypothesis.

God explains how and gives a why answer also. The naturalistic hypothesis cannot give a 'why' answer and without faith you cannot say that it can or will even give a 'how' answer.

Yes, it can. We don't need to go into the past. We look at the evidence available now to determine what must have come before, but has to have an educated and prepared mind to do that. Detectives can do that. They can look at forensic evidence in a car today and determine that a specific person had been in it in the past.

I'll bet that you can do that, too. You find a dead man on the street with two bullet holes in the back of his head. I'll bet you can say a lot about the past from the evidence present now. Do you think he was ever born? Do you think he took a first breath then? Do you think he lived many years? Do you think he has been murdered since that first breath? Do you think he took his last breath about then? Of course you do. So I ask you the same question: how can you know if you weren't there to see any of that?

Yes science and we can make good educated guesses as to what might have happened in the past and sometimes we would be wrong because of wrong assumptions.

This describes rogue "logic."

It describes believing a certain thing even if the evidence has not or cannot go the full way of proving something.

I'm somebody who knows what constitutes justification in the academc sense. I've studied and learned the technique, and made it a habit of thought. It doesn't matter how many people are unfamiliar with this method or that it alone can generates sound (correct) conclusions about reality. Go ahead and use whatever rogue method you choose to connect whatever evidence you offer to your beliefs, but if it's not the one used in science and courtrooms, then those opinions are not sufficiently justified.

We aren't in a court room and are not wanting to add to the world's scientific knowledge. We are looking at evidence for God, something that science is incapable of doing because it does not know what spirit is or how to test for it. My faith is sufficiently justified for me. Do I need to convince the whole world for my faith to be real or true? No. If someone does not want to use faith, that is up to them.

The study demonstrates that prayer is inefficacious except as placebo, and even then, not always a beneficial placebo. If you think that that statement is wrong and care to try to falsify it, please do. Remember, a correct statement CANNOT be falsified.

The methodology of the study is wrong because it leaves God out of the question as a being who makes decisions and so cannot be studied as if He is an it.

Or maybe, as you have been told repeatedly, the one who waits to believes in gods needs a reason and doesn't have one. Maybe the one who refuses to even consider that possibility doesn't because he doesn't want to consider it.

Yes I know you say you want more evidence. If I prove to you that God exists then you will believe.

No, it is apt analogy. Real thinks: the sun, wolves. Imaginary things: Krypton's red sun (Superman's fictional birthplace), werewolves. What the first two have in common is that one can see them. The exist in space and time. They interact with other real objects allowing their detection. For the last two, it's all the opposite. Yu place gods in the first category. I place them in the second, and this offends you even though gods and werewolves have exactly the same qualities: none at all.

You ignore the evidence for the Bible God and God in general.
I cannot believe God exists because I cannot see God, therefore God does not exist. (what was that, the fallacy of incredulity)

Justified belief means zero faith.

Zero faith means "proof". Not even science gives that.

Some people care about holding only correct beliefs, not false of unfalsifiable ones. It is the theist who worships an idol, and there is no real god to any human being's knowledge. Such a belief can only be held by faith, and worshiping it ifit isn't real is worshiping a false idol.

Many people care about holding correct beliefs.
Worshipping a false idol means nothing unless the real God exists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are the one who seems to know that God has to be complex. I thought that you didn't know about spirits and if they are complex or not.
Complex to me means made up of many parts all working together to form a single thing.
IOW there is nothing to answer, it is all in your imagination of what God might be.



The scientists who analysed genes used the word code because they could see that it was just that.
The thing of course that is missing is the knowing that it required an intelligence to design that.
We can work this out from seeing that it is a code and that codes need intelligent designers.



True, the molecules did not agree on the meanings, but the designer did since the code needed a designer.



I just translate it as. It's evidence for a designer. But I also see things where science has found what it considers a possible way it could have happened naturally, and see them as evidence for a God. I also would keep seeing the genetic code as evidence for God even if science came up with a possible way genes could have developed naturally to be and do what they are and do. So it has nothing to do with whether it could have happened without a designer.
It is just one of those things that logically points to a designer.
And IF science one day said "We think we know how genes may have evolved to do what they do" that would mean that many people would then say. "It has been shown that God had nothing to do with it". But it would not show that at all.



God explains how and gives a why answer also. The naturalistic hypothesis cannot give a 'why' answer and without faith you cannot say that it can or will even give a 'how' answer.



Yes science and we can make good educated guesses as to what might have happened in the past and sometimes we would be wrong because of wrong assumptions.



It describes believing a certain thing even if the evidence has not or cannot go the full way of proving something.



We aren't in a court room and are not wanting to add to the world's scientific knowledge. We are looking at evidence for God, something that science is incapable of doing because it does not know what spirit is or how to test for it. My faith is sufficiently justified for me. Do I need to convince the whole world for my faith to be real or true? No. If someone does not want to use faith, that is up to them.



The methodology of the study is wrong because it leaves God out of the question as a being who makes decisions and so cannot be studied as if He is an it.



Yes I know you say you want more evidence. If I prove to you that God exists then you will believe.



You ignore the evidence for the Bible God and God in general.
I cannot believe God exists because I cannot see God, therefore God does not exist. (what was that, the fallacy of incredulity)



Zero faith means "proof". Not even science gives that.



Many people care about holding correct beliefs.
Worshipping a false idol means nothing unless the real God exists.

Wow!! An endless parade of being wrong.

 

[Brian2]

Wow!! An endless parade of being wrong.

LOL

 

[Brian2]

That is what confirmation bias is. When God doesn't give you what you ask for, you say "God has better plans".
So God gets credit no matter what. Confirmation bias.

I did it. Then I stopped and nothing changed. You still get things, coincidences, things work out, sometimes it seems like the universe is helping you and other times it's a string a challenges. That is life. Belief in a deity gets the credit but religious people and secular people live the same life. Same illness rate, same job success and fail, same relationship ups and down. You just use confirmation bias to give credit to a deity and when things don't work you wait until they do and say "this was the better plan".

Yes all that still happens to everyone, regardless of religion or no religion.

Unless you live in a starving country, then you watch loved ones pass away, every day. While those in other countries pray to a deity for mundane reasons and say "thank you God for this new relationship" (it's actually because you are on tinder and had 5 bad relationships and one was bound to workout).
The arrogance to think God is giving you anything you ask for while 10,000 children die daily from starvation.

I don't think God is giving me anything I ask for while 10,000 children die from starvation.

 

[Brian2]

You didn't. I asked and you said -
"There is no need for me to provide evidence to you in order to justify my faith. "

Yes I don't have to justify my faith to you.

If there is a way outside the scientific method to provide evidence please explain it. Then explain by what methodology you use to demonstrate your anecdotal personal experience is any different than a Mormon, Muslim, Hindu or any cult where one is 100% convinced of the reality of the claims (on no evidence).

I don't want to dismiss it, I want to know it. If you provide anecdotal evidence that uses "feelings" than you have to show it's not the same as everyone else. Because the billions of humans in Islam are actually on average not different than the humans in your sect of Christianity. On a large scale you are equal. Their personal experience is no different.
You reject all the billions of personal evidence of Mormonism and Islam. Both have important updates, by the same method, revealed knowledge, that you trust. But you reject the evidence when it's them and not you. Seems like a cognitive bias here.

We speak about Bible history and you show your faith and then want to criticise me for faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL

Instead of a Gish Gallop would care to try to have a rational discussion?

 

[Comi]

Please note the word "probably". All sorts of religions have their own mythology. One thing to remember is that at the most only one can be right, but they all can be wrong. When it comes to miracle claims the odds are huge that all of them are wrong.

By the way, what you just did was wrong. You made a claim that put a burden of proof upon you. You offered no evidence for it. You should have just admitted that it was probably wrong. You can not demand that others show you why you are wrong.

I don’t know how to explain to you briefly but I believe and always will.
Religion is not a mythology it’s a practice and belief. I understand u might not believe me because of culture and religion difference but if I tell you that angle come on earth and take one’s body to communicate with us because he swore that he will be our country protected.would you believe that probably no but we had seen and believe it.
And what’s more important is all religion says one thing be kind campassions and help other. They all are the same but the way of showing and doing are bit different.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t know how to explain to you briefly but I believe and always will.
Religion is not a mythology it’s a practice and belief. I understand u might not believe me because of culture and religion difference but if I tell you that angle come on earth and take one’s body to communicate with us because he swore that he will be our country protected.would you believe that probably no but we had seen and believe it.
And what’s more important is all religion says one thing be kind campassions and help other. They all are the same but the way of showing and doing are bit different.

Compassion towards all is a good thing. But magical beings are not required to know this. And you do not know if you're religion is real or not. All that you have is belief. A strong belief does not mean that you are right. In fact historically a strong belief has usually been associated with being wrong.

If you really knew you could show why your belief is right.

 

[Comi]

Compassion towards all is a good thing. But magical beings are not required to know this. And you do not know if you're religion is real or not. All that you have is belief. A strong belief does not mean that you are right. In fact historically a strong belief has usually been associated with being wrong.

If you really knew you could show why your belief is right.

I am not really good. And I don’t know how to tell you. It’s okay if you have your own belief or not. But if you are confused don’t know whom to belief. We say first ask why and how, why this religion is good. Then find your own answer and belief in it.no Mayer which religion they all are good and teach us way to become good person.even if you don’t believe in god at least belief in his teaching. Because it’s might be difficult but it only help you yourself to become person.

 

[joelr]

For you it may be. For me, the words that are written are spirit and life.

As I thought, it isn't a response then. What you consider "spirit and life" are not in question. The question is do your beliefs have evidence, are they justified, have you chosen to believe stories that are not true and can you demonstrate that.

A muslim may say the same about the Quran and they do. As can a Hindu and a Mormon about the Mormon Bible. None of that suggests it's true.

This doesn't do a thing for you but rather supports my position. Who said these religions and cults didn't tap into the spiritual realm?

Thank you for the support

I'm sorry your debating skills are a bit lackluster. It would be great if you responded to that actual argument I made rather than a small piece and answer with a strawman.
The scientific evidence shows that mystical experiences are not tapping into a spiritual realm but are brain states that are measured and from lack of oxygen and other casual factors.

Again, how does this support your position? The very word "witchcraft" has the root word where we get "pharmaceutical" from. Though Christianity's position is to avoid that because there are evil spirits, it still can be spiritual.

And again, thank you for the supportive documentation

Again, I don't think you are really this absent-minded so I'm not sure why you are doing this? These studies in neuro-science demonstrate that mystical experiences are likely due to changes in brain states, lack of chemicals, and have nothing to do with a soul (also unproven fiction) and are 100% brain states, same as waking consciousness. They even measure the changes in the brain.

So what this supports is these experiences are only in our minds. Created in our minds and happen in our minds. No mention of a soul in any paper. No proof of a soul in any paper. No evidence ever for a soul in any way.

Besides strawman I now get a clear fallacy of equivocation with pharma and "witchcraft" as if that matters at all. Modern medicine is put through the scientific method as best as it can be and largely works. I'm quite sure you benefit from modern pharma.

Also "evil spirits" is more fiction you haven't given evidence for.

Out of body experiences and their neural basis: They are linked to multisensory and cognitive processing in the brain​

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Out of body experiences and their neural basis​

The out-of body experience: precipitating factors and neural correlates​

The out-of body experience: precipitating factors and neural correlates - PubMed​

Out-of-body experiences (OBEs) are defined as experiences in which a person seems to be awake and sees his body and the world from a location outside his physical body. More precisely, they can be defined by the presence of the following three phenomenological characteristics: (i) disembodiment...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The reviewed data suggest that OBEs are due to functional disintegration of lower-level multisensory processing and abnormal higher-level self-processing at the temporo-parietal junction. We argue that the experimental investigation of the interactions between these multisensory and cognitive mechanisms in OBEs and related illusions in combination with neuroimaging and behavioral techniques might further our understanding of the central mechanisms of corporal awareness and self-consciousness much as previous research about the neural bases of complex body part illusions such as phantom limbs has done.


Mystical experiences also fall into this type of analysis.

Classic Hallucinogens and Mystical Experiences: Phenomenology and Neural Correlates​

Classic Hallucinogens and Mystical Experiences: Phenomenology and Neural Correlates​

This chapter begins with a brief review of descriptions and definitions of mystical-type experiences and the historical connection between classic hallucinogens and mystical experiences. The chapter then explores the empirical literature on experiences ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

LOL... Is that what you understood? You need to reread what I said. I didn't say that.

Let's look at what you said:
"Hardly a red herring. I never said science was perfect, what I said is that it is so minuscule in comparison that has yet to be discovered that you certainly have no basis to say that God doesn't exist. On the contrary... the more you learn, IMV, the more one must come to the conclusion that a conscience being had to be involved."

So, yes it was a red herring.

Yes, you are saying 1) science is so minuscule I have no basis to say God doesn't exist. Then 2) the more you learn, one must come to the conclusion that a conscious being had to be involved. Great.

1) This is a huge fallacy called "science doesn't know everything" - it's an argument that asserts that, because of science's lack of knowledge about something, something else must be true or will be true. The implication is that, because science does not have an answer (or a sufficiently good answer) already, any claim can take its place, or one day take it's place, even though it has no supporting evidence.

However we actually DO have a basis to say God doesn't exist. Physicist/philosopher Sean Carroll gives a populat debunking of the fine-tunibg argument:

At 20:57 he gives a populat debunking of the cosmological argument:

Next we have the OT. Here Mesopotamian myths are re-worked and Yahweh, an evil God is a typical Near Eastern deity, same as all the others for thousands of years.

Francesca Stavrakopoulou PhD


9:30
The idea that the Israelite religion was extraordinary and different from religions of surrounding religions and cultures and this deity is somehow different and extraordinary and so this deity is wholly unlike all other deities in Southeast Asia. Historically this is not the case. Nothing unusual or extraordinary about Yahweh.

This could go on but suffice to say there is NO evidence for God and no reason science would find one. Do you expect science to find Zeus? Do you expect science to find Brahman? Or is it just the things you believe in, which would be incredibly self centered and short sighted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not really good. And I don’t know how to tell you. It’s okay if you have your own belief or not. But if you are confused don’t know whom to belief. We say first ask why and how, why this religion is good. Then find your own answer and belief in it.no Mayer which religion they all are good and teach us way to become good person.even if you don’t believe in god at least belief in his teaching. Because it’s might be difficult but it only help you yourself to become person.

A person that can reason rationally can understand why being good helps everyone. It is in one's own best interests to be good. Now if a person cannot reason rationally perhaps religion is good for that person. The problem with religious beliefs is that they are too easily abused.

And don't accuse others of being confused when they can understand why there probably is no God

 

[joelr]

In February 2001, Pervo was arrested after investigators found thousands of images of child pornography on his work computer at the University of Minnesota.[12] In May he pleaded guilty to five counts of possession and one count of distribution of child pornography. He was sentenced to one year in a state workhouse and eight years probation.[13][14] He formally resigned from the University of Minnesota as of June 2001, having been suspended since his arrest.[15] After serving his sentence he continued to publish theological works as an independent scholar and Fellow of the Westar Institute,[2] and was recognized as an authority on the canonical and non-canonical books of Acts.[16]

I believe you must be smarter than this. This is like ancient witch hunting. The information put together by this scholar is not impacted by any trouble he got himself into.
So typical of apologists and a huge red flag they know its all BS. What do they do when loking up a scholar, check his work and see if it can be debunked by other historians? Nope, they look to find gossip and mistakes he made.
The information is not changed. Is Christianity changed by the thousands of children the priests molested?





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pervo#cite_note-17

It has already been established that the information (boat names, distances, location et al) are correct by innumerable scholars. - you can't just pick the ones that agree with you.

Big mistake here.

Your author leaves much to be desired both in character and in substance

Which we will now get too. You clearly don't care about what is true but rather what you want to be true. You NEVER look at information and explain why it might be wrong, you discredit or go to apologetics.
Anyways, we don't need that scholar, since it's the historical consensus. Which you might have known if you cared about what was true.

The Book of Acts Is FAKE History | Dr. Richard Carrier​

Richard Carrier: Acts as Historical Fiction​

good summary. And you didn't respond to any of the blog post on Acts with actual information?
Too much Carrier? Of course......

Luke/Acts Is Fiction, NOT HISTORY!​

Dr Paula Fredriksen, the Aurelio Professor of Scripture emerita at Boston University,

The Novel Fiction of Luke/Acts​

Dennis R. MacDonald PhD

The Historical Fiction of Luke/Acts | John Dominic Crossan PhD​

Scrutinizing The Book of Acts - It's Christian Fan Fiction! | Shelly Matthews PhD​

Scrutinizing The Book of Acts - It's Christian Fan Fiction! | Shelly Matthews PhD

Scrutinizing The Book of Acts - It's Christian Fan Fiction! | Shelly Matthews PhDChristian Apologist love to run towards the book of Acts in proving their fa...

www.youtube.com

Forged Fiction - Acts​

Forged Fiction - Acts

Make sure to like and Subscribe!Follow us on Facebook to see what we're up to: https://www.facebook.com/AtheistCommunityofMilwaukeeFollow us on Twitter: http...

www.youtube.com

sources - Nailed by David Fitzgerald
On the historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier
Forged by Bart Ehrman

Billions of people do make sense out of the idea... you are in a small group that don't

Argumentum ad Populum is yet another fallacy. There are billions of Muslims who say you have the wrong words, words not from God but changed by man. You will suffer a painful doom unless you repent and recognize Allah and his message.

Several billion of these folks are a part of the people you just sourced as "on your side". Several billion are also Hindu. So your argument about making sense is hilariously absurd.
The Mormons are Christians who have updates from the angel Moroni. Revelations. Muhammad had Gabrielle. Your sources, who can make sense out of the idea.
Yup.

Atheists are not trying to make sense, that was ALSO incorrect. Am I correcting a paper? Atheists lack belief and can see there is no EVIDENCE to support the beliefs, in any area. The evidence that exists, in all areas demonstrates a syncretic mythology.

I have more to say about the actual numbers Christianity uses to support it's claimed membership but it's not important to this discussion.

In truth no one makes sense out of the idea. They say "Gods way is mysterious". Buying into a mythology isn't "making sense", it's accepting a claim is true without evidence and getting to a point where you can no longer challenge the beliefs because you are too invested.


Still, I did it because I became invested in what was actually true.

Again, I'm not sure how your mind twists what I said. If children are starving, look to mankind and not God. God has provided

Great, go tell the 70,0000 children who will die this week that God has provided.
Just as he provided when he flooded the earth and killed millions of babies.
Just as he got mad at Adam for eating a fruit and made man and women forever into a power struggle, forever, and made chidbirth painful. Evil.

Jesus came and healed, delivered, fed, saved et al. He is the perfect will of God. Now, that mankind does nothing to alleviate things and instead, for personal gain, causes wars, famine and suffering... the Genesis is their lack of union with God

The Gospel Jesus is a story, it didn't happen. There is no evidence and massive evidence the stories are all made up from Mark, which is made up of several sources.
Wait, why wouldn't they cause wars? Jesus didn't come to change law and Yahweh ordered all sorts of war, plunder and murder.

Why would you say mankind does nothing? The UN is working hard to fix the starvation problem. Many countries are involved.
Your suggestion about "union with God" is pure fantasy. People have had union with God. In the 1700's 30,000 were killed not because they were looking for personal gain, they were all in church and they all collapsed during an earthquake.
The thousands of priests who abused children were attempting to align with God. There is no evidence this has anything to do with a God?
People could be super generous and compassionate in a secular way and countries are still going to be poor. It's evidence that there is no God, just probabilities.
The Hindu religion has the same morals, ancient Greek morals are similar. Proverbs is known to be using Mesopotamian and Egyptain wisdom literature. So Yahweh just taught stuff people already knew? Clearly, it's all made up by humans, that is what all this demonstrates.

These apologetics don't make sense in the real world.

Just wanting to make sure that you don't complain and do nothing

 

[joelr]

In your understanding. (although I support your position to believe otherwise... by faith)

For us, faith is a spiritual law that is necessary to operate spiritually. It has its components that activate capacity that belongs to God.

Meaningless apologetics that don't answer the question but avoid it with fake apologetics.

However, faith is the same in all religions. They all mention mind and HEART which is more a spiritual faith. It's tried with every religion.
You know Islam and Hinduism are false by your beliefs, so spiritual faith is also not a path to truth.


Also I can claim faith is a spiritual law that is necessary to operate my racial superiority. My spiritual faith in R.S. allows me to feel it in my heart/spirit and know it's true. If I feel it that way I know God is speaking his acceptance. Because I have a personal relationship and only truth comes from God.

apologetics can be used for anything. Not a method for truth. Faith is a con to get people to stop listening to a rational , empirical methodology.


Hinduism:
Śraddhā is often glossed in English as faith. The term figures importantly in the literature, teachings, and discourse of Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism. Sri Aurobindo describes śraddhā as "the soul's belief in the Divine's existence, wisdom, power, love, and grace" Without diacritical marks, it is usually written as Sraddha.

Faith plays a crucial role within Hinduism, underpinning all assumptions, beliefs, and inferences. Within Hinduism, having faith means one maintains trust in god, scriptures, dharma, and the path of liberation (moksha).[2] The Brihadranyaka Upanishad (3.9.21) states that "the resting ground of faith is the heart", emphasising that to have faith is to follow ones heart and intuition.

Within Hinduism, a key understanding of faith is maintaining trust in the scriptures. Hindus believe that it is not possible to understand or experience god directly with human senses, and so god's presence is inferred through descriptions in the scriptures.[3]

Just as the physical laws, such as the law of electricity or heat or light need certain conditions, ingredients and instruments for their successful testing in a laboratory, the spiritual laws require certain environment, mental states, preparation and discipline on our part to realize them successfully. Some of the constraints in working with the spiritual laws are discussed below.
The spiritual laws, on the other hand, belong to an ultra invisible world. They are mostly beyond the grasp of our senses and intellect and science, in its present form and with its present methods cannot validate them with the same certainty.

It may reach out to the atoms and the molecules, but cannot reach out to the subtle elements hidden with in our world or in our physical and mental bodies or deal with the intangible truths which our senses cannot validate.
It may unravel the functioning of the brain or the human heart, but cannot reach into the depths of the human heart to know how subtle emotions and aspirations arise and impel us to act in certain ways that defy all human logic. It may prove the existence of physical laws with great precision and in detail, but cannot fathom the spiritual laws that govern our lives in secretive and subtle ways.

The spiritual laws do not belong to the realm of the physical but the mental and the spiritual. They are not easily comprehensible with ordinary mental effort and even more difficult to establish conclusively because unlike the physical laws, they do not confirm to a particular pattern, mechanism or process.

Islam
Iman (Arabic: إِيمَان, romanized: ʾīmān, lit. 'faith' or 'belief', also 'recognition') in Islamic theology denotes a believer's recognition of faith and deeds in the religious aspects of Islam.[1][2] Its most simple definition is the belief in the six articles of faith, known as arkān al-īmān.

The term iman has been delineated in both the Quran and hadith.[3] According to the Quran, iman must be accompanied by righteous deeds and the two together are necessary for entry into Paradise.[4] In the hadith, iman in addition to Islam and ihsan form the three dimensions of the Islamic religion.

There exists a debate both within and outside Islam on the link between faith and reason in religion, and the relative importance of either. Some scholars contend that faith and reason spring from the same source and must be harmonious.
v
In a hadith, the Islamic prophet Muhammad defined iman as "an acknowledgement in the heart, a voicing with the tongue, and an activity with the limbs."[citation needed] Faith is confidence in a real truth. When people have confidence, they submit themselves to that truth. It is not sufficient just to know the truth, but the recognition of the heart should be expressed by the tongue which is the manifestation of intelligence and at last to reflect this confidence in their activities.[6]

Faith (iman) includes six primary beliefs:[11]

1. Belief in the existence and oneness of God.
2. Belief in the existence of angels.
3. Belief in the existence of the books of which God is the author: the Quran (revealed to Muhammad), the Injeel (revealed to Jesus), the Torah (revealed to prophets and messengers amongst the Children of Israel), Psalms (revealed to David), the Scrolls of Moses, and the Scrolls of Abraham.
4. Belief in the existence of prophets: Muhammad being the last of them, Jesus the penultimate, and others sent before them [like Moses, Abraham, David, Joseph, Jacob].
5. Belief in the existence of the Day of Judgment: in that day, humanity will be divided into two groups: that of paradise and that of hell. These groups are composed of subgroups.
6. Belief in the existence of God's predestination (qadar, 'Divine Decree') due to God's omniscience, whether it involves good or bad.

The Seventy-Seven Branches of Faith​

"The Seventy-Seven Branches of Faith" is a collection compiled by the Shafi'i imam al-Bayhaqi in his work Shu'ab al-Iman. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true iman (faith and recognition) through related Quranic verses and prophetic sayings.