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

[Audie]

Interpretation? Truth isn’t up for interpretation it just exists. The Bible even warns against private interpretations.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Sooo...you interprets the Bible to say there
REALLY was a flood? And it's the truth.

 

[Valentina Kutleša]

Can you name 5 things that became true from the Bible?

1.
In 332 B.C., Alexander the Great conquered the island fortress of Tyre by building a causeway from the ruins of the old city. This fulfilled the prophecy in Ezekiel 26:4-5, written hundreds of years before. At the time of Ezekiel, Tyre was the capital of Phoenicia and the island fortress had not yet been built. Ezekiel predicted:

“They shall destroy the walls of Tyre, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock. It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea.”

Two hundred years later, Alexander scraped away everything, leaving bare rock.

2.
The Old Testament prophet Jeremiah foretold the destruction of Jerusalem (see Jeremiah 25:2, 9–11). History records that the Babylonians did indeed demolish Jerusalem in 587 BC.

3.
Old Testament prophets foretold Jesus’s life in remarkable detail. Micah knew the Savior would be born in Bethlehem (see Micah 5:2). Hosea spoke of the time Jesus would spend in Egypt as a child (see Hosea 11:1). The book of Psalms talks about how Jesus would speak in parables and would be rejected by His own people (see Psalm 69:8; 78:2). Another of Isaiah’s beautiful prophecies spoke of Jesus’s role and sacrifice: “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows. ... He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:4–5).
Years and years later Jesus exists and his life was exactly like it's been written in Old Testament. Also his death and resurrection were perfectly correct forseen years back before it really happened.

If you are okay with this we can continue?

 

[an anarchist]

1.
In 332 B.C., Alexander the Great conquered the island fortress of Tyre by building a causeway from the ruins of the old city. This fulfilled the prophecy in Ezekiel 26:4-5, written hundreds of years before. At the time of Ezekiel, Tyre was the capital of Phoenicia and the island fortress had not yet been built. Ezekiel predicted:

“They shall destroy the walls of Tyre, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock. It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea.”

Two hundred years later, Alexander scraped away everything, leaving bare rock.

2.
The Old Testament prophet Jeremiah foretold the destruction of Jerusalem (see Jeremiah 25:2, 9–11). History records that the Babylonians did indeed demolish Jerusalem in 587 BC.

3.
Old Testament prophets foretold Jesus’s life in remarkable detail. Micah knew the Savior would be born in Bethlehem (see Micah 5:2). Hosea spoke of the time Jesus would spend in Egypt as a child (see Hosea 11:1). The book of Psalms talks about how Jesus would speak in parables and would be rejected by His own people (see Psalm 69:8; 78:2). Another of Isaiah’s beautiful prophecies spoke of Jesus’s role and sacrifice: “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows. ... He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:4–5).
Years and years later Jesus exists and his life was exactly like it's been written in Old Testament. Also his death and resurrection were perfectly correct forseen years back before it really happened.

If you are okay with this we can continue?

Sorry to interject, but let me say you are going to have to provide evidence that those prophecies were indeed written before the events happened.

and that evidence is lacking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interpretation? Truth isn’t up for interpretation it just exists. The Bible even warns against private interpretations.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

But that was exactly what you did. And there is no rational reason to believe that your interpretation is the truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1.
In 332 B.C., Alexander the Great conquered the island fortress of Tyre by building a causeway from the ruins of the old city. This fulfilled the prophecy in Ezekiel 26:4-5, written hundreds of years before. At the time of Ezekiel, Tyre was the capital of Phoenicia and the island fortress had not yet been built. Ezekiel predicted:

“They shall destroy the walls of Tyre, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock. It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea.”

Two hundred years later, Alexander scraped away everything, leaving bare rock.

2.
The Old Testament prophet Jeremiah foretold the destruction of Jerusalem (see Jeremiah 25:2, 9–11). History records that the Babylonians did indeed demolish Jerusalem in 587 BC.

3.
Old Testament prophets foretold Jesus’s life in remarkable detail. Micah knew the Savior would be born in Bethlehem (see Micah 5:2). Hosea spoke of the time Jesus would spend in Egypt as a child (see Hosea 11:1). The book of Psalms talks about how Jesus would speak in parables and would be rejected by His own people (see Psalm 69:8; 78:2). Another of Isaiah’s beautiful prophecies spoke of Jesus’s role and sacrifice: “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows. ... He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:4–5).
Years and years later Jesus exists and his life was exactly like it's been written in Old Testament. Also his death and resurrection were perfectly correct forseen years back before it really happened.

If you are okay with this we can continue?

No, that was not the prophecy. It was a prophecy against the king of Tyre at that time. Not his innocent descendants. Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to be the instrument of that destruction. Read the whole thing. Even Ezekiel admitted that Nebuchadnezzar failed. And even Alexander the Great did not scrape away everything. The ruins are still there. Tyre is repopulated. It is perhaps the worst failed prophecy in the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry to interject, but let me say you are going to have to provide evidence that those prophecies were indeed written before the events happened.

and that evidence is lacking.

It doesn't matter. The Tyre prophecy was about the king of Tyre at that time. And even Alexander the Great did not fulfill it. The island is still there, except for preserved ancient ruins it has been rebuilt.

 

[an anarchist]

@Subduction Zone and others who have been posting on this thread diligently for a year and a half.

a side note.

gaaawwwd daamn sub zone you replies to this thread over 700 times. i took like over a year break from.this thread. I have seen many newcomers come.and go, many with similar or same arguments (cant blame.them for not reading the whole thread I guess). But many members, such as @Subduction Zone are tenacious as f and even if the rehashed arguments keep hitting you with dejavu, you keep debating through it.

I admire this thread and forum and its members in general.

 

[SkepticThinker]

1.
In 332 B.C., Alexander the Great conquered the island fortress of Tyre by building a causeway from the ruins of the old city. This fulfilled the prophecy in Ezekiel 26:4-5, written hundreds of years before. At the time of Ezekiel, Tyre was the capital of Phoenicia and the island fortress had not yet been built. Ezekiel predicted:

“They shall destroy the walls of Tyre, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock. It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea.”

Two hundred years later, Alexander scraped away everything, leaving bare rock.

Tyre still exists.

Tyre, Lebanon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2.
The Old Testament prophet Jeremiah foretold the destruction of Jerusalem (see Jeremiah 25:2, 9–11). History records that the Babylonians did indeed demolish Jerusalem in 587 BC.

Jeremiah 25:2​

2 "So Jeremiah the prophet said to all the people of Judah and to all those living in Jerusalem:"


Jeremiah 25:9-11:

Should I not punish them for this?”
declares the Lord.
“Should I not avenge myself
on such a nation as this?”
10 I will weep and wail for the mountains
and take up a lament concerning the wilderness grasslands.
They are desolate and untraveled,
and the lowing of cattle is not heard.
The birds have all fled
and the animals are gone.
11 “I will make Jerusalem a heap of ruins,
a haunt of jackals;
and I will lay waste the towns of Judah
so no one can live there.”

The only place that we find reference to the siege resulting in Jerusalem's destruction is ... The Bible.

And Jerusalem continues to exist.

3.
Old Testament prophets foretold Jesus’s life in remarkable detail. Micah knew the Savior would be born in Bethlehem (see Micah 5:2).

Micah 5:2​

2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans[a] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”

That's supposed to be a prediction about Jesus? When did he "rule over Israel?"

Hosea spoke of the time Jesus would spend in Egypt as a child (see Hosea 11:1).

Hosea 11:1-5

1 “When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.
2 But the more they were called,
the more they went away from me.
They sacrificed to the Baals
and they burned incense to images.
3 It was I who taught Ephraim to walk,
taking them by the arms;
but they did not realize
it was I who healed them.
4 I led them with cords of human kindness,
with ties of love.
To them I was like one who lifts
a little child to the cheek,
and I bent down to feed them.
5 “Will they not return to Egypt
and will not Assyria rule over them
because they refuse to repent?"

That's supposed to be about where Jesus was born? Written in the past tense? Huh?
Sounds like it's about Israel to me.

The book of Psalms talks about how Jesus would speak in parables and would be rejected by His own people (see Psalm 69:8; 78:2).

Psalm 69:8​

8 "I am a foreigner to my own family,
a stranger to my own mother’s children;"

This doesn't say anything about parables or about being rejected by anyone.

Psalm 78:2​

2 "I will open my mouth with a parable;
I will utter hidden things, things from of old—"

Okay, this says something about a parable, but nothing about Jesus or about being "rejected by His own people."

Another of Isaiah’s beautiful prophecies spoke of Jesus’s role and sacrifice: “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows. ... He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:4–5).

Isaiah 52:
13 "See, my servant will act wisely
he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.
14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him[c]—
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being
and his form marred beyond human likeness—
15 so he will sprinkle many nations,[d]
and kings will shut their mouths because of him.
For what they were not told, they will see,
and what they have not heard, they will understand."

Isaiah 53:1-5:
1 "Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;"

When we include the top part, it doesn't sound at all like anything we supposedly know about Jesus. (Not that we know much of anything at all.)
"His appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being." Nope.
"His form marred beyond human likeness." Nope.
"Kings will shut their mouths because of him." Nope.

And again, it's written in the past tense.

Years and years later Jesus exists and his life was exactly like it's been written in Old Testament. Also his death and resurrection were perfectly correct forseen years back before it really happened.

I don't see any fulfilled prophecies here or any descriptions of Jesus.

If you are okay with this we can continue?

Do you have anything better than these?

 

[Valentina Kutleša]

Sorry to interject, but let me say you are going to have to provide evidence that those prophecies were indeed written before the events happened.

and that evidence is lacking.

Ezekiel was born 600 yrs B.C. and started his prophecy around 500 yrs B.C. Lots of things he wrote came true later trough history.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Ezekiel was born 600 yrs B.C. and started his prophecy around 500 yrs B.C. Lots of things he wrote came true later trough history.

From Britannica :
Though the book itself indicates that the prophecies of Ezekiel occurred from about 593–571 bce, some scholars—who are in a minority—have argued that the book was written during widely divergent periods, such as in the 7th century and even as late as the 2nd century bce.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ezekiel was born 600 yrs B.C. and started his prophecy around 500 yrs B.C. Lots of things he wrote came true later trough history.

Really? I have my doubts. Do you realize that the Tyre prophecy is a failed prophecy?

Here are the standards that I follow for a "True Prophecy" from the Bible. Or for any religious work. Simply swap our "Bible" for the holy book of your choice:

Criteria for a true prophecy[edit]​

For a statement to be Biblical foreknowledge, it must fit all of the five following criteria:

1. It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements. TLDR: It's true.
2. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text. TLDR: It's in plain words in the Bible.
3. It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague "predictions" don't count.
4. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don't count.
5. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. TLDR: Ideas of the time don't count.

 

[Audie]

But that was exactly what you did. And there is no rational reason to believe that your interpretation is the truth.

There are ways to know for
sure if it is not.
See. "Flood".

 

[joelr]

I understand, I was in fact also not religious at all. First an atheist I didn't believe in anything, then I was unto Zoroastrianism, then Buddhism, then I also have doubts about questiong am I myself also a God and if so, how can't I do unimaginable things etc. So following al these researchers and being totally confused in the end, I decided that religions are "an opium of the masses" as Marx claimed. That made sense, but in the end, to be short, I started reading Bible like I never knew anything about it. Even tho I was against those holly books because that can be written by anyone and manipulated by anything etc. To be short, now I am a so to say believer, but in terms of following Jesus's path, I don't think it's necessary to claim myself Christian, words are just more and more confusing people and are limiting the true intent, and I don't have to say I am a Christian because that's an institutional term and I don't want to limit myself with that. So I read Bible by myself, I search, I pray by myself, and I'm doing the best I can in my life to follow what's in the book, not in a holy way nonono I'm far from that we are all just humans and sinners but through praying or talking to God (Holly Trinity) in most natural spiritual way ,just in a human way, and I find everything I need. Sooner or later. It finally made sense you know I mean. I know some people can do those goods also without the Bible, but I just found that path of let's say Christianity the only that really helped me (although in the beginning as I said I was not religious and I was even claiming Christianity is a sect). Does it make a sense, or what is your opinion on that?

Well you didn't really answer to any of my points.

"We are all just sinners" - you haven't explained why you accept the concept of sin or given any reason or evidence to believe the book is true at all.

When you say it "made sense", no, I do not know what you mean? I don't know what you mean by saying it helped you? Helped you do what?

You say "I don't have to say I am a Christian because that's an institutional term" but you are using sin and an even more technical Christian concept of the trinity. That is a concept theologians came up with later and is probably based on other theologies that also have a 3-in-one concept. It comes from Plato.

 

[joelr]

I believe the way the bible is written proves the existence of God. I don't believe it's humanly possible to write an entire book that serves only as a carrier for the real message that isn't written in the text of the book itself.

The Bible isn't a book, it's a collection of books. Some are fiction, some are forgery. For example, th eevidence in scholarship about how we knoe Daniel is a forgery :

How We Know Daniel Is a Forgery • Richard Carrier Blogs

Even the historicity of Daniel the man is dubious. Unlike other prophets, he has no patronymic, profession, or place of origin, and he first appears in historical records when “Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, by the Kebar River in the land of the Babylonians” lists him with the legendary...

www.richardcarrier.info

Theologians like Aquinas and Origen came up with a lot of additional stuff, using Greek philosophy, and added that to concepts of God. But what message isn't in the Bible?

 

[joelr]

The only way I can explain it is to give examples. This example is really clear and is a good example of what I'm saying.

John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you

Most people understand this is not the literal flesh and blood of Jesus. My point is that this isn't one of just a few times this is done, this is almost always the case.

All writers understand symbolism, the Gospel writers were highly trained at the Greek school and use techniques of historical fiction that was used in that time.
There is symbolism in the Quran as well, not a reason to believe the claims are true.

 

[joelr]

There are so many views on where the bible came from, where do you think tit came from? I mean, did one person write it or do you accept that it was written over thousands of years by multiple writers?

The OT is multiple books, some books have multiple authors like Isaiah and in different periods.

The NT is all a product of Mark. Each writer tried making the "one" Gospel that would be used. There were about 40 known Gospels in the 2nd century and by the end of the century, one sect was using the Gospels we now know and the names were added.

But they all sourced Mark, evidence of which is covered in this article on Bible.org, by scholars who are believers.

The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

Any serious discussion of the Synoptic Gospels must, sooner or later, involve a discussion of the literary interrelationships among Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This is essential in order to see how an author used his sources (both for reliability’s sake as well as for redactional criticism), as...

bible.org

Mark was definitely using many sources, he re-wrote OT stories about Elija and Moses and made Jesus the main character, used Romulus, Homer, Greek Hellenistic religions and made a mystery religion version of Judaism. Hellenism was a religious trend at the time.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I see religion as one of humanities great evolutionary achievements.

I see transcending religion as a greater achievement, and we're well into that, but still closer to starting than finishing. I see the religious phase of man as that period connecting when he first began to wonder about how his world worked until he found out. In between, he tried magic and mythology, and prayers and sacrifices, but eventually discovered the actual rules of nature.

walking with God is "hard"

I don't think so. In my opinion, it's easier to believe in a god than not. Being an atheist means that there is no devil to blame, no expectation of reuniting with deceased loved ones, no personal protection from the cosmos, only one life to live, personal responsibility for one's choices, nobody watching over you or answering your prayers, marginalization in a theistic society, and no easy explanations for our existence. We are it, we are on our own. It's our world to make or break.

I believe describing anything with evolution is fantasy.

Why is that a deal breaker for you? You also believe your Bible, much of which is fantasy.

Chemistry is one thing, but presuming only chemistry for life is a faith based

There is no need to presume that chemistry is all there is just as there is no need to presume that there is more. Chemistry is sufficient to explain life.

Some even say that only the things that science can test can be called evidence.

Evidence is that which is evident to the senses. If something can't be detected, that is the same as saying that there is no evidence for it.

I still see the evidence for the Bible as good and see much of what science says about the past as not really good science.

What evidence for the Bible? Science has falsified much of it.

Variables about God and His relationship with people in prayer cannot be accounted for.

If there were a difference between people who pray to the god of Abraham and those who don't, we could detect it. That's pretty much tautological, just it would be to say that if we couldn't detect a difference between them that there is no apparent difference there.

sometimes complexity can point to a God.

Not to my knowledge. Sometimes complexity can point to an intelligent designer, but no amount of complexity suggests supernaturalism.

 

[SkepticThinker]

God rewards those who seek truth with truth.

Anyone who comes to the Bible seeking truth for the sake of truth will find it.

I said what I said in that post because that’s what the Bible says.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

If a person comes to the Bible looking for grace, they will find grace, if works then works, if error then error.

God pretty much allows you to see whatever your looking for. It’s like a magic book that grants your wish.

Why would you say my post was full of hot air when I’m only saying what the Bible says? Do you not agree that that’s what the Bible says?

That's called confirmation bias.

 

[Brian2]

There is no need to presume that chemistry is all there is just as there is no need to presume that there is more. Chemistry is sufficient to explain life.

Chemistry is sufficient to have a hypothesis about.

Evidence is that which is evident to the senses. If something can't be detected, that is the same as saying that there is no evidence for it.

In your world view.

What evidence for the Bible? Science has falsified much of it.

Which parts has science falsified?

If there were a difference between people who pray to the god of Abraham and those who don't, we could detect it. That's pretty much tautological, just it would be to say that if we couldn't detect a difference between them that there is no apparent difference there.

There is no apparent difference most of the time.

Not to my knowledge. Sometimes complexity can point to an intelligent designer, but no amount of complexity suggests supernaturalism.

For me it is the case that sometimes complexity points to a God, for you that is never the case.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Chemistry is sufficient to have a hypothesis about.



In your world view.

You have yet to explain to us how you claim to be detecting things that are undetectable.

Which parts has science falsified?



There is no apparent difference most of the time.

So no evidence there either.

For me it is the case that sometimes complexity points to a God, for you that is never the case.

In which cases? How can you tell? What methodology can we use?