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

[Subduction Zone]

Mounds of evidence and yet I have never seen anything near convincing. I do believe in extinction but I don't consider that evolution. I suppose natural selection might describe why some species survive and others do not but I do not see that as evolution even though it is included in the theory.

That is your fault. You are not being rational. If you were then you would reject your God beliefs ten times as fast.

That raises the question: What are you afraid of?

 

[Audie]

Picturing what people looked like from skulls is fantasy. It is fairly well informed fantasy but it still is not a real picture of the person.

The forensic people with LAPD do an excellent
job. Your opinion is just ignorant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Picturing what people looked like from skulls is fantasy. It is fairly well informed fantasy but it still is not a real picture of the person.

We do not need to know what they looked like, though with modern forensics we can get quite close. Did you not know that fossil evidence is not the strongest evidence for evolution? It is only the easiest for lay people to understand. And we have more than enough of that for honest people.

 

[joelr]

Picturing what people looked like from skulls is fantasy. It is fairly well informed fantasy but it still is not a real picture of the person.

That isn't evolution at all. We know height, brain size, some social habits, tools, body hair......what they looked like exactly is more of a reconstructive art. The evolutionary point is a slow change from a chimp like species to modern humans, which we see.

 

[freelight]

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?

Existence IS....this suffices for me - the reality of one's own consciousness is fundamental to life,.....call it 'God' if you like, which includes infinity, all potentials and possibilities innate to being. - otherwise,...im more of a mystic, spiritualist, theosophist......life is about learning, exploring, evolving, co-creating...what else is there? Life is what you make.

Being a 'theist' of any variety is totally your own choice based on what you find most logical within that definition-context of your world view and subjective experience. A more atheistic/agnostic or whatever viewpoint is also permissible. Finally, Existence is its own evidence, one's own consciousness....that is all that one knows ever.....and whatever arises within the field of that AWARENESS. In the context of infinity, all language, labels, terms and explanations are subject to change, evolution. - thats just for starters


~*~*~

 

[an anarchist]

Existence is its own evidence, one's own consciousness....that is all that one knows ever.....and whatever arises within the field of that AWARENESS.

What is your definition of evidence for God? Can you elaborate on how existence is it's own evidence?

 

[Truthseeker]

What is your definition of evidence for God? Can you elaborate on how existence is it's own evidence?

Still impersonating Maxwell Smart, eh? I still remember the repeated joke "I asked you not to tell me that!". That was before your time.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What is your definition of evidence for God?

It seems that he didn't address your comments and questions in your OP.

What I get from his post is that if he's a theist at all, he's the type whose god has morphed into something akin to what an atheistic humanist would call nature, which Einstein's called god. But why call nature a god? Look at how much confusion it caused when Einstein did it referring to the laws of physics. If one wants to anthropomorphize nature, Mother Nature works fine, and nobody thinks you mean it literally or pray to her.

Can you elaborate on how existence is it's own evidence?

Hopefully, he'll answer you himself.

His full comment was, "Existence is its own evidence, one's own consciousness....that is all that one knows ever.....and whatever arises within the field of that AWARENESS." That sounds like Descartes' "I think therefore I am," meaning that we can't be certain of anything apart from the fact that we are sentient and having experiences.

Like I said, if he wants to answer himself, we'll see what that answer looks like.

Still impersonating Maxwell Smart, eh? I still remember the repeated joke "I asked you not to tell me that!". That was before your time.

Don't forget these:

• "Sorry about that, Chief"
• "And loving it"
• "Missed it by that much"
• "Would you believe"

 

[Kathryn]

CS Lewis said this:"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else.”

 

[an anarchist]

CS Lewis said this:"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else.”

I mean, it sounds nice.

Seems vacuities (i.e. an empty argument) fills the statement though.

Maybe I'm missing what he's trying to say. He's not trying to offer evidence for God I think. Just saying that it works for him.

 

[Kathryn]

I mean, it sounds nice.

Seems vacuities (i.e. an empty argument) fills the statement though.

Maybe I'm missing what he's trying to say. He's not trying to offer evidence for God I think. Just saying that it works for him.

There's no evidence against God either. It works for me as well.

 

[jimb]

"Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen." Hebrews 11:1

That says it quite plainly. It is the lack of faith that creates unbelief.

 

[Trailblazer]

"Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen." Hebrews 11:1

That says it quite plainly. It is the lack of faith that creates unbelief.

It is a lack of faith in the evidence for God that creates unbelief.
Atheists don't see what we believers see as evidence for God.

 

[Audie]

I mean, it sounds nice.

Seems vacuities (i.e. an empty argument) fills the statement though.

Maybe I'm missing what he's trying to say. He's not trying to offer evidence for God I think. Just saying that it works for him.

Maybe its whats called a deepity.

Or maybe dippy.

 

[Audie]

It is a lack of faith in the evidence for God that creates unbelief.
Atheists don't see what we believers see as evidence for God.

Same as we dont see evidence for bigfoot,
Nessie, effecacy for homeopathy, or a myriad of
other things that are not there.

We see no merit in any form of self decption,
like choosing to believe we see what's not there.

Amusingly, those who are so afflicted see it
( talk about self- deception) as their advantage
over people who at least try to be sensible.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen."

Faith is not a path to knowledge. If you want to know about reality, you'll only get that from experience, not unjustified belief. If you want compelling evidence for anything, same answer. Knowledge comes from the external and internal senses properly evaluated using reason and prior knowledge (memories accrued empirically).

You can call your intuitions and faith-based beliefs knowledge, but I wouldn't. To call an idea knowledge, it needs to be demonstrably correct.

It is a lack of faith in the evidence for God that creates unbelief.

Unbelief or unbelief in gods? This atheist probably has as many beliefs as you do, just different one arrived at by a different path.

Atheists don't see what we believers see as evidence for God.

We interpret it differently. I've seen what you say is the evidence supporting your belief, but I only see evidence of a man there, not a deity.

 

[Truthseeker]

Don't forget these:

• "Sorry about that, Chief"
• "And loving it"
• "Missed it by that much"
• "Would you believe"

You're of my generation. I don't remember "and loving it". "Would you believe" was constant. A Mel Brooks production. Mel Brooks is 98.

 

[Trailblazer]

You can call your intuitions and faith-based beliefs knowledge, but I wouldn't. To call an idea knowledge, it needs to be demonstrably correct.

I would not call them knowledge because nobody can demonstrate that any God exists.

Unbelief or unbelief in gods?

Unbelief in God(s).

We interpret it differently. I've seen what you say is the evidence supporting your belief, but I only see evidence of a man there, not a deity.

We interpret it differently. I see evidence of a man who was more than a man, a man with a twofold nature, one nature divine, the other human.

 

[Trailblazer]

You're of my generation. I don't remember "and loving it". "Would you believe" was constant. A Mel Brooks production. Mel Brooks is 98.

Wow, he is that old?

 

[Audie]

Faith is not a path to knowledge. If you want to know about reality, you'll only get that from experience, not unjustified belief. If you want compelling evidence for anything, same answer. Knowledge comes from the external and internal senses properly evaluated using reason and prior knowledge (memories accrued empirically).

You can call your intuitions and faith-based beliefs knowledge, but I wouldn't. To call an idea knowledge, it needs to be demonstrably correct.

Unbelief or unbelief in gods? This atheist probably has as many beliefs as you do, just different one arrived at by a different path.

We interpret it differently. I've seen what you say is the evidence supporting your belief, but I only see evidence of a man there, not a deity.

" Faith = understanding" is super intellectually
lazy. Same with " intuition".
How lazy, to focus on the easiest person to fool!

Of course, the appeal is obvious.

Imagine if just by having the right
attitude, you could have a vast array of arcane
knowledge vouchsafed unto thee!

So deep that its but an afterthought to note
that you know more than any of them
falsely so called scientists.