Why do people deny or have various doubts about God?

[Bunyip]

I would just like to see you provide some real evidence for a change. I don't care to see unsubstantiated claims, and that is all you seem capable of providing. Show some convincing evidence, and I will believe.

You have already said that you are not interested. Why do you keep asking for evidence that you are not interested in?

 

[Sonofason]

None of those are "assumptions", they are all scientific models and theories. You want more "proof" then read the references that are listed below each and every point listed. They are there, I checked

lol, theories and models are proof? Good luck with that concept.

 

[Bunyip]

lol, theories and models are proof? Good luck with that concept.

You asked for evidence, not proof.
Theories and models are evidence.

 

[Sonofason]

You asked for evidence, not proof.
Theories and models are evidence.

They are not evidence if they are not convincing. Evidence must be convincing. If it is not convincing, it is not evidence.

 

[The Hammer]

lol, theories and models are proof? Good luck with that concept.

We can argue semantics... Or, you can start point by point and show me where anything stated within that article is a fallacy.

Here let me make it easier, I will toss points at you and you explain them away one by one: Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

 

[Sonofason]

We can argue semantics... Or, you can start point by point and show me where anything stated within that article is a fallacy.

Here let me make it easier, I will toss points at you and you explain them away one by one: Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

I have seen no Ice cores from Greenland.
I have seen no evidence that a layer of sediments is not present.
I have seen no lack of noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios.
I have seen no lack of fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses.
I have seen no lack of hiatus in trapped air bubbles.
And I have not seen any other evidence.

 

[The Hammer]

I have seen no Ice cores from Greenland.
I have seen no evidence that a layer of sediments is not present.
I have seen no lack of noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios.
I have seen no lack of fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses.
I have seen no lack of hiatus in trapped air bubbles.
And I have not seen any other evidence.

But you have "seen" a book that tells you there was a flood, therefore it must exist.

While reading contrary evidence, means you have to see the evidence? Pretty sure that is a logical fallacy, but I am not going to look up which one.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

With the way most religious people act, it's no wonder that so many doubt God's existence.

 

[Bunyip]

They are not evidence if they are not convincing. Evidence must be convincing. If it is not convincing, it is not evidence.

Nonsence. Evidence is evidence whether you even understand it or not.

 

[Koldo]

All you have to do is actually show that this "new proposed structure" is a better fit than the structure I presently accept. You say this new proposed structure gives a better fit for the rest of the pieces, but you have not shown that to be the case.

It is of no use. You have to figure it out by yourself, else you will reject it. The status quo can only be changed from within.
You will eventually realize how many excuses you have had to make up along the road to make the pieces fit together and then get tired of your old ways.

 

[Heim]

I am constantly in doubt about God. I don't mind this at all. I see doubting as an integral part of my spiritual experience.

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

No, Jesus (In Mathew 24) told His disciples that the end time would occur in our generation, and it will.
No, the global flood has not been proven false. It has only been hypothesized as being false - big difference.
Yes, it will be most difficult for pregnant women and women with small children to run to the mountains to find safety.
Well, there's actually nothing wrong with dying, so for a God to allow anyone to die is not such a bad thing. Consider this. God allows every single person on this planet to die. He will allow me to die. He will allow you to die. No one will be deprived of their God given right to die.

SonofaSon,
It was not just the flood, it would the literal story of Noah, the flood, the Ark and the animal business. Do you really think that actually happened?

My point was that if we find events Jesus asserts as being true, that are proven to be not true, would that conclude that the bible or stories attributed to Jesus are fabrications? That they were nothing but fiction created by the Bronze Age men to explain the unknown world around them.

Hypothetically, would you agree that if the story of the flood was proven untrue would that debunk Jesus as any sort of credible person or divine entity?

 

[Shad]

Perhaps you can provide evidence to support your idea that cave paint is evidence that there was no global flood. Perhaps you can show why Neolithic civilizations and pottery prove that there was no global flood.

The point was to show that there was no massive break down of civilization as a global flood narrative since civilization still continued in different areas. You want me to prove a negative without parameters. I can just point out there were civilization present across the global during most of the speculated timelines. Those proposing a global flood should provide evidence not I. When did the flood happen? Where is the evidence of settlement destruction across the global which all would correspond to one date

 

[Sonofason]

But you have "seen" a book that tells you there was a flood, therefore it must exist.

While reading contrary evidence, means you have to see the evidence? Pretty sure that is a logical fallacy, but I am not going to look up which one.

I have not said that I know for a fact that there was a great flood. What I have said is that I have not seen any evidence that there wasn't a great flood.

 

[The Hammer]

I have not said that I know for a fact that there was a great flood. What I have said is that I have not seen any evidence that there wasn't a great flood.

So, all of the evidence in the article I posted is bogus, because you did not physically do the work yourself and look at the samples? I guess you will never know, because by that logic there is no evidence good enough, unless you plan on doing the research yourself. Which I highly count you are.

 

[Sonofason]

So, all of the evidence in the article I posted is bogus, because you did not physically do the work yourself and look at the samples? I guess you will never know, because by that logic there is no evidence good enough, unless you plan on doing the research yourself. Which I highly count you are.

Well, I must agree that evidence that one can see with his own eyes is probably the most convincing kind of evidence there is.

 

[The Hammer]

Well, I must agree that evidence that one can see with his own eyes is probably the most convincing kind of evidence there is.

Typical apologetics... Believe your delusion if you want. I won't argue with someone who refuses to acknowledge evidence. Debating someone who cannot construct a logical defense and only utilizes illogical quandaries, does not "know" what he is talking about.

 

[Sonofason]

Typical apologetics... Believe your delusion if you want. I won't argue with someone who refuses to acknowledge evidence. Debating someone who cannot construct a logical defense and only utilizes illogical quandaries, does not "know" what he is talking about.

It's just as well, I prefer to not debate those who are incapable of producing valid convincing evidence to support their claims.

 

[The Hammer]

It's just as well, I prefer to not debate those who are incapable of producing valid convincing evidence to support their claims.

 

[Cephus]

Pretty much the same as most people have already said. There isn't any objective evidence that any of these supposed gods actually exist. Absent such evidence, I will not believe in it. Come back with evidence, I'll reconsider my views, but not until.

Why is this so hard for some people to understand?