Why don't Theist's admit that there's no evidence for God?

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Really...so God changes...

This is silly here, Frank. So when you sin, God is upset at you. But when you repent, God is no longer upset at you, thus, a change. What is the problem here?? Ohhh, I get it, the problem is your misunderstanding of what it means when it is said that God doesn't change. Ohhhh, thats what it is.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes.. into pretty much whatever people want him to be. Funny, that.

Laugh now, cry later.

 

[philbo]

Laugh now, cry later.

Threats, eh?

Pitiful.

 

[kjw47]

God changed the way he deals with his people over time. When my son gets older I will deal with him differently than I do now, BIG DEAL.

Yes, Jesus came and made a new covenant--Love--God saw if they were to be held responsible for law none could make it. But if one had love, they wouldn't do bad against their fellow man, it would be written in their hearts( law) --few have found this path. example--if one loved their brother, one wouldn't steal from them, or commit adultery on them,or hate them, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Cephus]

Laugh now, cry later.

Does it ever occur to you how empty and ridiculous those threats are against people who don't take your beliefs seriously? We're about as worried about threats of hell as you are of threats of the Norse underworld.

 

[Ouroboros]

Really...so God changes...

The only constant is change.

 

[averageJOE]

This is silly here, Frank. So when you sin, God is upset at you. But when you repent, God is no longer upset at you, thus, a change. What is the problem here?? Ohhh, I get it, the problem is your misunderstanding of what it means when it is said that God doesn't change. Ohhhh, thats what it is.

Wow. What a small, limited, and petty god you describe. I always thought god to be far above the simple acts of being upset.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

This is silly here, Frank. So when you sin, God is upset at you. But when you repent, God is no longer upset at you, thus, a change. What is the problem here?? Ohhh, I get it, the problem is your misunderstanding of what it means when it is said that God doesn't change. Ohhhh, thats what it is.

Umm okay.

Did I say that God can not be upset and not upset? That's not a change that is all that different though very human...it's more of the reaction. To go from Punishing up to the 4th generation to condemning to eternal punishment...is a big change.

 

[1robin]

...I'm sorry? I would have justified it, but that isn't an option in these forums, so... yeah.​

I was not complaining. Use any justification you wish.​

We aren't talking about the difference between different kinds of faith, from religion to the existence of each one of us and what will happen in the next moment. We're talking about the difference between the same kind of faith -- religious/spiritual faith. I do not see a difference between belief in Zeus and belief in God.

Faith means a belief based on less than certainty. However less than certainty is relative. Belief can be based on virtually no evidence or on evidence that makes the belief only slightly less than certainty. Belief in Zeus is towards the former end of the scale and belief in the Bible is towards the latter end. That is the only meaningful claim about the "type" of faiths involved IMO. They both can be claimed as theological faith but I have no idea why that would be meaningful.​

I misunderstood you; I apologize. But I think you are mistaken about there being many different claims outside of the Bible for Christ's existence. Can you supply any of these claims, which have no connection to the Bible whatsoever?

There are at least a dozen for Christ's existence and at least three more dozen about the explosion of a faith based on his existence that appear very close to the time of his life and are not Biblical. There are even quite a number that are not from the Bible but are Christian (the writings of the earliest church fathers) that comment on the historical existence of Christ. Another relevant factor is that almost all NT scholars from every side agree that Christ is a historical figure. That he came on the scene with unprecedented divine authority, that he was crucified by the Romans, and that his tomb was found empty. Can you cite three facts similar to these that historical scholars overwhelming agree to concerning Zeus?​

I am saying that both require faith, yes, but that both require the same kind of faith. I disagree with your assertion that one requires blind faith and the other does not. You say that the quality of evidence is all on Christianity's side, but surely one simple book written centuries after the events were said to have taken place does not equal any ind of certainty? What of the Qur'an? The Vedas?

I do not know if faith comes in kinds. Faith means belief based on less than certainty. Faith is involved in almost every single thing claimed to be true of all kinds. About the only certainty is that we think and therefor must exist. Everything beyond that has a faith component. Even if faith came in types I am unclear what the relevance of that would be. I can discuss any of those issues you asked about but they are very involved questions and it would be impractical to attempt all 4 of them in a forum. If you will pick one of them I will get into as much detail as you wish.​

The conversation started because I responded to one of your posts about what you believe. I am really just interested in why you think that they aren't equal, why you think there is more evidence for one than the other. Is it just because of the Bible, then?​

Again I will respond in depth to this question or the ones asked above if you would narrow them down to one at a time. Let me state something before I close. I claim that faith in the Bible is based on more evidence than faith in Zeus. You seem to think that could not be true. Why? Unless you have some reason why faith in two different things must be exactly equal then one must have more evidence than the other. No mater how low you rate Biblical evidence it is of more quantity and better quality than what exists for Zeus. As stated I will be happy to discuss in depth any one topic at a time. Your choice.​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again I will respond in depth to this question or the ones asked above if you would narrow them down to one at a time. Let me state something before I close. I claim that faith in the Bible is based on more evidence than faith in Zeus. You seem to think that could not be true. Why? Unless you have some reason why faith in two different things must be exactly equal then one must have more evidence than the other. No mater how low you rate Biblical evidence it is of more quantity and better quality than what exists for Zeus. As stated I will be happy to discuss in depth any one topic at a time. Your choice.

Would you agree that the evidence for the Book of Mormon is greater than the evidence for the Bible?

With the Book of Mormon, we not only have early versions of the text; we actually have large parts of the original manuscript. And not only that, but we have statements from twelve different people that attest to the divine source of that manuscript. Does the Bible have that?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Threats, eh?

Pitiful.

I can't threaten you with something you don't believe in. Do you feel threatened by an imagination hell sentence?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Wow. What a small, limited, and petty god you describe. I always thought god to be far above the simple acts of being upset.

Subjective.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Umm okay.

Did I say that God can not be upset and not upset? That's not a change that is all that different though very human...it's more of the reaction.

To go from Punishing up to the 4th generation to condemning to eternal punishment...is a big change.

Subjective.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Subjective.

Yes I suppose it is...though something subjective is something that is not constant between people...would you say that God is not constant between people?

 

[1robin]

Yes I suppose it is...though something subjective is something that is not constant between people...would you say that God is not constant between people?

I believe people view God in different ways. the same way a mountain that never changes looks different based on point of view but isn't actually different at all.

 

[averageJOE]

Subjective.

Your right. You put your god in a box.

 

[philbo]

I can't threaten you with something you don't believe in. Do you feel threatened by an imagination hell sentence?

Of course not. But either the intent was there, or it was a totally pointless statement - so you're happy going out of your way to point out you've said something pointless?

 

[1robin]

Your right. You put your god in a box.

God fits perfectly into a God shaped box which he himself indicated the boundaries of. Is there some problem with this?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes I suppose it is...though something subjective is something that is not constant between people...would you say that God is not constant between people?

Well, God IS not constant between people. You are basically gave me your opinion about God. Ok? I disagree. So where does that leave us?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Of course not. But either the intent was there, or it was a totally pointless statement - so you're happy going out of your way to point out you've said something pointless?

Obviously I was saying that I can't threaten you with something you don't believe in. Of course I believe in it, so it isn't pointless to me.