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

[Mycroft]

IS MORALITY 'NO MORE THAN A COLLECTIVE ILLUSION FOBBED OFF ON US BY OUR GENES FOR REPRODUCTIVE ENDS?[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]'[/SIZE] [1][SIZE=+1] (Ruse1986)
[/SIZE][/SIZE]MORALITY AS AN ILLUSION JUD EVANS - ATHENAEUM LIBRARY OF PHILOSOPHY
That is the philosopher of science.

Sorry, but genes do not give people a set of values. Gene can only - to a limited degree - generate a propensity toward certain kinds of behaviour (ie: males with an extra Y chromosome have been found to show more aggression) but they do not give you a set of values. That has to come from the environment.

Also, Jud Evans is not held in high esteem by scientists and philosphers alike. He is, as the Monk of Reason pointed out, a quack with zero understanding of genetics or behaviour.

 

[1robin]

Sorry, but genes do not give people a set of values. Gene can only - to a limited degree - generate a propensity toward certain kinds of behaviour (ie: males with an extra Y chromosome have been found to show more aggression) but they do not give you a set of values. That has to come from the environment.

Also, Jud Evans is not held in high esteem by scientists and philosphers alike. He is, as the Monk of Reason pointed out, a quack with zero understanding of genetics or behaviour.

That was pretty much my point. My quote was to show there is no and can be no sufficient foundation for morality. I think you misunderstood.

 

[1robin]

The New Testament as "profound"? Hah!

That was pretty much confirmation of my opinions that you have am emotional resistance to Christianity in search of evidence even if that evidence must be clothed in flowery language in order to conceal its ineffectiveness.

You could have said the NT was not true, it has been corrupted, or that you believed another faith was more reliable. You would have been wrong in all three claims but at least you would not have been petty and trivial in addition to being wrong.

Christ si the most influential person in history. The NT deals with origin, destination, heaven, hell, morality, and God. Billions of believers claims it to be the most important documents ever written. Even (honest) secular scholars do not deny it's importance if true.

This claim was one of the most biased and desperate I have seen in a long time. This is simply denial of so obvious a fact that is must come from a cognitive dissonance on a hyperbolic level.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

All I can say is that I am a theist and admit there's no evidence for god.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

All I can say is that I am a theist and admit there's no evidence for god.

/thread

 

[1robin]

Faith has no burden of proof because it is belief in the absence of evidence. And as for number 2 that may be your opinion but it is far from fact and you have far from provided a sufficent case for this to be considered true.

I pretty much destroyed this claim below.

No. I got a good grasp on it.

Apparently not.

Meh. There may have been more profound books written. The tora was pretty awesome. Most of the new testemant has kinda paled in terms of "profoundness". Also the Koran should also be considered.

I did not say there no other profound works. I claimed the Bible and it's main character are the most scrutinized text and person in human history. There are not even any close seconds. As an example the Torah is almost exclusive confined to Israel. Christianity is the only faith that exists in significant numbers in every nation on earth.

Though you also have to note that all of the miraculous things in the bible do not have historical evidence backing them. Also the bible is not a single book. Hundreds of writing were put forth and only some of them have any historical basis. Many of not most of them do not have historical backing.
None of the predictions are in any way convincing. They are all either long reaching justfications of certian things that have happened over 2000 years OR have not come to pass.

They do have historical evidence. They do not have proof. Every book has historical foundations that tower over every ancient text of any king and many modern texts. The criteria and methodology for what was chosen for the bible was extremely minimal. It must be apostolic in nature. They chose risking keeping some legit out in favor of only including the most unquestionable writings possible.

Also there is zero historical evidence aside from the bible that proves any of those three. The only one that is even CLOSE to being "fact" would be the one about Yeshua. There are some very very very very very vague historical refrences (two in fact) that may have been Jesus but was not definitly Jesus. There is also the famous forgery that was found to be a forgery in the 1800's that is still toted by some as "evidence".

That is completely false. That is why the majority of NT scholars claim them all to be reliable history. The reason the Bible is between 95% and 95.5% demonstrably textual accuracy is because it has such an astronomical textual tradition. Nothing comparable is even close of any type. You need, prolific copying, early coping, multiple attestation, early and rapid spreading, early copies that were lost early and found far later, etc.... to be able to ensure textual accuracy. The bible exceeds all other works of ancient history in every category and by light years. You might as well be saying Muhammad Ali could not fight. You mentioned a known forgery. It is precisely because the Bible's textual tradition is so vast and reliable that forgeries are easily identified angdlabeled as such. In comparison Uthman created a Quran he liked and burned the rest. There is no way to know what the original said after that. false

Most of the historians have agreed that it is "possible" and perhaps even "likely" that there was an outspoken Rabbi preaching new messages in rome but absolutly nothing about his crucifixion or empty tomb aside from the bible. It does if we can rule out natural explanations. There are many facts that have no natural explanations. Now if not natural, and you for no reason what so ever rule out the supernatural, then what other type of reality exists.

Once again that i snot true. Even if we only had the gospel writers alone, in what way are four independent accounts of an event insufficient. That is like gold compared to the average ancient historical account. But we do not have to stop there. There are 40+ extra biblical authors that record differing aspects of Christs life, death, and ministry.

Well then. Since you simply refute all of the evidence as "crap" and then quote quacks I guess we have nothing more to discuss.

Am I not allowed to cal bad evidence crap? My sources were some of the most imminent scholars in history. For example Ruse has been labeled the philosopher of science. And Dawkins is almost a God to atheistic evolutionists.

But to correct you. Morality is an illusion. But its a genetically created illusion that has provided a powerful function in our societies and even earlier group constructs. There is no "eternal" morality in the sense that right and wrong are deemed so at the begining of time. However what we have as "morality" is a baseline created by evolution and spans across our entire species. Its not specific but lays the basis of what we call "morals".

You condemned the scholar and then adopted his argument. That is bizarre. I think everything above is wrong and a universal intuitive sense of similar moral core issues agrees with that. But I agree that if God does not exist then no absolute morals exists. Having no firm foundation for morality is what is destroying the morality of modern man but at least you agree with that. If you ever thought any moral absolute exists you need God,

Really? I am flabbergasted at your denial. This is paramount of saying the holocaust didn't happen.

What the heck? You only reading the first sentence or two aren't you? I agree oppression in God;s name has occurred, but no one can convert be force but yes they tried. I even gave the numbers for the inquisition. I just put them in context. It was at best 3000 deaths in the entire 400 year history of the inquisition. For comparison the atheist utopia that Stalin ran killed 20 million. Christianity for it's entire history killed a tiny fraction compared to just modern atheist regimes.

I guess I imagined the killing of pagans, Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades then?

You probably imagine many things but this one was covered by me in detail. I do not think you are reading carefuly.

You just told me yourself that monotheistic religions have by far the most people. This skews any statistic away from your argument. You sir have refuted yourself

I have no idea what your talking about. I think your confusing a superficial intellectual agree to a concept with actually being born again.

Much of the idea that evolution is false is the most glaring one. Are you an engineer? How do you work in science without being a scientist? do you mean you are simply not a researcher?

I have a degree in math but what I do is in the testing, repair, and integration of military aviation weapons system. That does not make me a scientist, I am an engineer/technician but I can't see the relevance.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I pretty much destroyed this claim below.

No you didn't?

Apparently not.

I don't get into ******* contests. Continue by yourself if you must.

I did not say there no other profound works. I claimed the Bible and it's main character are the most scrutinized text and person in human history. There are not even any close seconds. As an example the Torah is almost exclusive confined to Israel. Christianity is the only faith that exists in significant numbers in every nation on earth.

Islam is catching up. Though the historical spread of Christianity isn't much evidence of anything.

They do have historical evidence. They do not have proof. Every book has historical foundations that tower over every ancient text of any king and many modern texts. The criteria and methodology for what was chosen for the bible was extremely minimal. It must be apostolic in nature. They chose risking keeping some legit out in favor of only including the most unquestionable writings possible.

Well you say that....but the reality tends to disagree.

That is completely false. That is why the majority of NT scholars claim them all to be reliable history. The reason the Bible is between 95% and 95.5% demonstrably textual accuracy is because it has such an astronomical textual tradition. Nothing comparable is even close of any type. You need, prolific copying, early coping, multiple attestation, early and rapid spreading, early copies that were lost early and found far later, etc.... to be able to ensure textual accuracy. The bible exceeds all other works of ancient history in every category and by light years. You might as well be saying Muhammad Ali could not fight. You mentioned a known forgery. It is precisely because the Bible's textual tradition is so vast and reliable that forgeries are easily identified angdlabeled as such. In comparison Uthman created a Quran he liked and burned the rest. There is no way to know what the original said after that. false

What was you lying?

Once again that i snot true. Even if we only had the gospel writers alone, in what way are four independent accounts of an event insufficient. That is like gold compared to the average ancient historical account. But we do not have to stop there. There are 40+ extra biblical authors that record differing aspects of Christs life, death, and ministry.

None of which made it to the bible. As the link clearly demonstrates above only one of the gospel authors could have even resonably known Jesus and did not write of it till much later. You have to PROVIDE EVIDENCE for such claims. You can't just say it and it be so.

Am I not allowed to cal bad evidence crap? My sources were some of the most imminent scholars in history. For example Ruse has been labeled the philosopher of science. And Dawkins is almost a God to atheistic evolutionists.

Well you can. But when you call good evidence crap it makes me wonder if you have the ability to determine which is which. Especially when you don't even provide evidence yourself. And when you do its usually pretty poor.

You condemned the scholar and then adopted his argument. That is bizarre. I think everything above is wrong and a universal intuitive sense of similar moral core issues agrees with that. But I agree that if God does not exist then no absolute morals exists. Having no firm foundation for morality is what is destroying the morality of modern man but at least you agree with that. If you ever thought any moral absolute exists you need God,

It only seems bizzare because you don't understand the position. I should re-direct you to a thread where I go into more depth but I don't think you would get it anyway.

There is no evidence for a universal morality that exists without the human influence. Our morality is based on something called empathy which is a product of evolution. There are more complex issues with it after that but all of the evidence stands against you with resounding unity.

What the heck? You only reading the first sentence or two aren't you? I agree oppression in God;s name has occurred, but no one can convert be force but yes they tried. I even gave the numbers for the inquisition. I just put them in context. It was at best 3000 deaths in the entire 400 year history of the inquisition. For comparison the atheist utopia that Stalin ran killed 20 million. Christianity for it's entire history killed a tiny fraction compared to just modern atheist regimes.

Well I can get into why Stalin isn't an "atheist regime" but I doubt you would atually consider the argument or are you simply going to cling uselessly to a corrolation that misleadingly looks as though it supports your position?

But the hell people can't "convert" under fear of death. IT IS the reason why we have so much Christianity in the world. To be your "true" christian maybe but I doubt it exists at all.

You probably imagine many things but this one was covered by me in detail. I do not think you are reading carefuly.

Oh I read. And it seems you simply want to pull a no true scottsman. Which is cliche at best.

I have no idea what your talking about. I think your confusing a superficial intellectual agree to a concept with actually being born again.

No. I think that there is no such thing as beinb born again. It is simply a religious ritual and concept. Your the one who has proposed that there is some sort of profound spiritual aspect to becoming a christian that is unique only to christianity. I have yet to see a single piece of evidence supporting this.

I have a degree in math but what I do is in the testing, repair, and integration of military aviation weapons system. That does not make me a scientist, I am an engineer/technician but I can't see the relevance.

Well thats fine. It really doesn't. It just baffled me to no end why you don't get a lot of science when you claimed before to work in a scientific field. It really doesn't hold any water to the argument because as I said before I don't care if your a 10 year old creationist or Stephen Hawkins. I don't respect authority only the quality of your argument.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

/thread

Not just yet, but soon...soon my friend.

My point is, what evidence could God ever possibly provide to 'prove' He exists and more to the point, what evidence will people accept as being proof of God?

Someone once said to me 'If Jesus appeared today, people would just call him crazy and lock him up in a lunatic asylum'.

How does one know God doesn't exist? but alas, the 'burden of proof' rests with us Theists.

I cannot prove God exists, I just know He does and it's a 'knowing' beyond knowing.

That would seem very illogical to the scientific mind that states 'without proof, it doesn't exist'.

Existence in any form, relates to the physical world and what our senses can process...God totally by-passes this system.

So, I can readily admit that the existence of God cannot be proven because God is beyond 'proof' of any kind.

It's like you guys saying to me...'prove you are a female online'....now, without going into pornography, there's no way I can do that, so others will just have to take my word for it....despite Internet rule #30.

Now, the thread can end....maybe. lol

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Not just yet, but soon...soon my friend.

My point is, what evidence could God ever possibly provide to 'prove' He exists and more to the point, what evidence will people accept as being proof of God?

Someone once said to me 'If Jesus appeared today, people would just call him crazy and lock him up in a lunatic asylum'.

How does one know God doesn't exist? but alas, the 'burden of proof' rests with us Theists.

I cannot prove God exists, I just know He does and it's a 'knowing' beyond knowing.

That would seem very illogical to the scientific mind that states 'without proof, it doesn't exist'.

Existence in any form, relates to the physical world and what our senses can process...God totally by-passes this system.

So, I can readily admit that the existence of God cannot be proven because God is beyond 'proof' of any kind.

It's like you guys saying to me...'prove you are a female online'....now, without going into pornography, there's no way I can do that, so others will just have to take my word for it....despite Internet rule #30.

Now, the thread can end....maybe. lol

It's not necessarily an issue of proof, it is that of evidence. Though the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, the absence of evidence is evidence for something.

It's the concept of God all the incorporated qualities which are given that atheist do not find evidence for or find contradictory.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

It's not necessarily an issue of proof, it is that of evidence. Though the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, the absence of evidence is evidence for something.

It's the concept of God all the incorporated qualities which are given that atheist do not find evidence for or find contradictory.

So, it's like a court and God is being put on trial or something? Sorry, but I don't understand. Please clarify. Thank you.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

So, it's like a court and God is being put on trial or something? Sorry, but I don't understand. Please clarify. Thank you.

Lol not sure how I could make it clearer.

Let me try.

I may have evidence for the existence of God, but I cannot necessarily use that evidence as proof that God exists as it is self-realized evidence, and not one that would compel another to believe.

Those who do not believe in God, have a lack of evidence and have no reason to believe my evidence, this absence of evidence in their lives, leads them to conclude that there isn't a God, because while the absence of evidence isn't enough to say that God is not real, it is enough to say that the concept of God that provided my evidence is not real for them.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Lol not sure how I could make it clearer.

Let me try.

I may have evidence for the existence of God, but I cannot necessarily use that evidence as proof that God exists as it is self-realized evidence, and not one that would compel another to believe.

Those who do not believe in God, have a lack of evidence and have no reason to believe my evidence, this absence of evidence in their lives, leads them to conclude that there isn't a God, because while the absence of evidence isn't enough to say that God is not real, it is enough to say that the concept of God that provided my evidence is not real for them.

Thanks I get it now.

Yes, God is experiential, so there is no evidence except for evidence relating to that individual person.

I appreciate you taking the time to assist me....here, have a Frubal.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Thanks I get it now.

Yes, God is experiential, so there is no evidence except for evidence relating to that individual person.

I appreciate you taking the time to assist me....here, have a Frubal.

Much Obliged

 

[halokitty]

I think Joan of Arc and Harriet Tubman are some real life evidence. If biblical folks are too old of a reference. But for most people it is irrelevant whether God exists or not. But it is important to keep recorded histories of these influential people who have had visions and a mission. Which would be an awesome title for an album or something. Visions and a Mission. But I think it would be cruel and unfair to everyone especially for these important people to go at it feeling confused and alone without references. We would just keep starting at animism over and over again when we've gotten so far as to knowing our merciful father and that he has mysterious ways.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I think Joan of Arc and Harriet Tubman are some real life evidence. If biblical folks are too old of a reference. But for most people it is irrelevant whether God exists or not. But it is important to keep recorded histories of these influential people who have had visions and a mission. Which would be an awesome title for an album or something. Visions and a Mission. But I think it would be cruel and unfair to everyone especially for these important people to go at it feeling confused and alone without references. We would just keep starting at animism over and over again when we've gotten so far as to knowing our merciful father and that he has mysterious ways.

Evidence of what?

 

[Knight of Albion]

I can think of several NDEs were hardened, leading atheists changed their tune after undergoing a NDE...

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I can think of several NDEs were hardened, leading atheists changed their tune after undergoing a NDE...

I would not be surprised. Death scares us all to some degree. When one experiences it, it can severely alter your perception of life. I'm sure there are theists who have undergone NDE's and have come out of it losing their faith or altering it to fit an explanation for the event.

 

[McBell]

I can think of several NDEs were hardened, leading atheists changed their tune after undergoing a NDE...

I can think of some that did the exact opposite.
So you have merely counted the hits and ignored the misses.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can think of several NDEs were hardened, leading atheists changed their tune after undergoing a NDE...

I was listening to a podcast recently where an autistic woman described how her NDE didn't involve Heaven or an out-of-body experience, but meeting the characters from Stargate (she didn't specify whether it wad the film or TV show) and going on a mission with them.

Assuming she wasn't lying, what should we make of her story? Is it evidence of the literal existence of the Stargate characters and universe?

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Didn't you know that Richard Dean Anderson is a god? *jks*

Seriously though, I have always thought/believed that the Near Death Experience is just the birth experience relived at the time of death and mostly caused by an oxygen-starved brain.

I mean, the light at the end of the tunnel...seeing loved ones and beings with distorted features (a baby's eyes cannot focus)...

When the brain is starved of oxygen, all kinds of weird and wonderful things happen that can be scientifically/medically explained.

A lot of the NDE theory was debunked for me ages ago.

*tries to squish Mesetemia's bug now...that thing is annoying. lol