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

[PureX]

People with faith, like @joelr, do not need the evidence to say that a certain theory is wrong.
If a faith is that there is no designer then Occam's Razor is enough to dismiss any theory of a designer.

Well, to be fair, the same is true of many theists that likewise claim blindly that their theory of a creator God is truth, and everyone else's theory is false.

The fact is that existence is the expression of design. None of us can logically deny this. But the origin of that designing "code" (for lack of a better term) is completely unknown to us. And science is not going to resolve that mystery, because it can't. While all art, philosophy, and religion can do is speculate, and help us act on the speculation to see what results. But that's not going to give us answers, either; just better ways to deal with the questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

People with faith, like @joelr, do not need the evidence to say that a certain theory is wrong.
If a faith is that there is no designer then Occam's Razor is enough to dismiss any theory of a designer.

Where does he use faith? To me it looks as if you just made a false claim about him. If you can't justify your claim you just broke the ninth commandment while ironically insulting your own religious beliefs at the same time.

 

[Lekatt]

I was raised in churches early in life, and believed because I was told to believe, but as I grew up I quit going to church and doubted there was anything to this God business.

Then I had a heart attack and found myself out of my body for a few moments with someone asking me if I wanted to go on living or to die. I chose to live.

This experience started me on a journey to learn all I could about spiritual things. That was 30 years ago and today I feel sure that a Creator does exist. My life has changed from "getting by" to real participation and enjoyment. I have done and am doing things I really enjoy.

I like to help others with my website and blog and recently I have tried writing lyrics. Two of my lyrics have been published with more to come.

Basically, I have noticed that there is a better life, an abundant life awaiting those who believe and follow the teachings of Jesus. It is the teachings that matter, not the rituals or dogma. That will produce a better life.

 

[SkepticThinker]

People with faith, like @joelr, do not need the evidence to say that a certain theory is wrong.
If a faith is that there is no designer then Occam's Razor is enough to dismiss any theory of a designer.

You say that as though faith is a bad thing. But you believe in god based on faith. So .... what are you trying to say here, exactly?

Of course you've got it completely backwards, as usual. That poster relies on evidence and eschews faith for the unreliable pathway to truth that it is.

 

[Brian2]

Well, to be fair, the same is true of many theists that likewise claim blindly that their theory of a creator God is truth, and everyone else's theory is false.

The fact is that existence is the expression of design. None of us can logically deny this. But the origin of that designing "code" (for lack of a better term) is completely unknown to us. And science is not going to resolve that mystery, because it can't. While all art, philosophy, and religion can do is speculate, and help us act on the speculation to see what results. But that's not going to give us answers, either; just better ways to deal with the questions.

But my point was that faith is needed to make the claim either way.

 

[Brian2]

Where does he use faith? To me it looks as if you just made a false claim about him. If you can't justify your claim you just broke the ninth commandment while ironically insulting your own religious beliefs at the same time.

@joelr shows faith in his beliefs many times and does in post 5199 also.

 

[Brian2]

You say that as though faith is a bad thing. But you believe in god based on faith. So .... what are you trying to say here, exactly?

Of course you've got it completely backwards, as usual. That poster relies on evidence and eschews faith for the unreliable pathway to truth that it is.

I was just pointing out that many who claim no faith actually have faith.
It is rubbish to say that the poster relies on evidence only. The evidence does not tell us that there is no designer, the evidence can point either to or away from a designer depending on how you want to use the evidence. That is where the faith comes in, and it is wrongly equated with evidence, as if evidence is anathema to the existence of God.

 

[SkepticThinker]

@joelr shows faith in his beliefs many times and does in post 5199 also.

Where? He didn't write Post #5199.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was just pointing out that many who claim no faith actually have faith.
It is rubbish to say that the poster relies on evidence only. The evidence does not tell us that there is no designer, the evidence can point either to or away from a designer depending on how you want to use the evidence. That is where the faith comes in, and it is wrongly equated with evidence, as if evidence is anathema to the existence of God.

If the evidence doesn't point to a designer, than there's no reason to posit a designer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@joelr shows faith in his beliefs many times and does in post 5199 also.

Where? Please be specific.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was just pointing out that many who claim no faith actually have faith.
It is rubbish to say that the poster relies on evidence only. The evidence does not tell us that there is no designer, the evidence can point either to or away from a designer depending on how you want to use the evidence. That is where the faith comes in, and it is wrongly equated with evidence, as if evidence is anathema to the existence of God.

Your inability to understand the burden of proof does not mean that others are using faith.

 

[PureX]

But my point was that faith is needed to make the claim either way.

There is no need to make any claims at all. We can choose to believe, or just to trust in whatever possibility we want. So why claim something is the truth when we can’t know it to be so? Why not just state our belief, or our hope, and leave it at that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no need to make any claims at all. We can choose to believe, or just to trust in whatever possibility we want. So why claim something is the truth when we can’t know it to be so? Why not just state our belief, or our hope, and leave it at that?

If some did not use their religion as an excuse to tell others what they had to do that would be fine. Or if we are talking about testable and verifiable concepts and yet one wants to deny that and then worse yet inflict that denial upon others due to their religion that is a problem too. Look at how many more people died than had to due to the pandemic. When one makes a choice during a pandemic and decides to go out and mingle as usual that decision can affect many others in a very negative way.

If we could all live in a vacuum there would not be a problem. But we have to live with each other and when that occurs at times rational thought will have to take precedence.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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?

Baha’u’llah, Christ, Buddha, Muhammad, Moses, Zoroaster, Krishna, the Bab. These Great Spiritual Beings are proof and evidence of God. The effect They have on humanity is unparalleled and unprecedented in human history. Billions upon billions model their daily lives upon Their teachings thousands of years after Their death and follow Holy Books no ordinary person can write or replicate. And none can be found today who can command such devotion and love that These Beings can. The Baha’i belief is that These Beings were ‘pre-existent’ and were born in the world of God not conceived on earth and thus They were endowed with a tremendous power from God and enabled to spread Their Mission on earth despite some of the cruelest opposition to win over the hearts and minds of men and change the course of history.

Study, deep study of These Beings definitely unearths more than just an earthly form. More outside the capability of ordinary men which cannot be explained by logic, reason or the unbeliever. This Invisible Power continues to this day to inspire billions. Just because we do not understand it does not mean it is not real. It is real and does exist.

 

[PureX]

If some did not use their religion as an excuse to tell others what they had to do that would be fine. Or if we are talking about testable and verifiable concepts and yet one wants to deny that and then worse yet inflict that denial upon others due to their religion that is a problem too. Look at how many more people died than had to due to the pandemic. When one makes a choice during a pandemic and decides to go out and mingle as usual that decision can affect many others in a very negative way.

If we could all live in a vacuum there would not be a problem. But we have to live with each other and when that occurs at times rational thought will have to take precedence.

But you are not in charge of what it means to be "testable and verifiable". People that 'believe in God' often believe they have tested their belief and verified that it is appropriate. How they chose to do that is their own business. And in many instances, it was a totally subjective experience. One that YOU DID NOT HAVE. But because you don't consider subjective experience to be "valid", you want to discredit their belief, and their reeasons for believing it. Atheists are always complaining about how theists want to tell them what to think, and what to do, but in fact, it's almost always the atheists that is trying to tell the theist what and how to think. And they don't even see themselves doing it because they are so convinced that their own way of thinking is the only right way to think.

As to the pandemic, that was just the usual human cultural stupidity. People behaving like petulant toddlers because they hate being told what to do by their betters. Even if their betters are right.

Very few people that choose to live by their faith in their God are telling you or anyone else what to think or do. And yet inevitably, the few that do so are ALL YOU THINK ABOUT when you think about people of faith. Why? Because those are the ones that you resent. Those are the ones that dare to think and reason differently from you. That dare to reject your obsession with "objectivism" as the pathway to truth. And do it out loud.

Some humans are always going to be trying tell everyone else what to think and what to do. It has nothing to do with who believes in God and who doesn't. If you don't like them doing it to you, then stop doing it to them. It's a social-political problem. Not a philosophical one.

 

[joelr]

And that is the "code", that some things could happen, and others could not.

You cannot demonstrate that that is "code". It doesn't say some things can happen and others cannot, it says what is most probable will tend to happen and what is less probable is less likely to happen. This doesn't have to be "coded" but simply be how reality works. There is no evidence this was coded, created and could be a feature of unconscious forces. Which is exactly what we observe in the universe.

We have no idea how this was/is so, or by what mechanism it is do, but we can see for ourselves that it is do. And because it is so, existence exists, and exists in the way that it does.

Exactly, so it isn't evidence for anything except that reality works in a probabilistic way.

Well, not exactly. We do know that the Big Bang was possible. And that it happened as it did tells us that it happening some other way was not possible. So we do know that possibilities and impossibilities existed before existence as we experience it happened. And that whatever it was, before, it was defined into possibilities and impossibilities.

Currently we do not know if the universe could have been any other way. It's also possible that there are an infinity of other universes, each expressing different manifestations of probabilities. One interpretation of physics says all probabilities are expressed. Sean Carroll has lectures on this.
So, no, we do not know that other ways of the universe being is impossible, why would you say that?

Well, that says nothing at all.

No it says a deism is not needed for natural unconscious laws to emerge and create. It also says theism is a complete fiction. There are many many reasons for that.

The probabilities (possibilities vs impossibilities) ARE THE CODE. They are what has defined what happens as "existence".

You don't seem to know what "probabilities" means. There is no "code" behind QM. In fact hidden variables are shown to be impossible.

"
In 1964, John Bell showed through his famous theorem that if local hidden variables exist, certain experiments could be performed involving quantum entanglement where the result would satisfy a Bell inequality. If, on the other hand, statistical correlations resulting from quantum entanglement could not be explained by local hidden variables, the Bell inequality would be violated. Another no-go theorem concerning hidden-variable theories is the Kochen–Specker theorem.

Physicists such as Alain Aspect and Paul Kwiat have performed experiments that have found violations of these inequalities up to 242 standard deviations.[24] This rules out local hidden-variable theory"

But regardless, saying the probabilistic nature of space-time and particles is a "code" is speculation and unproven.

And they are the blueprint upon which existence as we experience it occurred.

It's how reality works as far as we know. You are introducing speculation with any other idea.

We have no idea at all what originated this blueprint of what is possible and what is not. Or even how it is what it is.

That isn't true. There are ideas based on QM, The appearance of finding ourselves in a probabilistic universe may be an inevitable consequence of the unitary and deterministic evolution of the universal Schrodinger equation. If you go deeper into physics there is more understanding.

Probabilities do not say something is impossible, it says many things are probable given enough time and energy. In Many-Worlds all possibilities happen in a separate dimension. When you calculate particle paths you get a better approximation when you start adding in all other possible paths, so this is just how nature operates it seems. There is no evidence of a design or a coder or creator. You are saying we have no idea. So that 's it then, no evidence for anything except what is. Unconscious forces, a probabilistic universe and so on.

So you have no basis whatever for claiming anyone's theory about it is right or wrong. Absolutely none.

I have basis for claiming a theory has no evidence. There are many explanations about why the universe is like it is, depending on the interpretation you subscribe to in physics. There is no evidence it's created or coded. Arguments about deism are fundamentally impossible to know one way or the other.

My argument about confirmation bias and illness can be demonstrated to be true, so that has merit.

And theism has many many issues that are showing it to be false. Most of them you probably subscribe to when it comes to other religions.

 

[joelr]

People with faith, like @joelr, do not need the evidence to say that a certain theory is wrong.

I would maybe, read the post you are commenting on first, maybe? So you say something at least ~ballpark related to the topic?

BTW, in that specific example I actually GAVE AN EXAMPLE OF EVIDENCE and confirmation bias. But you are not responding to that actual argument are you? No. Making vague incorrect statements is all apologetics seems to be able to do.

But I enjoy the irony of you talking about evidence. Not a subject you do business with. So it's odd how judgmental you get when you feel others are not employing evidence in a proper manner. That's really something.

If a faith is that there is no designer then Occam's Razor is enough to dismiss any theory of a designer.

And again, I have to explain,......again,...... deism arguments are not conclusive, blah blah. But if taking me out of context is the only way you can make a point then have a party.

What there is, is no evidence the universe was designed. Or evidence of a designer.

 

[joelr]

@joelr shows faith in his beliefs many times and does in post 5199 also.

Well, if you want to push the issue, let's push it.

Post 5199


"

We also see this extend into the everyday world. People get sick, pray for a healing, and when they become better they credit it to their deity. Actually they had a disease that has a 60% mortality rate.
If 1000 people had it recently there will be around 400 survivors. To an individual it doesn't feel that way, it feels personal. It isn't.
10,000 children are dying every day from starvation. Every day. That won't change by deity magic. It isn't changing.

This coder argument is a deism argument. Now personal deities, theism, no chance.

We have no idea at all what originated this blueprint of what is possible and what is not. Or even how it is what it is. So you have no basis whatever for claiming anyone's theory about it is right or wrong. Absolutely none."




So, I'm commenting on beliefs and claims in the everyday world, especially with prayer and illness, which is the thing most people pray about, most intently.

Please show me where only in Christian prayer, mortality rates for stage 4 lung cancer (random illness) in the U.S. is significantly lower for all Christians. What study finds this phenomena?
In fact prayer studies have been done, with controls, prayer fails.
Yet, when people pray and experience a healing they assign the cause to their deity.
They forget they were on a hospital IC unit for a week, had surgeons work on them, used modern medicine, MRI, pain meds, chemo, fluids. personal nurses. But a deity healed them. But no help for the 10,000 children yet.
AND the fact that a percentage of stage 4 lung cancer patients live.
But every year the same percentage of stage 4 lung cancer patients die, and th esame percentage live, with small variants.

Showing 100%, there is no deity healing people, there are probabilities playing out exactly as they do.

I don't need faith in cancer mortality rates, cancer recovery rates, both are real.
I don't need faith in the confirmation bias survivors will use, it's real. Because the larger percentage have DIED. Showing it was not a GOD but probabilities.
I don't need faith in the fact you will falsely accuse me of faith, because there is evidence.

This tells me you know darn well that faith is a terrible method for finding truth.

10,000 children die every day from starvation. That number isn't changing. Most of those people are Christian, parents praying, relatives praying.
No chance, still 10,000.

Let's see if a deity made some changes? From a United Nations report,


"Each day, 25,000 people, including more than 10,000 children, die from hunger and related causes. Some 854 million people worldwide are estimated to be undernourished, and high food prices may drive another 100 million into poverty and hunger."

Losing 25,000 to Hunger Every Day | United Nations

During the past two decades, population growth, improvement in incomes and diversification of diets have steadily increased the demand for food. Prior to 2000, food prices were in decline, largely through record harvests. At the same time, however, public and private investment in agriculture...

www.un.org

Sorry, no faith, evidence only. No God either.

 

[joelr]

But you are not in charge of what it means to be "testable and verifiable". People that 'believe in God' often believe they have tested their belief and verified that it is appropriate

You just said it, they hold a belief. Many believe Scientology is the best religion. They verified it through subjective experience. Many believe Mormonism is the only true word of God, they verified it through subjective experience.
This may be appropriate for them but if you care about what is true it is not appropriate.
Some have tested their belief in white supremacy, verified in their subjective experience. Not a method for finding truth.

. How they chose to do that is their own business. And in many instances, it was a totally subjective experience. One that YOU DID NOT HAVE. But because you don't consider subjective experience to be "valid", you want to discredit their belief, and their reeasons for believing it.

Their experience is valid. It is not true. Truth needs to be demonstrated if you care about believing true things.
Subjective arbitrary experiences do not constitute reasonable methods for knowing what is true.

Atheists are always complaining about how theists want to tell them what to think, and what to do, but in fact, it's almost always the atheists that is trying to tell the theist what and how to think. And they don't even see themselves doing it because they are so convinced that their own way of thinking is the only right way to think.

I don't care how you think. I am speaking up for rational, skeptical, logical , empirical methodology as a way to build a foundation of beliefs in life. If you want to disregared that, have a dance party. I'm putting it out there. And I'm examining claims of religions to see if they hold up to logic and evidence. Because I care about what is true.

Very few people that choose to live by their faith in their God are telling you or anyone else what to think or do. And yet inevitably, the few that do so are ALL YOU THINK ABOUT when you think about people of faith. Why? Because those are the ones that you resent. Those are the ones that dare to think and reason differently from you. That dare to reject your obsession with "objectivism" as the pathway to truth.

I don't care if you believe stories with zero evidence and claims about supernatural things that are not supported by any evidence? I want people who are not aware that religions sometimes indoctrinate and use apologetics which are not correct, use emotional attachments which happen the same in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and others, and the doctrines being sold are probably not true but fictional versions of reality.

People don't do addition "differently", people don't have a different science or another periodic table. Things are true and supported by evidence or they are not. Religion is not supported by evidence, it's syncretic stories taken from older religions and the morals, taken from morals of the time are not even used. Cultural morality is used. Hence no stoning, death for graven images, women may speak in church, and so on.

Some humans are always going to be trying tell everyone else what to think and what to do. It has nothing to do with who believes in God and who doesn't. If you don't like them doing it to you, then stop doing it to them. It's a social-political problem. Not a philosophical one.

Uh, this is a "RELIGIOUS DEBATES FORUM"....it's the place to do it. It should be done and is the reason for the entire section.

Some humans are trying to promote logical, empirical thought so people are not taken in every time someone is selling something. So they have a personal epistemology that includes skepticism and evidence so they can believe as many true things as possible. So they are ALWAYS trying to debunk their beliefs HONESTLY, from people who know more, and accepting when they have held a false belief.
Like Bart Ehrman did, or Dr Richard Miller among many others who were fundamentalists.

It's not my fault religion doesn't stand up to evidence and logic.
And as you say all this, you probably feel the same as I do about Islam, which will outnumber Christianity in the US. And Mormonism and all other theologies you find false. That's ok, just not the one you personally believe.

 

[joelr]

@joelr shows faith in his beliefs many times and does in post 5199 also.

And of course to deism I said:


"Questions going back before the big bang are unknown at this time. "

Because it's unknown. But way to twist my words all over the place. Do you have any real arguments?