Evidence for a god existing or not existing

[McBell]

I could give you a bunch. The first clear scientific error found in the Bible was the Noah's Ark myth. There never was a worldwide flood.

And here I thought you was going to start small, like the cud chewing rabbit....

 

[Subduction Zone]

And here I thought you was going to start small, like the cud chewing rabbit....

Apologists will point out how rabbits eat their own poop. And call that "their cud". That there never were an extra five vertical miles of water on the Earth is more fun to prove since there is so much evidence for it never happening.

 

[McBell]

Apologists will point out how rabbits eat their own poop. And call that "their cud". That there never were an extra five vertical miles of water on the Earth is more fun to prove since there is so much evidence for it never happening.

Ok, I agree the flood is likely the more entertaining one...
Well, more entertaining for those of us watching from the sidelines....

 

[Etritonakin]

How is it possible?


No, humans are evidence that humans exist. Humans aren't evidence that your assumptions and guesses are true.


There's only speculation about what happened before the Big Bang, and science is honest about that. The speculation still has to account for what is plausible.


None of this is coherent. And if "facts" aren't accepted as fact then it's because they aren't facts. Facts are verifiable and not disputed.

Verifiable facts are very much constantly disputed -usually by those who have not yet verified them or have no interest in dong so. It's not as if the first to verify something has immediate universal acceptance. That's understandable, as we're all newbs.

There is currently speculation about what happened before the big bang -but focus has not been on that. Now that it is -more so -the reverse-engineering can continue. We have what is necessary.

Some have been focused on it -and it should be no surprise that they may be further along and may have verified that which others have not.

I like to use the rogue wave analogy... they were not accepted as fact for some time -even though ship's crews verified them by experience.

 

[F1fan]

Sorry, I have no intelligent reason to believe that.

It's a fact that the Bible has many errors in it, so it's not something you have to believe. But you are rejecting this fact. Rejecting facts isn't indicative of intelligence.

I believe that any evidence for God would be poor in atheist’s point of view.

The poor evidence of gods you don't believe in applies to you, a theist. So it has nothing to do with being an atheist, but being willing to examine whether any given evidence is sufficient to convince an objective person that the claims is true, or even likely true.

And I think Bible is best possible evidence for Bible God, because things happen as said in the Bible.

There are plenty of Christians who believe this. Hindus don't. Jews reject the New Testament part. Muslims reject elements of Christian belief based on the Bible. So were you a Christian first and decide the Bible must be correct? Or were you an objective thinker and examined all religious books and concluded the Bible has the right answers and became christian? Or perhaps you've subconscious adopted Christian belief from your social experience and you have little awareness why you believe at all.

But, Bible tells God is love. Are you really saying that love doesn’t exist?

Love is expressed through some actual, living brains. Gods aren't known to exist, nor that they have brains. I suggest the Bible is being metaphorical and not literal.

 

[F1fan]

Verifiable facts are very much constantly disputed -usually by those who have not yet verified them or have no interest in dong so. It's not as if the first to verify something has immediate universal acceptance.

Are you referring to creationists who reject certain biological facts regarding evolution? The well educated accept the facts that experts report.

There is currently speculation about what happened before the big bang -but focus has not been on that. Now that it is -more so -the reverse-engineering can continue. We have what is necessary.

It is speculation by experts who use the depth of their understanding of physics, and avoid claiming magic happened.

Some have been focused on it -and it should be no surprise that they may be further along and may have verified that which others have not.

I like to use the rogue wave analogy... they were not accepted as fact for some time -even though ship's crews verified them by experience.

Even Einstein's Theory of Relativity was rejected as a hypothesis by many experts. It happened to be during WW! that Einstein wanted to test they hypothesis so it took several years before he could verify the observations. Even Germ Theory was rejected for many years until the microscope was invented and demonstrated bacteria existing. It's good to be skeptical. It's better to accept facts when they are demonstrated true. Thus far no religious god claims are demonstrated true.

 

[Etritonakin]

Are you referring to creationists who reject certain biological facts regarding evolution? The well educated accept the facts that experts report.


It is speculation by experts who use the depth of their understanding of physics, and avoid claiming magic happened.


Even Einstein's Theory of Relativity was rejected as a hypothesis by many experts. It happened to be during WW! that Einstein wanted to test they hypothesis so it took several years before he could verify the observations. Even Germ Theory was rejected for many years until the microscope was invented and demonstrated bacteria existing. It's good to be skeptical. It's better to accept facts when they are demonstrated true. Thus far no religious god claims are demonstrated true.

Not referring to that. You seem to be assuming my beliefs.

 

[1213]

It's a fact that the Bible has many errors in it, ...

That is just your opinion, because you can’t prove it to be a fact.

 

[1213]

I could give you a bunch. The first clear scientific error found in the Bible was the Noah's Ark myth. There never was a worldwide flood.

Thanks, I thought you can’t offer anything. There is no intelligent reason to believe that there was never a worldwide flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks, I thought you can’t offer anything. There is no intelligent reason to believe that there was never a worldwide flood.

Why openly lie about what someone said? Do you think that helps you as a Christian? I said that I could demonstrate errors in the Bible by using the Flood myth. By replying in such a dishonest manner you are only running away.

Would you care to learn how we know that there was no flood?

 

[McBell]

That is just your opinion, because you can’t prove it to be a fact.

Actually, it is a fact that there are errors in the Bible.
Your ignorance of the errors does not change the fact.
Your dismissing the errors, does not change the fact.
Your ignoring the errors, does not change the fact.

 

[F1fan]

Not referring to that. You seem to be assuming my beliefs.

If that's the case you seem very shy to correcting my error.

 

[F1fan]

That is just your opinion, because you can’t prove it to be a fact.

Actually no, it's not my opinion.

But I will give you the credit for being correct IF you interpret the Bible as symbolic in all areas where it is not factual.

 

[F1fan]

Why openly lie about what someone said? Do you think that helps you as a Christian? I said that I could demonstrate errors in the Bible by using the Flood myth. By replying in such a dishonest manner you are only running away.

Would you care to learn how we know that there was no flood?

I wanna hear all about it.

 

[Vahid]

Confirming or denying anything is based on a correct idea of him. The problem in this regard is more of an imaginary problem. The existence of God is something that, if well thought out, is self-evident.
Doubt in the existence of God is like seeing a building and doubting the existence of its builder, reading a book but doubting the existence of its author, reading a poem but doubting the existence of its poet. Do you think such doubts are reasonable?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Confirming or denying anything is based on a correct idea of him. The problem in this regard is more of an imaginary problem. The existence of God is something that, if well thought out, is self-evident.
Doubt in the existence of God is like seeing a building and doubting the existence of its builder, reading a book but doubting the existence of its author, reading a poem but doubting the existence of its poet. Do you think such doubts are reasonable?

"Self evident": Debate definition, I don't have any reliable evidence but I really really believe in one.

If it is "self evident" then you can explain the supposed evidence. I have found that "True believers" tend not to understand the concept of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wanna hear all about it.

I will save my serious arguments but one of my favorite fun ones is this:

We have all heard the story about a man that woke up in a seedy hotel bathtub filled with ice and missing a kidney. If one understands why this is an urban myth one should also be able to understand how the fact that it is a myth is strong evidence against the Noah's Ark story.

 

[F1fan]

I will save my serious arguments but one of my favorite fun ones is this:

We have all heard the story about a man that woke up in a seedy hotel bathtub filled with ice and missing a kidney. If one understands why this is an urban myth one should also be able to understand how the fact that it is a myth is strong evidence against the Noah's Ark story.

If that was ever and into a move Will Smith would be perfect. Or Russel Crowe. Call me crazy.

 

[1213]

Actually, it is a fact that there are errors in the Bible.
...

Without proof, that is meaningless claim to me.

 

[1213]

Why openly lie about what someone said?...
Would you care to learn how we know that there was no flood?

Sorry, what was my lie? I don’t think I lied.

But, please tell, how do you know it?