Just Believe

[nPeace]

We don't need mind reading powers as the gospel authors told us He didn't


So resurrection is against the will of God? Tough luck for Lazuras then. So going into a furnace seven times hotter than a regular furnace without getting harmed is against the will of God? Tough luck for Shadrach, Meshach and Abdenego then. So miracles are against God's will? Tough luck for Paul the apostle then.


Doesn't answer my questions, or at best only partly answers them, but we can't tell because you haven't cited your sources clearly, other than to reference a wikipedia article which has the text under the title "Biblical Narrative" subtitle "Last visit to Jerusalem and arrest", so of course critics agree it is part of the Biblical narrative, doesn't mean they necessarily agree that it was a historical occurence, which is what you implied.

Generally when we have several sources relating the same event, and especially if they are not of the same source, it is evidence that the event is true. Thus the source is reliable.

Your objections makes me question your sincerity, and leads me to ask, are you interested in evidence, or just something you would agree with?
For example, the Romans have a history - written. Do you accept that? On what basis?
So if another souce relates a history that coincides with the Roman history, on what basis do you reject it?

What are the facts?
Paul existed.
His letters (for the most part) are attested.
Several historians, some living within 100 year after Paul's death, wrote about him, and his "occupation".

If you are denying any historical references to any Biblical character, then to be honest you would actually have to deny all history, and claim to only accept what you presently can witness.
If you honestly meant what you said earlier about investigating evidence, then your arguments make no sense, and contradict your position.

Again...
Claudius' expulsion of Jews from Rome - Wikipedia
References to an expulsion of Jews from Rome by the Roman Emperor Claudius, who was in office AD 41-54, appear in the Acts of the Apostles (18:2), and in the writings of Roman historians Suetonius (c. AD 69 – c. AD 122), Cassius Dio (c. AD 150 – c. 235) and fifth-century Christian author Paulus Orosius. Scholars generally agree that these references refer to the same incident.

Scholars agree, because that's several (counting 4) sources that relate to the same event.
The first source - the Bible was no later than 60 CE... just shortly after the event. The next source is close to that source (no more than 60 years), followed closely by two later sources.

What do you accept?
Critics will alway have something to groan about. Not because they don't have evidence supporting what the critics object to, but simply because the critics don't like the evidence.

I can't do anything about that, so if you are asking me to stop you from being a critic, you are really asking the impossible. Critics will live believing what they want, until they die... Unless...

Your link is to the claims of the Bible, not to any evidence that Jesus resurrected.

Perhaps you might want to take your time and examine carefully what you read, and have an open mind, because that simply is false.

Sure, it could be true that I went back in time, assumed the name Jesus and raised Lazuras from the dead, but if I expect anyone to believe such a fantastical tale then they would be correct to expect evidence of it.


Yes I have noticed you hope we will believe the Gospels without evidence to the contrary of the tall claims in your P{

Twisting people's words by taking them out of context for wrong motive, is deviously wicked.

The topic is believing in the Bible with evidence, central to that is a critical examination of Paul's tall claims as a Christian minister.

Far as I recall, the topic made no mention of the Bible, and the OP was specific about evidence of (god).
Why not just admit you were just eager to make an attack on the Bible.... and bring up targets - Paul, miracles, etc.
That's your creation. Not the OP.
So, to repeat... if you have particular things you want to focus on, then may I suggest you create a new thread on it, and mention me. Focussing on Paul as though that alone is evidence, is not in keeping on topic.

As usual instead of posting evidence, you are simply posting claims of people that you consider authorities, then expecting people to be impressed. Also authenticity is a non issue in some cases, we accept the authenticity of the Harry Potter books, but not that they contain a truthful or historical account.

You mean I didn't quote Bart Ehrman.
Rather than get all carried away in idolizing men, let's focus on what is said... which is the reason for posting the information.
Regarding the Christian Greek Scriptures, Frederick Fyvie Bruce wrote: “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.”

We are looking at the evidence for the reliability of the scriptures, because if the scriptures can be relied upon, as authentic, then the events can be trusted.
Using the comic book, Harry Potter strawman argument is not relevant here. It's not a reasonable argument (putting it mildly).
Did the author of Harry Potter claim that she was writing true real-life accounts? No.
Then we are not investigating the evidence for Harry Potter being able to, or having done anything.

That's a feeble attempt of the Bible critic, in his attempt to discredit the Bible.

No its not true, nobody accepts the authenticity of secular sources without question. They question them and then the evidence leads to the conclusion whether they are authentic or not.

Okay, let's check that out.
Let's start with the Babylonian and Assyrian cuneiform tablets. What evidence leads to the conclusion that these are authentic?

So you make a dogmatic assumption that they are not separated works inspite of them being written at different times to different people containing contradictory messages and then add more unevidenced claims.

Please understand I said.
I said, we do not take the Greek scriptures as a separated work from the Hebrew scriptures, there is more evidence to be found in combining these documents as one, both from an internal perspective, and an external. 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 The strongest evidence being internal.
"We" refers to believers. Not your people... like Bart Ehrman

Contradiction are oftentimes, a matter of opinion, and when someone seems to contradict something, there may be an explanation that shows there is no contradicts.
The same is true of the Bible. What seems to be a contradiction, may be based on one's lack of understanding, of limited knowledge of facts.

All of which are irrelevant to whether there is evidence that the Gospels are factually and historically true.

It's very much relevant, and here is why.
Anytime the evidence you have is based on eyewitnesses and early investigators... namely historians, one has to be able to establish if the witnesses account and the report of early investigators provide any evidence for discovering the truth.
If the evidence shows that there is reason to believe the witnesses, and the early investigators evidence supports this, we have no basis for claiming the witnesses to be frauds.

Hear from a detective who knows, as he presents some evidence for the reliability of the Gospels.

They do provide evidence that the writings are not *wholly* true, I even provided some evidence in post #331 which you ignored, not to mention earlier posts.

In my opinion.

That "evidence" is opinions based on what... people's opinions and views. Not based on facts.
There is a difference, I assume you know.
See here.
What facts give evidence that the writings are not *wholly* true?

 

[nPeace]

Ehrman was a fundamentalist Christian, he became at first a liberal Christian through his study of the Bible, and later an agnostic for his own reasons. But he successfully exposes the anti-historical nature of the Bible without even reffering to it.

You believe. So it must be true, right?

Still waiting on you to provide any evidence, I have already provided contrary evidence.

You provided contrary opinions to the evidence, and other scholars. Not evidence.
I provided pieces of evidence, I'll give you a list of all the evidence when I have that time... which won't be too soon.

Ha, on this fourm you are only allowed to express things as your own opinion, so you are asking me to break forum rules.

Reminds me of a snail, when it hides in its shell, hoping to evade what it's afraid of.

It helps us determine more accurately the likely reasons for their conversion. If they were 99.9% poor Jews it would seem reasonable to assume that they converted for material reasons, not due to convincing scriptural reasons as one would expect wealthy Jews to convert for.

Ha Ha Ha. Don't make me laugh daniel. All it does is demonstrate how desperately critics will grab at anything to deny facing up to facts.

Thats exactly what I was saying.

Yes the brain cells are fed. I don't see why you think that is circular - the mechanisms of feeding the brain exist in the womb before the lungs begin to operate.

Please pay attention. I said self replicating molecules are now observable. That the first known molecules (not self replicating molecules) appeared 100,000 years after the big bang. And that the first known *organic* self replicating molecules occured 4 billion years ago.

In my opinion

Whatever it is you said, is irrelevant to the fact that your speculations amount to being nothing but a modern day myth.
I assume you know what a myth is.

 

[Brian2]

I don’t believe things for which I have seen no evidence. Do you? If so, why?

I believe things through faith, but it is not faith just for the sake of faith, there are reasons to believe that what the Bible tells us is true.

Simply stating that some prophecy came true doesn’t demonstrate that it came from any God(s).

First of all, you’d have to show that a person was actually able to predict the future. Then, you’d have to show how that person was able to predict the future. And even if we ascertained that a person was actually able to predict the future, you’d still have to demonstrate that said prediction came from some god, never mind the specific god you believe in. So just saying “a prophecy in this old book came true” isn’t enough to demonstrate that said prophecy was divinely inspired by the specific Christian god you believe in.

I'm stating my beliefs and a reason you should understand.
If a person predicts the future and it comes true then they can predict the future, esp if they do it a number of times.
If that happened in a certain book about some god and it happened with many people and over a long period of time then I assume the prophecies are from that God.

I don’t know how the universe came about.

Once again you completely ignore my questions demonstrating your burden of proof for actual claims you’re making and instead of attempting to answer them, you deflect. Why is that?

You asserted that something is impossible. I’ve asked you to back up your claim by showing your math, because declaring that something is impossible requires some mathematical analysis. Instead of doing that, you’re trying to push it onto me. Sorry, your claim, your burden of proof.

We both have a burden of proof if we want to claim something. If your claims are scientific then great, you have your scientific proof, which is not really proof, and my claims are not scientific and my evidence is not scientific in the sense of being able to measure it and examine it.

I don’t know how life came about.
How did the god you believe in come about?

Maybe by chance. Is that a reasonable way?

I don’t understand your question.

What are the chances that some God exists?

100% if that is what I base my knowledge on.
If people say that no God exists then the chance for everything coming about naturally is 100% for them because the "no God" assumption is what their knowledge is based on.

I have not assumed anything about any of that. I have said “I don’t know.”

You’re the one assuming you know what I believe and think. And quite inaccurately, I must say.

Sorry, I probably am treating you like an attack dog in some ways.
I just can't understand why you cannot understand what I am saying and why you want more to my answers.

We have no other universes to compare our universe to, so I’m not sure we can make declarative statements about the probability of our universe existing.

What’s the probability that a God exists? When did you demonstrate that God is more probably than chance? What’s the probability that the specific god you believe in exists? Remember, you’re the one making the assertions about your God here.

If God has shown us He exists then He exists. There is no chance to it. The problem is that I believe He has and you do not and seem to be looking for scientific and mathematical evidence.

When did I assert that “things came about by chance?”

You probably did not, but without a God what else is there?

I haven’t stated that “dead matter can come to life” so why would I have to demonstrate it.

I seriously think you do not understand how the burden of proof works at this point. Also, you haven’t answered my question as to what you mean by that.

Please demonstrate how God can “give life to dead matter,” because now you’ve made yet another assertion. When did you even demonstrate that the specific god you believe in exists in the first place, never mind giving life to dead matter?

If there is no God then that is a claim that dead matter can come to life without a life giver.
This is the sort of thing that science is working on to show a possibility, but at the moment it is just an assumption based on the naturalistic methodology of science.
The place in knowledge that we are at is that life can only come from previous life and everything else is speculation.
My claim is that life is more than chemistry, and that seems obvious and even science know that and explains it away and an emergent property of matter.
I don't need a prove my belief and you it seems avoid recognising that you have a burden of proof also.
But that is what sceptics do, claim a lack of belief and no need to prove anything while continuing to believe the naturalistic world view and wanting proof and demonstrations from those who have a different world view.

And yet another assertion that you have not demonstrated.

How do you know?

My knowledge is based on what I believe, as yours is.

And yet another assertion that you have no demonstrated.

Same answer as above. And that time had a beginning can be seen logically.

Sure we can. Infinity isn’t a number, it’s a concept.

Infinity is a concept but in reality the concept of infinity of time in the past is wrong or we cannot be at this point in time yet. Infinity does mean that we cannot make it bigger after all.

Our bodies are made up of a collection of chemicals constantly interacting with each other. Scientists have demonstrated that it’s at least theoretically possible that the precursors of life can come form non-living matter, given the right conditions. So I’m going to wait for the answers that they can provide, because they’re actually interested in demonstrating the veracity of their claims.

I'm sceptical about the veracity of their,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,speculations.

There are many books with supposed prophecies in them. Have you read Nostradamus?

How about Game of Thrones? Why is yours special?

How did you ascertain that Bible is the word of God? Because prophecies? Sorry but that doesn’t cut it for reasons I’ve explained (that you ignored). Human beings wrote the Bible. That’s a demonstrable fact.

I have not read those.
Prophecy in the Bible can be quite precise however.
I do not believe because of prophecy only but when hear that people want evidence prophecy is something I can point to. But alas it is never enough.

It's like you didn’t even read what I said. What I said was actually that nobody knows, and so we don’t get to pretend that we do know, as you are doing. “God of the gaps” doesn’t provide any explanatory power whatsoever as to how anything got here. It’s not much more than a magic claim. Science isn’t going to postulate a creator unless and until there is evidence for one. As it stands now, no creator is necessary to explain naturalistic processes – because we have actual naturalistic explanations for such things. Again, you just want to declare that some supernatural world exists without any demonstration of such and then go on to make a ton of assumptions about it. That’s not rational, reasonable or logical.

You keep harping on about prophecies, without realizing that just stating that prophecies exist in the Bible (and I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that they are actual prophecies, for the sake of conversation) doesn’t get you anywhere close to demonstrating the existence of the specific god you believe in.

And again you’re still sitting there stating what God has said or thinks without ever demonstrating that God has said or done anything at all, never mind even exists in the first place. There are a ton of people who disagree with you about what God(s) think and want and they can’t demonstrate the veracity of their claims either.

I think I was answering you according to the question. If postulating a God in the gaps is not getting us anywhere then postulating a naturalistic explanation is also not getting us anywhere.
All it can come to is speculation on speculation while ignoring evidence for the creator and life giver.
But that is OK for science, that is how science works.
You claim that we have naturalistic explanations for such things as creation but we have none, all we have is speculation.
As I have said, science won't accept the evidence for a creator but that is science, but we are not science, we are people and science is a tool, but is not the only one for finding out stuff.

I’m not convinced that there is design. Which is not the same thing as “believing there is no design.” Please take in and understand the difference so we can move forward.

And you’ve completely ignored my point and my questions again and instead have made more assumptions about my position. Why is that?

“We ascertain design by comparing natural things with manmade things. That’s how we know that a house is designed, while a rock isn’t (well, one of the many reasons, anyway).

So, in your mind, you’re looking at a planet full of designed things, whether natural or manmade. So what comparison are you making to determine that rocks are designed, just like houses are designed?

Please answer the question.

In all practical ways, saying you are not convinced there is design is the same as believing there is no design.
I don't have to make a comparison to decide that something is designed.
To me it is reasonable to just intuit it.
It's something that I can't explain, and a designer is my answer.
That sounds better to me than no designer.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I believe things through faith, but it is not faith just for the sake of faith, there are reasons to believe that what the Bible tells us is true.

So what is it then?

Is anything you believe through faith demonstrable in any way?

And how does this not confirm my definition of faith as “the excuse people give for believing something when they don’t have evidence?”

Remember, my response to you was, “I don’t believe things for which I have seen no evidence. Do you? If so, why?”

And your answer was the above. So you are confirming that you don’t have evidence?

I'm stating my beliefs and a reason you should understand.

If a person predicts the future and it comes true then they can predict the future, esp if they do it a number of times.

If that happened in a certain book about some god and it happened with many people and over a long period of time then I assume the prophecies are from that God.

Why skip over the actual evidence part and just make that assumption?

If a person can actually, verifiably and demonstrably predict the future, that only tells us that they can. It doesn’t tell us how they are doing it. That would require further investigation and demonstration.

We both have a burden of proof if we want to claim something. If your claims are scientific then great, you have your scientific proof, which is not really proof, and my claims are not scientific and my evidence is not scientific in the sense of being able to measure it and examine it.

Yes, we would. But I am not claiming anything. You are the one making the claims. I am the one questioning those claims because I’m not convinced that they are true.

Scientific evidence is the best we’ve got. Have you got any?

The scientific method is just a tool we use to discern reality from fiction. It’s a method of observation, measurement, demonstration, replication, etc. For you to say, “my beliefs aren’t scientific” is simply an admission that your beliefs aren’t actually testable or demonstrable in any way. Is that what you’re trying to tell me?

And from my last post, I said, “You asserted that something is impossible. I’ve asked you to back up your claim by showing your math, because declaring that something is impossible requires some mathematical analysis. Instead of doing that, you’re trying to push it onto me. Sorry, your claim, your burden of proof.”

Maybe by chance. Is that a reasonable way?

The God you believe in came about by chance?

100% if that is what I base my knowledge on.

If people say that no God exists then the chance for everything coming about naturally is 100% for them because the "no God" assumption is what their knowledge is based on.

The chance that God exists is 100%? That means God definitely exists. So when did you demonstrate that and how did you do the math to get 100%? And are we just talking about the specific God you believe in? How did you even get to that?

Also please remember, I haven’t said anywhere that “no god exists.” My position as an agnostic atheist is that I am not convinced any god(s) exist because I have never seen good evidence indicating that any god(s) exist.

Sorry, I probably am treating you like an attack dog in some ways.

I just can't understand why you cannot understand what I am saying and why you want more to my answers.

No worries.

I believe I understand what you are saying. What I am doing is questioning your assertions because I don’t find them convincing and I don’t feel that you have any good evidence to present. And you’ve already admitted you believe on faith, so I don’t suppose any evidence will be forthcoming.

If God has shown us He exists then He exists. There is no chance to it. The problem is that I believe He has and you do not and seem to be looking for scientific and mathematical evidence.

And how do we know that “God has shown us He exists?” When has anyone shown that about the particular god you believe in?

I don’t think you’re understanding me here. You’re making assertions about probabilities. That would require some math on your part that would involve comparisons because probabilities are basically just comparisons between different scenarios. What I’m looking for is good evidence, rather than empty assertions and declarative statements on your part. Anybody can say anything they want. But can you demonstrate it?


Cont'd ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

You probably did not, but without a God what else is there?

The universe appears to operate just fine without having to insert any god(s) into the equation.

You’d have to show that some God is required, given your assertions.

If there is no God then that is a claim that dead matter can come to life without a life giver.

Your entire body is made up of “dead matter” that comes together to make you – a breathing, thinking, living human being.

If there is a god, how are we deciding that “dead matter can come to live without a life giver?”

What’s the process? Magic? How did this God come to be? How does god give life to non-living matter?

This is the sort of thing that science is working on to show a possibility, but at the moment it is just an assumption based on the naturalistic methodology of science.

The place in knowledge that we are at is that life can only come from previous life and everything else is speculation.

As mentioned, scientists have already demonstrated that it is at least theoretically possible for living matter to arise from non-living matter, given the proper conditions.

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

My claim is that life is more than chemistry, and that seems obvious and even science know that and explains it away and an emergent property of matter.

I’m just wondering when you’re ever going to demonstrate your claims, rather than just asserting them.

I don't need a prove my belief and you it seems avoid recognising that you have a burden of proof also.

What burden of proof is it that you think I have here?

But that is what sceptics do, claim a lack of belief and no need to prove anything while continuing to believe the naturalistic world view and wanting proof and demonstrations from those who have a different world view.

Yeah, because that’s how logic and reason works. Do you believe in Santa Claus? Why or why not?

We know the natural world exists. We can investigate it and measure it. We don’t know that any supernatural world or god(s) exist because as you have pointed out several times now, such things aren’t investigable or measurable. Like they would be if they didn’t even exist at all.

I’m wondering why you aren’t more skeptical of your own claims that you can’t seem to demonstrate/provide evidence for. I’m wondering why you hold a worldview that you can’t verify.

This is getting quite frustrating since I haven’t made any claims other than I don’t believe yours.

And I just spent half of the last post pointing out that the things you think I claimed were not actually claims I have made.

But I guess I’ll ask again, what claims am I making here that would require me to demonstrate them or would require evidence?

My knowledge is based on what I believe, as yours is.

I want to believe as many true things as possible, and disbelieve as many false things as possible. How about you?

Your beliefs in this case are not knowledge because you can’t demonstrate them. Don’t confuse beliefs with knowledge.

Same answer as above. And that time had a beginning can be seen logically.

Oh cool, so this is your admission that you can’t demonstrate anything. You just believe it.

Infinity is a concept but in reality the concept of infinity of time in the past is wrong or we cannot be at this point in time yet. Infinity does mean that we cannot make it bigger after all.

No. The fact that it’s a concept means that it’s not an actual number.

I'm sceptical about the veracity of their,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,speculations.

You’re skeptical of the fact that our bodies are composed of chemicals and matter?

Or that multiple independent groups of scientists have demonstrated that it’s at least theoretically possible that the building blocks of life can arise from non-living matter? You are denying their actual demonstrations of such?

I have not read those.

Prophecy in the Bible can be quite precise however.

I do not believe because of prophecy only but when hear that people want evidence prophecy is something I can point to. But alas it is never enough.

People use them to claim that Nostradamus could predict the future. Of course, just like Bible prophecies they are super vague and could apply to just about anything or any time in history.

But what if Nostradamus could predict the future? What would that mean?

I think I was answering you according to the question. If postulating a God in the gaps is not getting us anywhere then postulating a naturalistic explanation is also not getting us anywhere.

No, not at all. Because as I keep pointing out, naturalistic explanations are observable, measurable and demonstrable, unlike your claims about the supernatural.

We know the natural world exists – we are looking at it, measuring it, observing it, etc.
We have no similar knowledge of any supernatural world or of any god(s) in any demonstrable sense. You actually agree with me on that. Or at least you did earlier.

All it can come to is speculation on speculation while ignoring evidence for the creator and life giver.

What evidence? Your faith?

But that is OK for science, that is how science works.

You claim that we have naturalistic explanations for such things as creation but we have none, all we have is speculation.

Scientists don’t just “speculate” and declare their speculations to be true.

As I’ve explained countless times now. Surely that’s not how you think science operates.

As I have said, science won't accept the evidence for a creator but that is science, but we are not science, we are people and science is a tool, but is not the only one for finding out stuff.

And as I’ve asked countless times now, what evidence?

Faith isn’t evidence and it’s demonstrably not a pathway to truth because anything can be believed on faith.

In all practical ways, saying you are not convinced there is design is the same as believing there is no design.

No, it isn’t.

In the same way that a “not guilty” verdict is not a vote for “innocence.” Rather, it’s a vote to indicate that the burden of proof of “guilty” has not been met. That doesn’t mean the person isn’t guilty though.

Or think of it this way. If I’ve got a giant jar full of an unknown amount of gumballs, there is either an odd number of gumballs in that jar, or there is an even number of gumballs in that jar, right? Neither of us knows how many balls are in the jar.

If you say to me, “there is an odd number of gumballs in that jar” and I tell you I am not convinced that there are an odd number of gumballs in that jar, do you think that means I believe there are an even amount of gumballs in that jar?

I don't have to make a comparison to decide that something is designed.

That is how human beings determine designed things from non-designed things. It’s the same way we calculate probabilities, which is why your probability/impossibility claims remain unsupported.

To me it is reasonable to just intuit it.

Well, a ton of people “intuit” that other gods are real. How does that get us any closer to the truth of reality if everyone can just “intuit” whatever they want?

It's something that I can't explain, and a designer is my answer.

That sounds better to me than no designer.[/QUOTE]

So you think your answer of “I can’t explain it … that sounds better to me than no designer” is somehow better than the methodology we’d use from a scientific perspective? Seriously?

You know what this argument is? It’s an argument from incredulity, and it’s a logical fallacy.

 

[Brian2]

The universe appears to operate just fine without having to insert any god(s) into the equation.

How do you know there is no God in the equation?

As mentioned, scientists have already demonstrated that it is at least theoretically possible for living matter to arise from non-living matter, given the proper conditions.

No science has shown that it is theoretically possible for chemicals to combine into the organic chemistry of life given the right conditions.

I’m just wondering when you’re ever going to demonstrate your claims, rather than just asserting them.

There is no demonstration that life can come from chemistry but you want me to demonstrate my claims.
But of course you don't believe life came from dead matter, it's just something that you don't know so you really have no opinion.

What burden of proof is it that you think I have here?

When I think about it if you do not believe what you do not know then there is no proof that you can offer for that.

We know the natural world exists. We can investigate it and measure it. We don’t know that any supernatural world or god(s) exist because as you have pointed out several times now, such things aren’t investigable or measurable. Like they would be if they didn’t even exist at all.

Yet there is evidence that God exists in the prophecies I have spoken of.
If science can say,,,,,,,,,,,"It looks life life comes from chemistry" with no evidence, then surely I can say that
"It looks like God exists" because I have some evidence.

But I guess I’ll ask again, what claims am I making here that would require me to demonstrate them or would require evidence?

Well yes, the skeptic position of no beliefs when it is not known scientifically. No beliefs, no claims except negative ones about faith in a God who has given us evidence of His existence.
You have made claims about prophecies not being evidence for a God.

No. The fact that it’s a concept means that it’s not an actual number.

It has nothing to do with whether infinity is a concept or real number, the thing is that infinity cannot get bigger and anyone who wants time to have had no beginning wants infinity in the past to get bigger as it goes into the future.

People use them to claim that Nostradamus could predict the future. Of course, just like Bible prophecies they are super vague and could apply to just about anything or any time in history.

But what if Nostradamus could predict the future? What would that mean?

What if? Who would know, it's all super vague. The Bible however is not vague at all with many prophecies and it does predict the future. What does that mean?

No, not at all. Because as I keep pointing out, naturalistic explanations are observable, measurable and demonstrable, unlike your claims about the supernatural.

So why are you not sceptical when science says that chemicals came to life or that the universe just came into existence?

Scientists don’t just “speculate” and declare their speculations to be true.

As I’ve explained countless times now. Surely that’s not how you think science operates.

Science has just assumed that life comes from chemistry and the universe just happened. These things are a given with the naturalistic methodology framework. What science is trying to do is come up with a rational explanation of it.

Faith isn’t evidence and it’s demonstrably not a pathway to truth because anything can be believed on faith.

There is enough evidence for the truth of the Bible to have faith imo.

No, it isn’t.

In the same way that a “not guilty” verdict is not a vote for “innocence.” Rather, it’s a vote to indicate that the burden of proof of “guilty” has not been met. That doesn’t mean the person isn’t guilty though.

As I said in all PRACTICAL ways it is the same. You don't believe there is design. That is the PRACTICAL way we are talking about.

That is how human beings determine designed things from non-designed things. It’s the same way we calculate probabilities, which is why your probability/impossibility claims remain unsupported.

We compare to see if something is designed by man but not to see if something is designed. We look for intelligence in something to see that.
I'm not sure what you mean by my probability/impossibility claims were.

Well, a ton of people “intuit” that other gods are real. How does that get us any closer to the truth of reality if everyone can just “intuit” whatever they want?

The intuit comes in when deciding if there is a God or not. Which God is another question.

So you think your answer of “I can’t explain it … that sounds better to me than no designer” is somehow better than the methodology we’d use from a scientific perspective? Seriously?

You know what this argument is? It’s an argument from incredulity, and it’s a logical fallacy.

You are putting words in my mouth. I said nothing about scientific methodology.
Scientific methodology is an argument from incredulity. Science eliminates God because it is incredulous about God's existence. That is fine because it is just a practical working method.
It is when people don't seem to realise this and see speculation about the abiogenesis of life or the origins of the universe as being more than speculation that is a problem. That means those people are using incredulity in the existence of God to believe that one of the naturalistic scientific speculations about origins of life or the universe has to be true, sometime even if not now.
There is NO evidence that life comes from chemistry or that the universe just happened.
If people believe there is it is just intuition.
BUT there is evidence for the Bible being true.