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

[Muffled]

What use is God then?

I do not believe God intends to be used. More likely He will use you. The answer is simple. You are not really as much in control of your life as you think. So it is helpful to have someone who is more powerful who can move mountains for you.

 

[Five Solas]

I'm with that other poster. I think we should refer to God(s) as "it."

Hi,
That will be the modern WOKE position. Fact: God reveals Himself as male.
So if you refer to gods as it you will thankfully exclude God .

 

[Five Solas]

And none have good evidence for god(s).

God revealed much about Himself in history. Much of it had been carefully documented. Many prefer to ignore the evidence.

 

[Five Solas]

The biblical God is revealed as Spirit, not a gender. The reference to Himself, He or Father are to demonstrate qualities of care, provision, protection, etc., not gender.

God revealed Himself as male.

 

[InChrist]

It's hard to imagine how you have missed the irony of that claim.

No irony to miss, since God is not just “anyone”. Certainly, the eternal Creator of heaven and earth is able to use human authors across vast periods of history, from various cultures and all walks of life to create the biblical scriptures composed of numerous books all with a consistent unity and theme, to reveal Himself and the human condition.

 

[Five Solas]

That is true of all non-existent things of course, and if you create a concept that is unfalsifiable then it would be unscientific by definition, as falsifiability is a core requirement of the methods.

You still aim to apply man made methods and logic to God. Like it or not, God did not create Himself into his creation. So yes, by scientific standards God is unfalsifiable.
God is a supernatural person, doing supernatural things in supernatural ways. science cannot explain it.

 

[InChrist]

God revealed Himself as male.

God revealed Himself using male pronouns, but the eternal God is not revealed as a physical male in the Biblical scriptures; God is Spirit.
Yes, the Son of God did become flesh as a male. Therefore, Jesus was/is fully God- Son of God and fully human- Son of Man.

 

[Five Solas]

The resurrection of Jesus Christ was a fact ... " Not a verifiable fact.

It had been witnessed by many and their accounts had been documented carefully. It is foolish to reject eye witness accounts without proof the the witnesses were unreliable. No such proof exists.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Thanks for asking and trying, but no, you never commented on why you consider faith a firmer foundation than empiricism. I suspect that it is because it helped you to hold a god belief, so you discount other ways of knowing reality.

Let me answer for you: empiricism is the only solid foundation for navigating reality possible. It's what even you use to make most of the decisions in daily life, such as filling up the gas tank because it is low. You combine the evidence of the gas gauge with reason, which informs you that if you don't get gas soon, your car won't run. It's how you pick your clothes and the words you'll speak to others - all based in generalizations (inductions) extracted from prior experience and applied to present circumstances with expectations of what will follow based on that knowledge (empiricism).

Will you be cold if you don't dress properly? Will you offend a friend if you ask her if she's pregnant and she's not? If you have preferred outcomes in any of those situations, like not being cold or offending a friend, you'll turn to empiricism, because whether you realize it or not, that is your firm foundation for navigating life. Then you question whether others doing only that absent the comforting faith beliefs are on solid ground.

I have both, hope in this life and eternal life in the next.

You still haven't addressed why you consider faith a firmer foundation than empiricism. Nor did you acknowledge much less rebut my answer for you, which I offered because you also failed to answer the same question the time before this. Imagine how these RF discussion could go if everybody actually read and addressed the comments made to them. It takes a bit of effort. You have to want to be thoughtful, to recognize that the other guy want to participate in discussion, but can't, because the other guy just won't do his part.

So, I guess we can't have this discussion, at least not the parts that interest me. I like this phenomenon to a ping-pong game in which the other guy never returns the ball, but instead, lets it go past him and off the table. Or when I play fetch with my dog and he just looks at the ball, and I have to go retrieve it. This game is about like that one. So, rather than continue being stuck in this rut where no forward progress can be made, how about we drop expecting an answer from you?

These things skeptics misstate, lack understanding and are confused by, but the truth remains skeptics have no hope for the afterlife and not sure if you have any hope for this life especially if you’re trusting in yourself. Big trouble there.

Yeah, you've said all that already, I rebutted it, you ignored that and simply repeated your position. Another rut. More zero forward progress. Let's drop this as well. I'll repeat my position, but not looking for a responsive reply. You have hope for an afterlife, but that's all. There is no reason to believe that there is an afterlife, and if there is one, there is no reason to believe that your fate will be different from mine, as any afterlife is likely to be very different from the religions guess. Worse, we may find ourselves in an afterlife in which your status is lower than the ones who used the gifts nature gave them, the evidence of the senses, a moral compass, and a reasoning faculty, and in so doing, appealed much more to whatever form of consciousness that would be. Reason including mathematics is the common language of all intellectual creatures. One turns his back on it at his own risk.

Big trouble there.

Anyway, thanks for your good cheer.

I do not believe God intends to be used. More likely He will use you.

As the other poster commented, such a god is of no use.

This also doesn't sound like love. In my loving relationships, I look to be useful. It's pretty much how love is manifest.

As for God using me, I've been taught in church and elsewhere that the use God has for me and why He created me is to praise Him. It amazes me to read the theist saying that his god belief gives his life purpose and meaning, when this is the fate he's expecting. I don't do this now, so why would I want to do it full time for eternity?

 

[ElishaElijah]

You still haven't addressed why you consider faith a firmer foundation than empiricism. Nor did you acknowledge much less rebut my answer for you, which I offered because you also failed to answer the same question the time before this. Imagine how these RF discussion could go if everybody actually read and addressed the comments made to them. It takes a bit of effort. You have to want to be thoughtful, to recognize that the other guy want to participate in discussion, but can't, because the other guy just won't do his part.

So, I guess we can't have this discussion, at least not the parts that interest me. I like this phenomenon to a ping-pong game in which the other guy never returns the ball, but instead, lets it go past him and off the table. Or when I play fetch with my dog and he just looks at the ball, and I have to go retrieve it. This game is about like that one. So, rather than continue being stuck in this rut where no forward progress can be made, how about we drop expecting an answer from you?



Yeah, you've said all that already, I rebutted it, you ignored that and simply repeated your position. Another rut. More zero forward progress. Let's drop this as well. I'll repeat my position, but not looking for a responsive reply. You have hope for an afterlife, but that's all. There is no reason to believe that there is an afterlife, and if there is one, there is no reason to believe that your fate will be different from mine, as any afterlife is likely to be very different from the religions guess. Worse, we may find ourselves in an afterlife in which your status is lower than the ones who used the gifts nature gave them, the evidence of the senses, a moral compass, and a reasoning faculty, and in so doing, appealed much more to whatever form of consciousness that would be. Reason including mathematics is the common language of all intellectual creatures. One turns his back on it at his own risk.

Big trouble there.

Anyway, thanks for your good cheer.



As the other poster commented, such a god is of no use.

This also doesn't sound like love. In my loving relationships, I look to be useful. It's pretty much how love is manifest.

As for God using me, I've been taught in church and elsewhere that the use God has for me and why He created me is to praise Him. It amazes me to read the theist saying that his god belief gives his life purpose and meaning, when this is the fate he's expecting. I don't do this now, so why would I want to do it full time for eternity?

#2757 is what I answered. For example when my wife wanted to have more children and I was at poverty level income already with no hope of making more money, I didn’t know how or what to do. After a few weeks of prayer and crying out to God He said “ I didn’t have any problem providing for the children of Israel in the dessert, your small family of 10 isn’t a big deal for me”. That’s all I needed to hear and went home confident and told my wife God was going to provide for us. That was in 1998 and from that day till today I can track the doors God opened for me to be able to provide all these years not only for my family of 16 but other families as well. That’s what He does, some can take His provision for granted or thank Him for all His goodness and faithfulness, I thank Him over and over again. He is an awesome God and Father!
What would you have done in that situation, what would your answer have been to your wife, where would you have turned for answers?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You still haven't addressed why you consider faith a firmer foundation than empiricism.

#2757 is what I answered. For example when my wife wanted to have more children and I was at poverty level income already with no hope of making more money, I didn’t know how or what to do. After a few weeks of prayer and crying out to God He said “ I didn’t have any problem providing for the children of Israel in the dessert, your small family of 10 isn’t a big deal for me”. That’s all I needed to hear and went home confident and told my wife God was going to provide for us. That was in 1998 and from that day till today I can track the doors God opened for me to be able to provide all these years not only for my family of 16 but other families as well. That’s what He does, some can take His provision for granted or thank Him for all His goodness and faithfulness, I thank Him over and over again. He is an awesome God and Father! What would you have done in that situation, what would your answer have been to your wife, where would you have turned for answers?

I'm not going there with you, EE, beyond saying that what would I have done in your situation described above would not have been that. I'm glad it worked out for you, but I need a firmer foundation than faith to make important decisions. I learned that as a Christian, when that faith-based foundation collapsed. I have since returned to strict empiricism, which has been a firmer foundation.

I realize that you have an interest in discussing this story, but I don't. You know what interested me, and it's not this. I would have answered for you anyway as part of a give-and-take exchange, but you don't give. You simply won't answer my question. We only discuss what interests you. I don't know why that is. I suspect that you're probably a decent fellow trying to do right, but don't know what that is. Had you asked me why I considered empiricism a firmer foundation that faith, I would have answered you in a few words. I would have told you why I believe that empiricism is a firm foundation and faith is not. It's that simple.

But you never do that. You only talk about your faith, never even mentioning empiricism, much less why you consider it inferior to a faith-based foundation. It's a mystery to me why that is, but I've run out of interest trying to get you to cooperate, and have lost interest in answering questions of interest to you but not me. Look again at that post 2757. Your reply is just another statement of you relying on faith and a lamentation that others don't have as much.

Here's what I'd like you to think about for your future encounters with RF posters. They're not here for you. They don't sign on to see what questions EE has today. They're here for stimulating discussion. Sometimes, two posters are interested in the same topic, and they are meeting one another's needs at the same time they are meeting their own in that discussion - win/win. At other times, like this one, they seem to have different interests. I'm interested in why you thought empiricists like me are on a shaky foundation, and you are interested in telling me about your faith and how it helps you, which you needn't say more than once. I got that the first time.

Neither of us got past either of these, and so, there is nothing more for either of us to say that won't be more of the same. Me: why do you think that faith is a firmer foundation than empiricism? You: Hooray for faith! Me: Yeah, but what makes it a more firm foundation than empiricism? You: Hooray for faith! Me: Yeah, but what [lather, rinse, repeat].

Do you want to see a few more pages of that? I don't. I really hope that you understood this and will consider it carefully.

 

[Sheldon]

Later on, too bad I wasn’t there, could hang out and meet and talk to you and your friends while I drink a soda or something, buy you something to eat and be your designated driver if you needed one.

Appreciate the offer, thanks. I had a lift, and I'm home safe and sound, and have ordered takeaway food. Nice to catch up with some friends I haven't seen for quite a while tbh.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I have since returned to strict empiricism, which has been a firmer foundatio

Don’t see how this helps you out, by first hearing God and then believing what He says I get my empirical evidence that says I can trust God because He does what He promised.
A lot of people confuse this with presumption, which is wishful thinking. People don’t hear God and presume He will do what they ask, when He doesn’t they are now confused.

 

[ppp]

Neither of us got past either of these, and so, there is nothing more for either of us to say that won't be more of the same. Me: why do you think that faith is a firmer foundation than empiricism? You: Hooray for faith! Me: Yeah, but what makes it a more firm foundation than empiricism? You: Hooray for faith! Me: Yeah, but what [lather, rinse, repeat].

Don’t see how this helps you out, by first hearing God and then believing what He says I get my empirical evidence that says I can trust God because He does what He promised.
A lot of people confuse this with presumption, which is wishful thinking. People don’t hear God and presume He will do what they ask, when He doesn’t they are now confused.

Just another iteration of "Hooray for faith!"

 

[ElishaElijah]

Just another iteration of "Hooray for faith!"

As long as you know the meaning of my faith and what it’s based on I’m good with that.

 

[ppp]

As long as you know the meaning of my faith and what it’s based on I’m good with that.

Your imagination, cultural indoctrination, and wishful thinking. You may intend otherwise, but that is what your approach and all of your posts communicate.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Your imagination, cultural indoctrination, and wishful thinking. You may intend otherwise, but that is what your approach and all of your posts communicate.

No they don’t and your comment shows you can’t grasp simple spiritual truth 101.

 

[samtonga43]

Yes, I pointed out that globally there are over 45000 different Christian sects. Then @ElishaElijah responded with "There is only 1 Church not 45K different ones." which was not the claim I had made, though this straw man obviously is a poor one, since church here is open to interpretation. So it might also be viewed as simple hand waving denial of the fact there over 45000 different Christian sects globally.

Yes, I do think that Elisha was making the valid point that a sect is not a church. So there is, in fact, no straw man.

 

[PearlSeeker]

-

The only reasons I see presented by skeptics are the Bible is too old, eye witness accounts can be unreliable, although we see the accounts in the Bible, we aren’t accepting that or any other historian or scholar of the time that disagrees with the skeptic view.
Then when someone testifies who is alive today
that Jesus is Alive and He intervened in their life, gave them His Spirit, Eternal Life and victorious living and power over the lust of the flesh, the ability and desire to live a holy life and you have justifications how this isn’t so.
So have I answered yours and the other skeptics on this thread adequately? Yes, and my opinion is no answer will do until my Lord and King returns, then then it will be great bu a hollow victory because it would be too late for the skeptic.

1. Actually the Bible isn't old enough. There are no contemporary eyewitness accounts of the events. Writers were not historians. They were just compiling oral tradition.

2. As others said change in someone's life doesn't mean the stories are true. I already mentioned the placebo effect. Fairy tales and fables also contain morals and wisdom. That doesn't mean the stories are non fictional.

 

[ppp]

No they don’t and your comment shows you can’t grasp simple spiritual truth 101.

My comment has nothing to do with whether there are spiritual truths, but whether you and your claims are credible. With your approach, even if I believed that spiritual things were real, I would have no reason to believe that you had any idea what you are talking about.