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

[KWED]

We have been studying DNA for a long time and still don't completely understand it, ...

In which case, how can you be so certain that it cannot form through natural processes?

I would be wary of relying too much on the god of the gaps argument or arguments from ignorance.

 

[KWED]

And what of the mothers of starving children around the world who are at this very moment, probably praying for God to save the lives of their children, whose prayers will not be answered?

God has people's exams to pass and goals to score. He can't be everywhere. He has to prioritise.

 

[KWED]

It's more plausible than everything from nothing,

So you believe the material the universe is made from has always existed?

 

[PearlSeeker]

Actually, it does affect the cosmological (kalam) argument by allowing for an infinite regress and noting that it is possible for something to begin and not be caused.

Yes, you are right about the kalam version. However not all versions of cosmological argument are affected.

 

[KWED]

Where do your thoughts come from? Are you saying they are all from you? Just chemical reactions

All the available evidence suggests that our consciousness is a product of the electorate-chemical activity in the physical brain.
Therefore it is unreasonable to insist that it is independent of the physical brain.

 

[KWED]

Did someone write that Captain America said "Avengers assembled?"

Yes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All the available evidence suggests that our consciousness is a product of the electorate-chemical activity in the physical brain.
Therefore it is unreasonable to insist that it is independent of the physical brain.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that everything can be done in strict physical sense.

 

[KWED]

Logic would tell us that humans cannot walk on water. Right?

You need to be more specific. Every time I go outside in the rain I am walking on water.

Yet Jesus walked on water.

Did he? How do you know?
Because a book written with the purpose of promoting his magical abilities says so?
How do you know the book is accurate?
Remember that because humans cannot walk on water (as you rightly pointed out), you need some pretty conclusive, independent evidence to support the claim. Simply saying "But the Bible says..." is not evidence of any kind.

 

[KWED]

Logic makes is so that a reversal of circumstances, sometimes called miracles, are possible.

How?
If you mean that because you believe miracle happen, it is logical that they can happen, it is just question begging.

 

[KWED]

I think it is hard to explain what answered prayer looks like because each answered prayer looks different and each is specifically and uniquely suited for the situation and the individual praying. Sometimes, I don’t think I am even aware of all the ways God answers my prayers. At other times, it has been obvious.
Are you familiar with George Mueller? He lived from 1805-1898, took care of orphans in Bristol, England, totally depending on God to provide for the needs of the orphanage.
“Through his orphanage in Bristol, Mueller cared for as many as two thousand orphans at a time—more than ten thousand in his lifetime. Yet he never made the needs of his ministries known to anyone except to God in prayer. Only through his annual reports did people learn after the fact what the needs had been during the previous year and how God had provided.

Mueller had over fifty thousand specific recorded answers to prayers in his journals, thirty thousand of which he said were answered the same day or the same hour that he prayed them. Think of it: that’s five hundred definite answers to prayer each year—more than one per day—every single day for sixty years! God funneled over half a billion dollars (in today’s dollars) through his hands in answer to prayer.”

What George Mueller Can Teach Us about Prayer

If god can magically produce money to pay for orphanages, why doesn't he magically prevent the children's parents dying, thus removing the need for orphanages in the first place?

 

[KWED]

Now, concerning the other point you brought up about mothers praying for their starving children. For one thing, how do you really have any way of knowing that God does not answer or how He may have answered those who have prayed?

Erm, because all those children keep dying. Thought that was pretty obvious.

Secondly, I think starvation is the fault of humanity, not God. God has provided this earth with more than adequate resources and there is plenty of food in the world to feed everyone. The fault lies with the corrupt greedy and selfish nature of man in disobedience to God.

So because of the greed and self-interest of powerful people elsewhere, god refuses to save children dying in agony, despite the heartfelt prayers of their impoverished parents.
Seems reasonable.

So why are you blaming God for starving children when people have the ability and responsibility to care for one another?

No. We are blaming god for not saving those dying children.
Would you think it reasonable for a surgeon to refuse to operate on people who have been injured by the actions of others?

Have you gone before God with a pure heart and attitude of humility seeking answers?

And of course, the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[KWED]

I am not claiming that people who have found help or guidance from God is evidence for you or non- believers. I am saying that it is evidence for those who have received answers and guidance and this substantiates their trust in God and an awareness of His presence. Does that help clarify?
I also think that God will respond to anyone who truly approaches Him, respectfully and humbly, in sincere prayer. Exactly how God will respond to each individual, I can’t say or know.

So a person who passes an exam without prayer got lucky or worked hard, but a person who passes after praying got help from god.

Another point here, that is basically cheating. Why should god give some people an advantage but not others? How is that fair or just?

 

[KWED]

So you used to be a Christian and you left the religion; that says it all.

I used to be a Catholic and I left that religion. Then I was a Mormon and I left that religion. Then I was saved by Jesus Christ; a Living Person. It’s one thing to leave a religion, but Jesus is not a religion. I feel the same as Peter must have when he said... Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
(John 6:68)
I can’t imagine leaving One as kind and loving as Christ who gave Himself that I may have eternal life, Who holds the universe together, and Who has the words of eternal life.

I don’t think you only have believers and their claims. You have Jesus Christ Whom you can go to anytime and ask Him directly about His claims or words of eternal life.

Ah, you are a serial converter.
Presumably you will claim that while a Catholic and a Mormon, you didn't actually believe them to be true. I wonder what you will think of your current religion when you have moved on again.

 

[KWED]

When you’re talking about Jesus Christ and when He was here on Earth, yes the Bible record is the historical record, the testimony from the eye witnesses and should be and is used as evidence.

It is not an historical record. It is a collection of myths and legends. Historians agree that there are only a couple of events in the Bible that can be considered as historically reliable.
It is not eye-witness accounts. It is hearsay, coupled many years after the events described.
It is most certainly not evidence for itself.

 

[KWED]

Not all the Bible is eye witness testimony but a lot of the Bible is eye witness testimony.

None of it is. It is all hearsay, recorded many years after the event.
Not only that, but it is not supported by any independent sources.

 

[KWED]

I didn’t say natural processes are responsible for the stuff we see,

Do you accept that there are well, understood, demonstrable, natural processes responsible for the things we see, like plants growing, mountains forming, earthquakes, weather, disease, etc, etc?

but without God everything would cease to exist because He holds everything together.

That is just question begging/personal incredulity/argument from ignorance.
We know the universe works, but we don't know whether there is a god. If there isn't, then the universe works fine without one.

God created vegetation with seed to be able to continue to grow vegetation and multiply. Same with the animals, human beings etc. He gave the ability to multiply their offspring.

Which came first, the plant or the seed?

 

[KWED]

No one has demonstrated that to be the case.

I have explained this.
Unless you believe that life has always existed, then it must have started at some point, before which there was no life.
Therefore it is axiomatic that life must be able to come from non-life.

 

[KWED]

@Sheldon

How do you know there is no evidence for magic if any attempt to present such evidence is discarded by default ?

Any argument in favor of magic would be discarded because "there is no prior evidence for magic"

Any evidence for magic is assessed in the same way that evidence for anything else is assessed. We examine it with a critial eye. We attempt to test and replicate the results.

If someone claims an event happened "by magic", we ask for evidence for magic. If none is forthcoming, we can dismiss the claim.

So, present your evidence for magic...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well if there's actually evidence of abiogenesis happening, it should be easy enough to present. If not, then it's just a theory someone came up with, and we have no reason to take it seriously.

It is a group of hypotheses actually. There is a growing body of evidence, but nothing to test any of the hypotheses yet.

The point I was making is that your lack of knowledge is neither evidence for or against any claim. That you have not seen it means nothing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have explained this.
Unless you believe that life has always existed, then it must have started at some point, before which there was no life.
Therefore it is axiomatic that life must be able to come from non-life.

The geological evidence indicates that there was a time on Earth when there was no life and then later evidence of life. That evidence supports a start for life here in the remote past, though I expect you are aware of that.