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

[osgart]

I'm starting to believe every experience we have is evidence for God. I misjudged Christianity and find it to be a powerful book the Bible is

 

[Sundance]

Any version I am apt to come up with is going to be claimed to be inaccurate according to theists. Nor do I have the hubris to define what God is to a theist. And most importantly, it is there belief, it is their burden of proof to define it.

While I agree somewhat with you that it’s up to the individual presenting the conception to clarify what he or she means, I would add that, equally, it is up to you to sincerely engage with the conception being presented.

 

[osgart]

God is found by following the spirit where it leads. And as much as I ran from the Bible I actually now find it to be true through and through

 

[osgart]

God is found by following the spirit where it leads. And as much as I ran from the Bible I actually now find it to be true through and through

 

[Subduction Zone]

While I agree somewhat with you that it’s up to the individual presenting the conception to clarify what he or she means, I would add that, equally, it is up to you to sincerely engage with the conception being presented.

What make you think that I am not? Requiring those that believe in something to define their terms is very honest. For me to define them for them would be very dishonest. You asked me do to define what a god is for a theist. That would have been wrong for me to do so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God is found by following the spirit where it leads. And as much as I ran from the Bible I actually now find it to be true through and through

Except for the parts that are wrong of course. Sorry to sound a bit snarky but many that make the claim that you just did try to claim that the Bible is all literally true when we know that is not the case.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I'm starting to believe every experience we have is evidence for God. I misjudged Christianity and find it to be a powerful book the Bible is

So the many years of abuse I experienced at the hands of my Christian parents and being molested by my older Christian brother are evidence for God?

 

[Sundance]

What make you think that I am not? Requiring those that believe in something to define their terms is very honest. For me to define them for them would be very dishonest. You asked me do to define what a god is for a theist. That would have been wrong for me to do so.

I don’t know whether you are or not, personally. I agree with you re: defining the terms, but again, that is yours concerning which definition to engage with. There has to be some shared understanding of the idea in order to discuss or debate anything.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

God is found by following the spirit where it leads. And as much as I ran from the Bible I actually now find it to be true through and through

I diligently sought God for forty years through consistent and sincere prayer and daily Bible studies, but I never found him or received any answers to my prayers, such as asking him to help me cope with the PTSD and the sickening pain I was feeling or consistently asking him while I was growing up to stop the constant abuse, bullying, and mistreatment I endured during my childhood in a Christian home and during the twelve years I attended public school.

 

[Polymath257]

Nevertheless, what exists is what was/is possible, and what does not exist is what wasn't and isn't possible. And whatever determined those possibilities/impossibilities determined and continues to determine the nature of existence. And whatever that is, transcends/supersedes existence. Most humans refer to that mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is possible, and all that is not possible, "God".

You are assuming that there was something that determined those things. That is far from being proven. in fact, it seems quite unlikely.

You can call it whatever you like, but science recognizes and pursues it, religions recognize and pursue it, philosophers recognize and pursue it, artists recognize and pursue it, and most humans in general recognize it even if they aren't in actual pursuit of it. We are all here because of it. And we exist by it's design.

interesting how everyone acknowledged it, but I have yet to meet someone who does and can actually demonstrate the existence.

If you don't want to recognize it, that's your choice. But that doesn't make it go away and it doesn't convince anyone else that it's not there.

ok, show that such a thing exists. I have yet to see a valid argument for such. if you want to assume such exists, that is your right, of course. But that doesn't mean anyone else needs to take it seriously.

 

[osgart]

I diligently sought God for forty years through consistent and sincere prayer and daily Bible studies, but I never found him or received any answers to my prayers, such as asking him to help me cope with the PTSD and the sickening pain I was feeling or consistently asking him while I was growing up to stop the constant abuse, bullying, and mistreatment I endured during my childhood in a Christian home and during the twelve years I attended public school.

That's not God 's fault. That's God's enemy attacking you

 

[osgart]

So the many years of abuse I experienced at the hands of my Christian parents and being molested by my older Christian brother are evidence for God?

Those are not true Christians you are talking about.

That's horrible and abhorrent to go through, and I'm very sorry

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's not God 's fault. That's God's enemy attacking you

How can you show that? You appear to be playing the old game of heads God wins, tails you lose. It is not very credible.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

That's not God 's fault. That's God's enemy attacking you

I don't believe in Satan, so your dismissive excuse in response to my post is pointless.

Those are not true Christians you are talking about.

I also reject the No True Scotsman fallacy as a valid argument for dismissing the abhorrent behavior of bad Christians. It's a pathetic excuse, in my opinion.

That's horrible and abhorrent to go through, and I'm very sorry

Thank you. I appreciate your sentiment.

 

[Sargonski]

Those are not true Christians you are talking about.

That's horrible and abhorrent to go through, and I'm very sorry

I don't believe in Satan, so your dismissive excuse in response to my post is pointless.
I also reject the No True Scotsman fallacy as a valid argument for dismissing the abhorrent behavior of bad Christians. It's a pathetic excuse, in my opinion.
Thank you. I appreciate your sentiment.

1) I do believe in Sataniel

2) Yes .. those are "True Christians" .. What is a "True Christian" if not someone who follows Christian Dogma ? I would like to say "True Christians" follow the teachings of Jesus but the vast majority of Christians... including yourself don't do that.

3) Not sure If I would blame the Primordial God of Creation for her non intervention policy - What fun would things be if that were not the case ?

4) The Logos -- Emissary between man and God in Platonic Philosophy/Theology .. is an interesing concept the Author of John borrowed to describe the divinity of Jesus .. was very popular in the day .. so smart to couch things in terms that the common folk could understand. Unlike today however where no one - sans the scholars .. and even then some sketchy and didn't quite catch the ball .. understands Jesus in such terms .. and a horribly drastic intentional mistranslation "The Word" instead of Logos which means so much more. but also means word .. as Jesus was symbolicly "The Word of God" the conduit to The Word .. and he who Speaketh the word of God through the Holy Spirit. Which is a problem if you are living i Rome in the first century .. because that is Caesars Duty and Title .. Pontifex Maximus .. adopted by a number of Popes in later days and of course by the real first Pope of the Universal Church .. Emperor Constantine .. Pleased to meet you .. don't forget my name .. think thats how the Stones song goes

 

[Tomef]

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?

To put an agnostic toe in, logic has its limits. It might help grow our slowly increasing pool of knowledge and understanding about some things, but all the stuff that’s outside of our collective knowledge could be, well, anything. We don’t have an outside standard to judge whether or not anything we think makes sense beyond our own immediate experience.

 

[loverofhumanity]

My understanding is that we humans cannot know God directly nor through our finite minds. The only way we know God exists is through His Representatives the Messengers, Prophets and Manifestations that appear once in an age like Christ, Moses, Muhammad, Baha’u’llah etc.

Also we know God through things like nature and the complexity of the human body which we did not create. I see creation as a painting that had to have a Painter.

The Great Teachers tell us of the attributes of God that are things like love, compassion, mercy, forgiveness and so on. But we are given freedom of choice to believe or reject its in our make up. But for me personally the evidence is overwhelming that God exists. Everywhere I look I see signs of God in nature, in man, in the universe and in Holy Books.

 

[joelr]

Logically, questions of spontaneous assembly are secondary to the origins of the processes responsible for the animation of those assembled elements. In fact, the assumption of spontaneity prejudices the question of the nature and origin of the coding involved. It certainly doesn't address the question, and it absolutely does not answer it. It ignores it entirely. The most logical source of coding is a coder. Correct? Again, don't prejudice the question with an assumption of consciousness or intention. If the evidence eventually points there, or not, it will point where it points.

No.That isn't the most logical source. Our universe and likely the big bang are not "coded". They are the result of the probabilistic nature of reality where if something can happen, given enough time it will. Out local universe could be one big bang out of endless cycles or other universes and we happen to be in the universe where the laws of physics allowed for life as we know it. Questions going back before the big bang are unknown at this time. Natural, unconscious forces follow probabilistic laws and creation happens. This does not imply a deity and theism is completely out of the question.

I disagree. It is not necessary to identify anything or anyone involved in order to hypothesize that something coded the chemicals to react a certain way. My only interest is the truth, so I have no dog in the fight. No position to defend. How, then, is it not most prejudicial to the observable evidence—the existence of a code (animate information) and a compatible compiler (as evidenced by the reaction of the chemicals to the assembled code)—to conclude (not merely assume, but conclude) that there was no coder involved on some level?

We don't know if there are infinite universes or what's beyond the local universe. Probabilities may stem from the base of reality, no "coder" is needed.

So the fact that we can change the code, manipulate it, modify the conditions around it, etc., to change things, does not change that in it's natural form, it is a code. Is it possible that the code was not coded? That no part of any code, pattern or system we observe in the universe derives from anything but spontaneous assembly? Sure, it's possible. But it's the least likely explanation. So such a position is highly prejudicial to the evidence.

It's not spontaneous assembly, it's probabilities playing out. 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.

I do not judge it to be a mistake to follow observable evidence that points to coded natural processes. On the contrary, in my judgment it is a mistake to prejudice the possibility of coded natural processes with the least probable explanation—spontaneity uninfluenced by coding. I've yet to see any argument for the latter that conforms to all the observable evidence. Rather every argument in favor of such spontaneity prejudices the evidence against other explanations. I'd just as soon we not do that, but subject all explanations to the same objective scrutiny, and admit every missing piece of the puzzle as we encounter gaps. That is logical. Any suppression of possible explanations suggests bias and abandonment of logic.

 

[PureX]

No.That isn't the most logical source. Our universe and likely the big bang are not "coded". They are the result of the probabilistic nature of reality where if something can happen, given enough time it will.

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

Out local universe could be one big bang out of endless cycles or other universes and we happen to be in the universe where the laws of physics allowed for life as we know it. Questions going back before the big bang are unknown at this time.

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.

Natural, unconscious forces follow probabilistic laws and creation happens. This does not imply a deity and theism is completely out of the question.

Well, that says nothing at all.

We don't know if there are infinite universes or what's beyond the local universe. Probabilities may stem from the base of reality, no "coder" is needed.

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

It's not spontaneous assembly, it's probabilities playing out.

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

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.

 

[Brian2]

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.

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.