• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

PureX

Veteran Member
The difficult thing about the "designer" debate is that people tend to perceive that term in a very biased and personal way. Some people perceive the term "designer" to be referring to some sort of conscious entity, or will, similar to their own. While others perceive it more as a set of happenstantial conditions underpinning the world that's around them. But the truth is that we simply do not know what the term "designer" could possibly mean in relation to everything that is.

We can see that existence is "designed". That it follows a set of possibilities and limitations the result of which is very specific, very complex, and highly organized. But we cannot see the medium within which these possibilities and limitations are being held, and are in turn imposing themselves on our reality. So we really have no idea what might lay behind it, as a source, as sustenance, or as a possible purpose. And so we simply fill in that mystery in whatever way is comfortable and familiar for us.

It's understandable, of course, but it causes us a lot of unresolvable contention.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Yes I usually don't need to bring god into it when I'm working out how something might work. So?
It tells us that god(s) aren't required when we're trying to explain and understand how things work.
Believing that God did it is answering a big question, but science wants to go further of course.
It explains nothing though. "God did it" tells us nothing at all about how, or the mechanisms involved, or what's going on, nothing.
You seem to be blind to the fact that there is evidence for the Bible God. Is it because you choose to be blind to that and to believe what skeptical scholars say about the Bible.
I've yet to see any. Do you have some?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Yes, you're quite right. The doctors probably just sellotaped the tubes to the patient for decorative purposes and they blew off in a light breeze.
Well, I've asked a bunch of questions about it, I've asked you to elaborate and provide more details as to what you're talking about, and what do I get?
A snide remark in place of answers and details.

So I no longer have any reason to take you or your claims seriously.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
No, I did read your post—and understood it. I understand that you plant a seed because you have cause to believe it will turn into a plant—the act of planting the seed is informed by past experience. That I understand. What I said, in response, was that your act of planting a seed is an act of faith because you have no evidence of the anticipated plant when you place the seed in the soil. And you don't.

And on that basis I remain firm that the idea is false that there is one kind of faith for religious contexts and another for other contexts. Faith is what it is, and is invoked when it is invoked, regardless of context.

And all of this because you claimed that you had no use for faith, etc.

That is a summary of our path to this point.

Additionally, as before, I assert that what you are talking about is "blind faith," which is not faith at all, but merely "uninformed belief." IE, you are strawmanning faith and don't realize it.
If you had read my post, you would have responded to my points. You didn't. You just repeated yourself.

Faith is the excuse people give for believing a thing when they don't have good evidence. Otherwise they'd just give the evidence.
I have no use for faith.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I'm not here to prove you wrong. I'm not here to overwhelm what you believe, or to convince you of things that you have concluded against. All I have to offer here are the experiences, all my own, that compel me to assert that there is a God, etc. And those are not wanted by you. So there's your answer on the question of several posts ago: I have nothing to offer. Perhaps later you'll want the "anecdotal" stuff? I don't know.
If you don't mind, I would like to comment here. When I first began studying the Bible as God's word I did not particularly question the theory of evolution as it goes. It took time. But eventually, after some years, I began looking into it and see there are questions that are not answered and cannot be answered positively by science. So thank you for your comment.
Oh yes...as an addendum...does that mean I think the theory of evolution might be true in its vast aspect? No. Not as the theory is explained in school and science by most. However, because of the raging debate here I leave it there perhaps for further discussion another time.
 

Unfettered

A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
If you had read my post, you would have responded to my points. You didn't. You just repeated yourself.

Faith is the excuse people give for believing a thing when they don't have good evidence. Otherwise they'd just give the evidence.
I have no use for faith.
I see. You're referring to an older post.

Previously I pointed out that the definition of faith you provided in that older post is not "faith" at all but "blind faith," and I went on to explain and example the difference. But OK, I'm flexible.

If we are to assume your definition of faith—"believing a thing when [one doesn't] have good evidence"—then I you and I are in accord. I have no use for that, either.

Just understand that your definition has nothing to do with my experience with faith, nor does it likely have anything to do with the experience of many others who claim faith in God or things that transcend the natural world. To such, your protest or point is misplaced, since you're not talking about us.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I see. You're referring to an older post.

Previously I pointed out that the definition of faith you provided in that older post is not "faith" at all but "blind faith," and I went on to explain and example the difference. But OK, I'm flexible.

If we are to assume your definition of faith—"believing a thing when [one doesn't] have good evidence"—then I you and I are in accord. I have no use for that, either.

Just understand that your definition has nothing to do with my experience with faith, nor does it likely have anything to do with the experience of many others who claim faith in God or things that transcend the natural world. To such, your protest or point is misplaced, since you're not talking about us.
That's the thing about it. Almost every time I get into this discussion with a Christian, they claim that faith is some sort of evidenced belief, but then they go onto demonstrate that it's the exact thing I claimed - unjustified belief. An excuse to give for believing something when you don't have good evidence. An unreliable pathway to truth.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If you don't mind, I would like to comment here. When I first began studying the Bible as God's word I did not particularly question the theory of evolution as it goes. It took time. But eventually, after some years, I began looking into it and see there are questions that are not answered and cannot be answered positively by science. So thank you for your comment.
Oh yes...as an addendum...does that mean I think the theory of evolution might be true in its vast aspect? No. Not as the theory is explained in school and science by most. However, because of the raging debate here I leave it there perhaps for further discussion another time.
Why assume that the Bible is "God's word"? With all of its errors that appears to be blasphemy.
 

Unfettered

A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
If you don't mind, I would like to comment here. When I first began studying the Bible as God's word I did not particularly question the theory of evolution as it goes. It took time. But eventually, after some years, I began looking into it and see there are questions that are not answered and cannot be answered positively by science. So thank you for your comment.
You're welcome. Mine, like yours, has been a journey of learning. And it has brought me to a place where I understand that some questions are not and cannot be answered positively at all to the understanding of mortal man. But they will be answered later, after our bodies have been perfected with immortality and our understandings no longer subject to the shroud of mortal limitation. I expect, then, that we'll share many exciting "So THAT's how that worked!" moments. :)
 
Last edited:

Unfettered

A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
That's the thing about it. Almost every time I get into this discussion with a Christian, they claim that faith is some sort of evidenced belief, but then they go onto demonstrate that it's the exact thing I claimed - unjustified belief. An excuse to give for believing something when you don't have good evidence. An unreliable pathway to truth.
Let's not be hypothetical about it. There's no reason to be because you're talking to a Christian right now about these very subjects—me. So make it real. Where in my posts have I made an excuse of any kind, relative to my faith? Where have I been unwilling to offer the evidence in my possession? If you believe I have done so, please quote the post so all of us here can look at it.
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Let's not be hypothetical about it. There's no reason to be because you're talking to a Christian right now about these very subjects—me. So make it real. Where in my posts have I made an excuse of any kind, relative to my faith? Where have I been unwilling to offer the evidence in my possession? If you believe I have done so, please quote the post so all of us here can look at it.
I was in the middle of a conversation with Brian about this very thing, at which point you jumped in.
I'd suggest scrolling back and reading the back and forth between myself and him.
 

Unfettered

A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
I was in the middle of a conversation with Brian about this very thing, at which point you jumped in.
I'd suggest scrolling back and reading the back and forth between myself and him.
I trust you have good reason to make the claims you do, relative to your discussion with Brian (though I'm ignorant of it at this point). What I'm saying is that you have a Christian here in me who is not culpable of what you're laying on top of all Christians. If you don't want to talk to me, that is fine. I just wouldn't understand at that point why you'd keep blanketing Christians with this charge of blind faith. Don't lump me in where I don't belong. Or, talk to me, rule out that I'm any different, and then keep blanketing. At least then I would be satisfied that we're all guilty as charged by you, right?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I trust you have good reason to make the claims you do, relative to your discussion with Brian (though I'm ignorant of it at this point). What I'm saying is that you have a Christian here in me who is not culpable of what you're laying on top of all Christians. If you don't want to talk to me, that is fine. I just wouldn't understand at that point why you'd keep blanketing Christians with this charge of blind faith.
Read the conversation between myself and Brian.:shrug:

I'm not blanketing anyone. Just the ones who demonstrate that their faith is based on unjustified belief, despite claiming otherwise.
Don't lump me in where I don't belong. Or, talk to me, rule out that I'm any different, and then keep blanketing. At least then I would be satisfied that we're all guilty as charged by you, right?

You're the one who jumped into my conversation with someone else who was doing the very thing I've described.

I have responded directly to your assertions about faith.
 

Unfettered

A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
I'm not blanketing anyone. Just the ones who demonstrate that their faith is based on unjustified belief, despite claiming otherwise.
I see. I guess I haven't seen where you disclose which category you place me in. Could you quote that or link the post? Or are you yet undecided?
I have responded directly to your assertions about faith.
Responded directly to, yes. But I cannot see where you directly addressed my assertions about faith. At least not to any concrete conclusion I could discern. Again, if you believe you did, I'd appreciate it if you'd quote the place, or link the post.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
Well, I've asked a bunch of questions about it, I've asked you to elaborate and provide more details as to what you're talking about, and what do I get?
A snide remark in place of answers and details.

Your assumption that the doctors were ignorant deserves nothing more. They were there at the time, you were not.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
So it seems in fact the end times is a part of the theology
Never said it wasn’t.
Once again, You said Jehovah’s Witnesses teach the Rapture; that’s the part over which I disagreed with you. It is wrong. When people begin stating things that are not accurate, it affects their credibility.
….as were many failed dates.
Please…. there weren’t “many.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses, or the past IBSA, never claimed infallibility, anyways. Just the opposite:

In one of our publications (found in a link you posted), the 1983 Proclaimers book, regarding whether JW’s believed that they had all the answers, the full light of truth, Brother Russell pointedly answered: “Certainly not; nor will we have until the ‘perfect day.’” (Prov. 4:18, KJ)

Proverbs 4:18, KJ, says:
“But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.”

Our version, NWT (New World Translation), states:
“But the path of the righteous is like the bright morning light That grows brighter and brighter until full daylight.”

We use this Scripture quite often, because it compares the morning sun, which progresses ever brighter, with the righteous understanding the Scriptures, which would also be progressive.

And that’s been true of Jehovah’s worshippers. We’ve refined our understanding so many times…. When we became more enlightened about the origin of the Cross back in the 1920’s, we stopped using it.

Same with steeples.

Same with Christmas, Halloween, Easter…when their non-Christian backgrounds became better understood, we no longer celebrated them.

We used to teach & celebrate these concepts, when the “path” was darker, ‘earlier in the morning.’

Were some things stated in error? So did the Prophet Nathan, at 1 Chronicles 17:1,2… David wanted to build a house to Jehovah… “Nathan replied to David: ‘Do whatever is in your heart, for the true God is with you.’”
But in vss.3&4, Jehovah told Nathan that was wrong:
“On that very night, the word of God came to Nathan, saying: 4 “Go and say to my servant David, ‘This is what Jehovah says: “You are not the one who will build the house for me to dwell in.” But Jehovah didn’t consider Nathan a false prophet; only eager for His worship to flourish.

Same with us. And the preaching work keeps growing, with Jehovah’s blessings.


Regarding 1914 as the beginning of the Last Days….

There were wars in every century. The Black Plague was the most fatal pandemic.

300,000 died in the 1139 Ganja earthquake. Many millions died in wars in the Middle ages and before.
Yeah, “every century”.

Maybe in the first decade, there was a war somewhere. Then maybe a famine in that locale.

Maybe in the second decade, somewhere a great earthquake occurred.
Following that, a pestilence.



But in this past century, and now, these things are happening almost everyday, altogether!

As WWI (originally called The Great War) was nearing its end, the Spanish Influenza broke out. And since 1914, the prevalence of earthquakes began to increase!



Right now is the most peaceful time in history.
This is a very naïve statement…. There is more distrust, selfishness, & animosity between people & groups of people, than ever before (2 Timothy 3:1-5); especially looking at the global picture since 1914!

(What you said about Bertrand Russell, Jr., makes his statement even more apropos, because it was unwitting and lends support to 1914 being the “beginning of pangs of distress.”)

In addition to what I posted re: secular authorities’ view about 1914 in post #5,703, here’s more (I’m sure you will want to ignore):

“Neither the old nor the young had any suspicion that what they were witnessing, during that incomparable season of 1914, was, in fact, the end of an era.” (Before the Lamps Went Out, by Geoffrey Marcus)



“[There was] little or no evidence of a steady rise or a ‘snowballing’ of conflicts and tensions leading directly to the outbreak of war.” On the contrary, “by late 1913 and early 1914 . . . relations among the major powers appeared to be more settled than they had been for many years.” (International Crisis, by Eugenia Nomikos and Robert C. North, 1976)



“The effects of World War I were literally revolutionary and struck deep in the lives of almost all peoples, economically as well as socially and politically.” (Meyers Enzyklopädisches Lexikon)



“The year 1913 marked the close of an era.” (1913 - An End and a Beginning, Virginia Cowles)



“Before 1914 the monetary and the financial systems were compatible. . . . If one takes August 1914 as marking the dividing line between them, the contrasts between the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries are striking. In many aspects of human affairs there has been a complete reversal of trend. . . . One major reason was the severance of the linkage between the financial system and money with intrinsic value that began in 1914. . . . The breaking of the linkage was a momentous event. . . . 1914 marked a radical, and in the end catastrophic, transformation of that system.” (Ashby Bladen, senior vice president The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America)



“By all contemporaneous accounts, the world prior to 1914 seemed to be moving irreversibly toward higher levels of civility and civilization; human society seemed perfectible. The nineteenth century had brought an end to the wretched slave trade. Dehumanizing violence seemed on the decline. . . . The pace of global invention had advanced throughout the nineteenth century, bringing railroads, the telephone, the electric light, cinema, the motor car, and household conveniences too numerous to mention. Medical science, improved nutrition, and the mass distribution of potable water had elevated life expectancy . . . The sense of the irreversibility of such progress was universal.

World War I was more devastating to civility and civilization than the physically far more destructive World War II: the earlier conflict destroyed an idea. I cannot erase the thought of those pre-World War I years, when the future of mankind appeared unencumbered and without limit. Today our outlook is starkly different from a century ago but perhaps a bit more consonant with reality. Will terror, global warming, or resurgent populism do to the current era of life-advancing globalization what World War I did to the previous one? No one can be confident of the answer.” (Alan Greenspan, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, 2007)



“Those who have an adult’s recollection and an adult’s understanding of the world which preceded World War I look back upon it with a great nostalgia. There was a sense of security then which has never since existed.”(Professor Benjamin M. Anderson, Economics and the Public Welfare)



“Historic events are often said to have ‘changed everything.’ In the case of the Great War this is, for once, true. The war really did change everything: not just borders, not just governments and the fate of nations, but the way people have seen the world and themselves ever since. It became a kind of hole in time, leaving the postwar world permanently disconnected from everything that had come before.” (A World Undone, G. J. Meyer, 2006)



“The outbreak of the war in 1914 is the great turning point of the history of humanity. . . . We entered an age of disaster, horror, and hatred, with insecurity everywhere.” (Peter Munch, Danish historian)

“Everywhere, the standards of social behavior—already in decline—were devastated...if the politicians and generals had treated the millions under their care like animals dispatched to slaughter, then what canons of religion or ethics could any longer inhibit men from treating each other with the ferocity of jungle beasts? . . . The slaughter of the First World War thoroughly debased the value of human life.” (Norman Cantor, The Outline of History)



[Following the acceptance of the evolution theory] “a real de-moralization ensued...Man, they decided, is a social animal like the Indian hunting dog . . . , so it seemed right to them that the big dogs of the human pack should bully and subdue.” (H. G. Wells, 1920)



“The Christian Churches are the finest blood-lust creators which we have and of them we made free use.” (Frank Crozier, British Brigadier General)

“Increasingly, the 75-year period from 1914 to 1989, covering two world wars and the cold war, is being seen by historians as a single, discrete epoch, a time apart in which much of the world was fighting war, recovering from war or preparing for war.” (The New York Times, May 7, 1995)



Security and quiet have disappeared from the lives of men since 1914.” (Konrad Adenauer, German statesman, The West Parker, Cleveland, Ohio, January 20, 1966)

Jehovah’s Witnesses, then known as IBSA, had pointed to 1914 since 1879!

The New York World of August 30, 1914, explains: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ [as Jehovah’s Witnesses were then known] . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914.”–The World, a New York newspaper, August 30, 1914.

As it turned out, these things were only a “beginning of pangs of distress.”

(Research for the previous Information was provided by a Mr. Mark Hunter.)
 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
No I don't think so. I think I remember giving some evidence for the Biblical God and you saying it was BS and posting 100 quotes and videos supposedly showing that, but which were based on false assumptions about the Bible and religion in general.
You gave no evidence for any God. What exactly do you think is evidence. Whatever it is I'm betting a Mormon, Muslim and Hindu can produce the same anecdotal evidence and say it proves their God. If so it isn't evidence.
But if it's good evidence, by all means, please demonstrate some good evidence.


Now if I posted a false assumption you should explain what and where the false assumption is. You should give the correct assumption if you can and source your information.
False assumptions about the Bible and religion? What false assumptions?



IOW your false faith in those things led you to further false conclusions.
You haven't demonstrated anything was false, you haven't demonstrated critical-biblical scholarship isn't evidence, you haven't demonstrated they are false.

All you do is make claims. Can you provide evidence for anything you claim?




We have been over this argument of yours already.
You are 1/2 correct. I have given the argument in various forms. You have given no response.

Down below you pretend faith is an argument. Yet, the Mormon Bible uses faith and Islam as well. But you don't believe them, even though they use the same method. You claimed this method is reliable. They use it to say those religions are true. So by your words, you should also believe them?
If not then you don't even believe in faith. You just mean you use special pleading and say faith for your religion works but not for others.

So why don't you buy into the revelations in Islam or the revelations in Mormonism?





I suppose that because you don't know what faith is, you say such things.
It doesn't matter, you believe the Bible so you are stuck with that definition:
Hebrews 11:1 – “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

"Assurance" from claims. Claims not demonstrated to be anything but writings of people with no supernatural connection. "Conviction" of things not seen. Yes because you will never see them because the story is fiction.

Also you have not made a case for historical scholarship being "faith". You just made the claim.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
What exactly is stupid?

In Hawkings No Boundary time merges with space and the beginning is just eternal space (like some theology about God?), but it's a theory?
More modern ideas were able to show if that were the case the universe may look different and other theories are put forth.
Including the idea of a multi-verse.

But notice at the frontier edge of science they are constantly making theories, constantly making observations with new tech and slowly furthering our understanding.
In religion, you have all the answers, you don't question it, you start with an assumption and from there you believe a bunch of archaic storytelling.
And you think physics is "sooo stupid"??????

Meanwhile:


And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
A great wonder appeared in heaven.
A woman clothed with the son, with the moon under her feet,
and a crown of 12 stars.
And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
She was pregnant and about to give birth.
And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
Another appeared in heaven.
A huge red dragon, with seven heads,
ten horns, and seven crowns on his heads.
And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
He threw a third of the stars onto the earth.
The dragon stood in front of the woman,
waiting to eat the baby as soon as it was born.
And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
She delivered a baby boy,
who would rule all nations with an iron rod.
The baby went up to God and his throne.
And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
 
Top