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

[TransmutingSoul]

That is not evidence of God. That is merely evidence of people who claim to be messengers. No one denies there are people who make such claims.

Then you are calling them liars, with absolutely no proof, that is unjust.

They offer their persons as proof, and they are not unjust.

Regards Tony

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those who believe in design can find evidence of it but it cannot be tested.

Then it is not evidence. It is merely an irrational belief. The concept of evidence forces a person to reason rationally. Even one of the pioneers of intelligent design, Michael Behe essentially admitted that there was no evidence for ID in the Dover trial. It would behoove you to learn what qualifies as evidence in a scientific discussion.

I have better things to do. But you can show me how a local flood has been shown to be wrong and how creation has been shown to be wrong.

Please don't change the argument. You were the one that claimed all mankind except for Noah and family died. That can be tested. That can be easily refuted. You claimed that all land life except for that on the Ark died. That too can be tested and easily refuted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you are calling them liars, with absolutely no proof, that is unjust.

They offer their persons as proof, and they are not unjust.

Regards Tony

No, that is not true. Just because a person is wrong that does not make him a liar. A person may genuinely believe that he is a "prophet of God". That does not mean that he is a liar if the is merely severely deluded. I do not know enough about your religion to even say for sure whether the founder of Baha'i declared that he was a messenger of God. I would say that he was mistaken and deluded. I do not think that makes him a liar.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

No, that is not true. Just because a person is wrong that does not make him a liar. A person may genuinely believe that he is a "prophet of God". That does not mean that he is a liar if the is merely severely deluded. I do not know enough about your religion to even say for sure whether the founder of Baha'i declared that he was a messenger of God. I would say that he was mistaken and deluded. I do not think that makes him a liar.

Still the same result, either calling them a liar, mistaken or deluded without proof backing the statement.

Baha'u'llah did offer the challenge

".... The learning current amongst men I studied not; their schools I entered not. Ask of the city wherein I dwelt, that thou mayest be well assured that I am not of them who speak falsely..."

Also about the knowledge of God Baha'u'llah offered this. (I added the bracket comment)

"He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived.... He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men (God) can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His mission than the proof of His Own Person..."

Regards Tony

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still the same result, either calling them a liar, mistaken or deluded without proof backing the statement.

Baha'u'llah did offer the challenge

".... The learning current amongst men I studied not; their schools I entered not. Ask of the city wherein I dwelt, that thou mayest be well assured that I am not of them who speak falsely..."

Also about the knowledge of God Baha'u'llah offered this. (I added the bracket comment)

"He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived.... He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men (God) can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His mission than the proof of His Own Person..."

Regards Tony

You had the burden of proof backwards. And you failed.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

either calling them a liar, mistaken or deluded without proof backing the statement.

What he's telling you (I believe) is that he doesn't accept the messenger's claim that he is channeling a deity. Neither do I. That life is an ordinary human life, and those words are the kinds of words ordinary humans write. I can write like that and so can you. I could have lived a similar life, but chose another path that was also common to humankind.

I realize that you and many others choose to believe otherwise, but you do so by faith. The evidence you offer simply doesn't support the claims made about it.

If that is the case, then it is the same with those who say no intelligence is needed and no life giver is needed.

Yes, but who's doing that? My position is that there is no apparent need for an intelligent designer, and that is correct. That is not to say that no intelligent designer was involved, which WOULD be a statement of faith - just that none appears needed. That's true with clouds, too. They appear to form spontaneously in nature without an intelligent designer building or moving them.

Life also appears to gather itself absent intelligent oversight. We see both happening every day automatically as best we can tell, just as the sun rises and sets daily without anybody pulling it through the sky, and electrons flow through wires without angels pushing them through. You can ask how we know that Apollo isn't pulling the sun or Gabriel pushing the electrons, and my answer to you would be the same: I don't know, I just have no reason to think otherwise, that is, there is no apparent need for such things.

you can show me how a local flood has been shown to be wrong and how creation has been shown to be wrong

What's been falsified in Genesis by science includes the six days of creation, the appearance of a first pair of human beings, a global flood, and the Tower of Babel story. None of that happened.

 

[Brian2]

Then it is not evidence. It is merely an irrational belief. The concept of evidence forces a person to reason rationally. Even one of the pioneers of intelligent design, Michael Behe essentially admitted that there was no evidence for ID in the Dover trial. It would behoove you to learn what qualifies as evidence in a scientific discussion.

From this site: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/scientific-evidence
Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.

I'm not having a scientific discussion but you want one.

Please don't change the argument. You were the one that claimed all mankind except for Noah and family died. That can be tested. That can be easily refuted. You claimed that all land life except for that on the Ark died. That too can be tested and easily refuted.

I did not claim that all mankind except for Noah and family died.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From this site: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/scientific-evidence
Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.

I'm not having a scientific discussion but you want one.



I did not claim that all mankind except for Noah and family died.

You did actually.

 

[ratiocinator]

From this site: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/scientific-evidence
Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.

That link doesn't have a definition of scientific evidence, just some auto-selected quotes. You quoted the definition of evidence in the more general sense.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Science relies on evidence - Understanding Science

5

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[Brian2]

Yes, but who's doing that? My position is that there is no apparent need for an intelligent designer, and that is correct. That is not to say that no intelligent designer was involved, which WOULD be a statement of faith - just that none appears needed. That's true with clouds, too. They appear to form spontaneously in nature without an intelligent designer building or moving them.

OK so you don't know whether Intelligent design was needed or not but have your opinion about it anyway even if it is just a faith based opinion.

Life also appears to gather itself absent intelligent oversight. We see both happening every day automatically as best we can tell, just as the sun rises and sets daily without anybody pulling it through the sky, and electrons flow through wires without angels pushing them through. You can ask how we know that Apollo isn't pulling the sun or Gabriel pushing the electrons, and my answer to you would be the same: I don't know, I just have no reason to think otherwise, that is, there is no apparent need for such things.

Actually life appears to come from pre existing life, so it appears that life needs a life giver.

What's been falsified in Genesis by science includes the six days of creation, the appearance of a first pair of human beings, a global flood, and the Tower of Babel story. None of that happened.

Yes many or even most Bible believers also agree about the six literal days and the global flood. and that changes the nature of the Tower of Babel.
But the stories have not been falsified.
I would say that probably most believers believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I may be wrong.
I don't think that means that the story has been falsified however.

 

[Brian2]

That link doesn't have a definition of scientific evidence, just some auto-selected quotes. You quoted the definition of evidence in the more general sense.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Science relies on evidence - Understanding Science

5

undsci.berkeley.edu

That is what I'm talking about, the more general definition of evidence.

 

[ppp]

Then you are calling them liars, with absolutely no proof, that is unjust.

You are acting as though the only alternative to being correct is being a liar. You should know better than that, Tony. Why don't you?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

OK so you don't know whether Intelligent design was needed or not but have your opinion about it anyway even if it is just a faith based opinion.

My opinion about the origins of life is not faith based. It includes no unjustified belief. Yours does. If you were to stop where I do and say that life might have been intelligently designed, you would have made no leap of faith. When you went further and decided that a god was involved, that's when you took a leap of faith and we parted ways.

life appears to come from pre existing life, so it appears that life needs a life giver.

As far as we know, there is nothing about life that requires that the first life came from previous life including the fact that we haven't witnessed or reproduced abiogenesis yet.

In fact, that's what you believe, isn't it? Do you consider your god living? If so, then you believe that that god is life that didn't come from other life. If you consider disembodied mind not alive, then the life it created is life that came from non-life according to YOU, right? Do you find fault with that comment? If so, which part, and what makes it wrong in your estimation?

the stories have not been falsified.

They've been shown to be untrue, which is what falsified means.

I would say that probably most believers believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I may be wrong. I don't think that means that the story has been falsified however.

What believers believe is not relevant to the claim that the story has been falsified by science. Your problem appears to be with the use of the word falsify. Believers avoid words like that - like error and untrue - when describing their scriptures even when those are the very words that they would use to describe the creation stories of other traditions. They assume that the Vikings, for example, just made up the story about Odin and his brothers creating the world - their best guess of what happened, but a guess and scientifically falsified. It never happened.

I'm imagining that you wouldn't object to reading that any more than I do, because you likely consider their religions as false as are their gods. But the faithful NEVER say that about the god of Abraham and his scriptures. They say allegory or metaphor instead. It sounds nicer than wrong. The difference is that they still believe that their story and their story alone came from a god and therefore cannot be wrong.

That's what you're doing here, and that fine with me. I understand why. But I don't have to invoke euphemisms. The claim that God created the first two people and put them in a garden, where their disobedience led to the fall of man and need for salvation and the crucifixion of Christ has been falsified. Every human being has had two human parents so far, although that may not necessary be true in the future. You don't like that word, so you say that it hasn't been falsified, but that's exactly what that word means. If the weatherman predicts clear and sunny and it rains, we don't call that allegory. We call that error. We say that his prediction was falsified. Unless, of course, the forecast is in the Bible. Then the believer needs to find a different word. That's when he begins retranslating words, as when he says that a day of creation was not a literal day, because saying that the story was wrong is just not possible for such people.

 

[metis]

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?

In my case it was a very length of "revelations" that went on for 2 & 1/2 years that drove me nuts as I couldn't figure out what these were telling me also until the 1 & 1/2 year mark. It led me change and return to the Catholic Church about 5 years ago.

BTW, I'm an anthropologist, now retired.

 

[PureX]

Just as a reminder, there is no such thing as "the burden of proof" regarding theism.

For two reasons.

1. "Proof" is an internal decision based on subjective personal criteria and assessment. What stands as "proof" for one person is not going to be logically transferable to another.

2. There are no 'objective' means by which any human could verify the nature or existence of a being or phenomenon that transcends our own reality. And thus it would be illogical to demand that any human do so.

 

[ratiocinator]

Just as a reminder, there is no such thing as "the burden of proof" regarding theism.

Only if somebody does not make any claims about it. The moment somebody claims "there is a god or gods" as anything than a personal faith claim, they have made a claim about reality and the burden of proof applies.

The burden of proof applies to all claims about objective reality.

1. "Proof" is an internal decision based on subjective personal criteria and assessment. What stands as "proof" for one person is not going to be logically transferable to another.

The burden of proof isn't really about proof, it's about being able to support your claims. If you have arrived at a view for reasons that are entirely personal you should not be making claims about it being true.

2. There are no 'objective' means by which any human could verify the nature or existence of a being or phenomenon that transcends our own reality. And thus it would be illogical to demand that any human do so.

If this is true─and I don't see why it must be─then nobody should be going round making claims about this sort of thing.

 

[Mark La Buda]

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?

Believing and maintaining one’s Christian beliefs takes effort. All should pray for Holy Spirit, read and meditate on God’s word (daily) and test it out.-Acts 17:11. Examine yourself to determine if the following counsel is affecting you.

Having a spiritual eye-or insight/understanding-as is a gift of God. (Proverbs 20:12) He promises to heal spiritual eyes as well as physical ones and to remove all causes for tears. (Isaiah 35:5) No one can have the correct understand God’s purposes without spiritual eyesight. On the other hand, Jehovah hides his truth from the eyes of those who are stubborn or rebellious, letting “their eyes become darkened.” -Romans 11:8-10; Luke 19:42. Consider Jeremiah 5:21; Matthew 6:22, 23. John 3:19, 20; 9:39-41; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 2:1.

 

[PureX]

Only if somebody does not make any claims about it.

Anyone can make any theistic claims they like, because no one can prove or disprove them. Which is why the whole "burden of proof" argument is a red herring.

The moment somebody claims "there is a god or gods" as anything than a personal faith claim, they have made a claim about reality and the burden of proof applies.

There are no theistic claims that are anything more that a personal theory. Because no human has or can know their claim to be anything other then that. You're jousting a windmills if you're foolish enough to take such claims as anything more than a personal theory.

The burden of proof applies to all claims about objective reality.

Again, this is just a silly red herring used to keep yourself in an imaginary "judge's seat".

The burden of proof isn't really about proof, it's about being able to support your claims.

This, I agree with, so long as we drop the inference of judgment. So that by "support" we simply mean that one agrees to share the reasoning for their personal theory along with their theory.

If you have arrived at a view for reasons that are entirely personal you should not be making claims about it being true.

It's good that we humans share our thoughts and feelings with each other. We are a social-cooperative species and we need to commiserate to function together.

If this is true─and I don't see why it must be─then nobody should be going round making claims about this sort of thing.

Again, they are doing is a SERVICE by sharing their theories about these things, not a DIS-service. Perhaps you are a bit too intent on protecting your own theories to appreciate these alternative theories of others?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are reasoning with a global flood in mind for a start.

That's got nothing to do with this story, imo.
But yes, the story told in the Bible is that of a global flood. Obviously so.

Secondly the way God used to mess up the languages may be the same way science has worked out.

This was in response to, "The Tower of Babel story is bogus as well. We know how languages developed and evolved over time and that ain't how it happened."

I don't see a response to what I said here. And I'm not sure I understand the response you gave here.

Languages developed and evolved over time and continue to do so. The Tower of Babel is a made up just-so story that is demonstrably false.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Faith is the way. Atheists these days harden themselves to not only the supernatural and God, but to faith itself. Finding the undetectable God, who is a spirit, through science that cannot detect spirit is not the way to find the truth of God.

Which brings us back 'round to my definition of faith that you keep wanting to quibble with, despite the fact that you keep demonstrating how accurate it truly is.

Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence. Otherwise they'd give the evidence. Since anything can be believed on faith, then faith cannot be a useful pathway to truth. Faith is unjustified belief.

Please notice that all I've been asking you for over and over again is evidence for the things you claim. You have repeatedly claimed that you can detect the undetectable, and when I ask you how, the answer you fall back on is always "faith."

You don't get to do that, and then blame other people for the fact that you can't back up your claims. That's on you and nobody else. It's not atheists fault that you can't make rational and reasonable arguments for the existence of the god you worship.

The still small voice that requires faith to hear.
But real faith in God and seeking Him is enough and certainly better than closing ourselves off.

This was in response to, "Been there, done that. Got the same response as I would from something that didn't exist - nothing.
I still don't know what I'm supposed to be looking for, because you don't seem to know either."

Instead of telling me how to detect the undetectable or telling me what I should be looking for, again you appeal to useless old "faith."