Why should God bother giving evidence ?

[blü 2]

Even believers have also NOT seen the real one.

Which takes us directly to the question, What real one?

And finding what you're told is a real one, how could you make certain it was God?

(I don't mind which god, as long it's real and a god.)

 

[viole]

I don't separate the Creator from his creation. You can if you wish...it makes no difference to me.



I can use whatever reasoning I like, just like you can.
The Bible's account is the only thing that makes sense to me.
Am I standing over you with a big stick forcing you to believe?
God won't either......he doesn't need to prove anything to anyone.

Sure, but that is not evidence. The Bible offers so much evidence of God, as the Iliad for Zeus.

Let's repeat the latest discussion:

1) You claim that the beautiful things in nature (the stars, the sky, etc.) provide evidence of a creator
2) I said, if that is true then the bacterium for bubonic plague provides the same evidence
3) You say: oh no, for that there is a nice explanation in the Bible

Don't you see you are using circular reasoning? Or special pleading? Or both?

Ciao

- viole

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

Of course, DNA proves that. But DNA doesn't prove who created evolution.

So tell us the bible that tells us how god kick-started evolution. Because bibles tell a very different story. You're stuck with what the bible says, you can't change that because science proves it's wrong.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

People use to worship sun in the past. But, the new question was who created sun then ? which further cleared that doubt.

Now, you are suggesting evolution. But new question is who created evolution then ? and cleared this doubt.

The Sun was created in the Big Bang along with billions of other suns. Some are still with us and some have imploded and disappeared.

Who created the Big Bang? Well if it was a god no bibl is telling you. Stick with what the bible says of make up your own story to suit your beliefs. Will they change when we know what created the Big Bang? Yes because you can keep changing as science educates us, it isn't hard and fast.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

Jehovah God sent his son to earth. Jehovah spoke from heaven on 3 separate occasions the only place where it is mentioned that he directly spoke calling Jesus his son, the beloved whom he has approved. On one occasion in Jerusalem he even told the Jews there to listen to Jesus.

Jesus performed many miracles. Even the twisted Jewish religious leaders of the day who envied and hated him so much couldn't deny Jesus was God's son.

We have God's word found in the Bible preserved faithfully for our benefit.

God has given plenty of evidence of his existence and love of humankind.

He has even commissioned a people bearing his name Jehovah to give a witness to all the earth before he brings about all the changes he has foretold about in the Bible and they carry the identifying mark of the true religion, having love among each other.

There is no doubt God is real. And he is strong, and everything he has foretold will come to be.

Can you direct me to the biblical verse that quotes Jehovah spoke to the people?

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

It couldn't hurt...ya know....humans could take some lessons IMO.



And since you know it all......why are you here posting what a thousand other cynics have already written?.....

I disagree with everything you wrote there.....the Egyptians were not big on recording anything that detracted from the Pharaoh's deity. Gods can't be defeated or make mistakes....its not a good look.

Its all been done to death mate....seriously, is this is all you came to do....?

Are the plagues one-offs or things that have happened before and after?

It's up to you prove the existence of god if you want me to believe in it.

You're wrong about the Egyptians. the record keeping of ancient egypt - Google Search Read up on the facts Ancient Egyptian civilization (article) | Khan Academy.

If you're a god do you go to the most powerful people of the time or a tiny insignificant tribe of goat herders? Don't tell me god couldn't convince the Egyptians. He's so powerful he created the world. LOL

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

No, I believe that there is another explanation for all that, but I won't bother you about it since you would just scoff at it anyway.
The Bible explains everything you know. I am very happy with its explanations. You can believe whatever you wish. Isn't free will a wonderful thing?

Please bother to explain why if god is responsible for all the good he's not also responsible for the bad. After all, he allows Satan to exist. He couldn't keep him on the straight and narrow, according to your theories.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

Why should God bother giving evidence?

He should give us a evidence to his existence so he can tell us directly who has it right and who has it wrong. There's more evil been done over religion than anything else. All it would take is a personal appearance by god, not some wandering preacher we have little solid proof of, to set it straight.

That's if he cares about us as we are told he does.

Please don't reply evolution is proof of his existence, it's not and you know it.

 

[columbus]

IF, the existence of God will not bring any change in your daily life style,

Then, why should God bother giving any evidence/proof ?

I see no reason for God to bother with anything.
God just is.

I believe that God gives us abundant evidence for his existence for those with eyes to see. Nature shows us his personality.

I agree.
We can learn from nature. But nature doesn't "send messages". And nature's "personality" is nothing like the god images described by religious folks. Nature doesn't care about anything. Nature has no plans or wishes. Nature doesn't choose anything.
Nature is NOT a sentient being. Neither is God.

It's humans who fool themselves into thinking that they understand anything important about God and the supernatural and afterlife and such. The evidence against people having such understanding is huge.

In short, God exists. But religion is fiction.
Tom

 

[columbus]

He should give us a evidence to his existence so he can tell us directly who has it right and who has it wrong.

This is the problem with Chinu's hypothetical.
Merely knowing of God's existence, without any other(more helpful) information, is pretty useless.

Personally, I'm an agnostic deist. I have no problem using the term God to describe the answer to the question "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" But that's where it ends. This doesn't tell you anything important about God whatsoever. Religious folks then go on to make all sorts of claims about God and such. That looks delusional to me.

I've looked into the claims. It's a huge pile of unsupported assertions, incoherent concepts, and poor logic. Much of it is mutually exclusive and internally inconsistent. It's drenched in ego and wishful thinking. It's just what I'd expect if various humans, over the course of thousands of years, made up stories and explanations for things that they really know nothing about.
Tom

 

[chinu]

I see no reason for God to bother with anything.
God just is.

Thank you for your honest reply.

 

[IAMinyou]

Friend, thank you for your valuable input.

That one thought I shared has more value than anything any religious person or atheist has ever spoken or written.

 

[Quintessence]

Assuming we're again limited to considering the Abrahamic monotheist god-concept I don't worship or care about, I don't get the impression it is about that god "bothering" to provide evidence or proofs. The evidence and proofs being there is simply an inevitable and natural (if that's a proper word to use when talking about the strange, supernaturalistic god-concept of Abrahamic monotheism) consequence of reality being what it is. It's just there to witness, if one has the eyes to see... or not see if one is blind as some folks are.

The better question is why those who honor the one-god bother. Unfortunately, for many of them that's because the religions associated with worship of their god reek of proselytism.

 

[columbus]

That one thought I shared has more value than anything any religious person or atheist has ever spoken or written.

I suppose in your day to day world that doesn't sound as arrogant as it does to many of us.
Tom

 

[ecco]

Then, why should God bother giving any evidence/proof ?

Which god?

 

[metis]

IF, the existence of God will not bring any change in your daily life style,

Then, why should God bother giving any evidence/proof ?

I bring thus up with my adult theology students, and the way I refer to it is that a true believe in Jesus must make it a lifestyle, not just some p.c. beliefs.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

IF, the existence of God will not bring any change in your daily life style, Then, why should God bother giving any evidence/proof ?

It doesn't matter to me if a god exists that either cannot make itself known or isn't interested in doing so. If one became apparent, why would that change anything about daily life? The only kind of god that would lead to changes in daily life would be one with commandments or offers like the Christian god.

If such a god existed, one that wanted to be known, understood, loved, obeyed, worshiped,etc., then it would have a motive to make itself known convincingly.

But that hasn't happened, so there is no reason to believe that such a god exists - au contraire, the absence of such is convincing proof that no such god exists, so eve if a different kind of god could be demonstrated such as the deist god, why would we change our lives?

DNA doesn't prove who created evolution

This should say, "what caused or causes evolution." We have two categories of answers - naturalistic and supernaturalistic, and only one of those is a who. If you have already dropped possibilities such a the blind forces of nature, then you have made a logical error.

I expect you next to ask who created those forces, and the answer is similar. If you have ruled out the possibility if our universe budding from an unconscious substance, then you have committed the same logical error. You have ruled out a logical possibility without cause, and turned a list of candidate hypotheses that should contain both answers with and without gods to one with only the first possibility considered.

And that's the same error those who say, "Look around you. Everything you see is evidence of god." Maybe, but there is another, naturalistic explanation that such people have unjustifiably dropped from their list of possible answers without justification. The universe is merely evidence that it exists and works the way it does, not where it came from.

People use to worship sun in the past.

Isn't that the same as worshiping a god because there is a universe? They saw the sun, didn't know what it was, and assumed it represented a supernatural agent - yet another example of jumping to an unjustified conclusion,but a little more understandable for those who couldn't conceive of any alternate, naturalistic explanation for this thing existing and moving through the skies unaided by intelligence or intent.

Every time a new baby is born....every drop of rain that falls from the sky.....the sun on my skin....the flowers and their colors and perfume.....the produce that sustains us for food....I think are all miracles. We need to stop and appreciate what is there....smell the flowers.....watch the bees do their job....and take note of the ants and how both cooperate together for the good of the hive or colony, each one knowing their job and just doing it efficiently, without complaint. Learn from them.

Learn what from them? That they are evidence of a god? Another non sequitur - a conclusion not supported by the attending evidence or argument cited.

You can believe whatever you wish.

You can, but I can't. Since I don't think by faith, I can only believe what reason applied to evidence implies. That is why you have dropped naturalistic possibilities from your candidate list of origins hypotheses down to just one, a god, and a particular god at that. My mind won't allow me to believe that. I just can't believe that a god made the universe when I know that that is not the only possibility.

And that's a good thing. It keeps me rooted to reality and from coming to fallacious conclusions believed by faith. That's not always a harmful thing to do, but it can be if your faith-based belief bleeds into daily life and causes one to make bad choices, like ignoring the scientists on global warming or not wearing a mask during a pandemic. These things are both killing people as we speak via extreme weather and lack of proper social precautions.

There is no doubt God is real

Not for the faith-based thinker, who considers such doubt a flaw that needs suppressing, but there is for the trained critical thinker. Once again, you have simply dismissed logically possible alternative hypotheses without justification.

Colossians 1:
15: He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation;

Proverbs 8
22 The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.
23 Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
24 When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth;
26 before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world.
27 When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
28 when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep,
29 when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
30 then I was beside him, like a master workman; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always,
31 rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the sons of men.

I have no reason to believe any of that. I can't prove that it is false, but nobody can provide any evidence in support of it much less prove that its true. Reason dictates that we consider all logical possibilities. It is very possible that those are human words that represent nothing but imagination. Once again, the believer simply dismisses such possibility out of hand and without cause.

But you offer it as a truthful answer for why God cannot be found, but it doesn't rise to that standard, since it is unrooted in empiricism, or the evaluation of evidence, and unjustifiably excludes naturalistic interpretations for the source of those words. Nothing can be said to be true that cannot be demonstrated empirically as true, and that hasn't been done.

 

[IAMinyou]

I suppose in your day to day world that doesn't sound as arrogant as it does to many of us.
Tom

When you possess the MIND of CHRIST, then you can understand why I said that.

 

[IAMinyou]

It doesn't matter to me if a god exists that either cannot make itself known or isn't interested in doing so. If one became apparent, why would that change anything about daily life? The only kind of god that would lead to changes in daily life would be one with commandments or offers like the Christian god.

If such a god existed, one that wanted to be known, understood, loved, obeyed, worshiped,etc., then it would have a motive to make itself known convincingly.

But that hasn't happened, so there is no reason to believe that such a god exists - au contraire, the absence of such is convincing proof that no such god exists, so eve if a different kind of god could be demonstrated such as the deist god, why would we change our lives?



This should say, "what caused or causes evolution." We have two categories of answers - naturalistic and supernaturalistic, and only one of those is a who. If you have already dropped possibilities such a the blind forces of nature, then you have made a logical error.

I expect you next to ask who created those forces, and the answer is similar. If you have ruled out the possibility if our universe budding from an unconscious substance, then you have committed the same logical error. You have ruled out a logical possibility without cause, and turned a list of candidate hypotheses that should contain both answers with and without gods to one with only the first possibility considered.

And that's the same error those who say, "Look around you. Everything you see is evidence of god." Maybe, but there is another, naturalistic explanation that such people have unjustifiably dropped from their list of possible answers without justification. The universe is merely evidence that it exists and works the way it does, not where it came from.



Isn't that the same as worshiping a god because there is a universe? They saw the sun, didn't know what it was, and assumed it represented a supernatural agent - yet another example of jumping to an unjustified conclusion,but a little more understandable for those who couldn't conceive of any alternate, naturalistic explanation for this thing existing and moving through the skies unaided by intelligence or intent.



Learn what from them? That they are evidence of a god? Another non sequitur - a conclusion not supported by the attending evidence or argument cited.



You can, but I can't. Since I don't think by faith, I can only believe what reason applied to evidence implies. That is why you have dropped naturalistic possibilities from your candidate list of origins hypotheses down to just one, a god, and a particular god at that. My mind won't allow me to believe that. I just can't believe that a god made the universe when I know that that is not the only possibility.

And that's a good thing. It keeps me rooted to reality and from coming to fallacious conclusions believed by faith. That's not always a harmful thing to do, but it can be if your faith-based belief bleeds into daily life and causes one to make bad choices, like ignoring the scientists on global warming or not wearing a mask during a pandemic. These things are both killing people as we speak via extreme weather and lack of proper social precautions.



Not for the faith-based thinker, who considers such doubt a flaw that needs suppressing, but there is for the trained critical thinker. Once again, you have simply dismissed logically possible alternative hypotheses without justification.



I have no reason to believe any of that. I can't prove that it is false, but nobody can provide any evidence in support of it much less prove that its true. Reason dictates that we consider all logical possibilities. It is very possible that those are human words that represent nothing but imagination. Once again, the believer simply dismisses such possibility out of hand and without cause.

But you offer it as a truthful answer for why God cannot be found, but it doesn't rise to that standard, since it is unrooted in empiricism, or the evaluation of evidence, and unjustifiably excludes naturalistic interpretations for the source of those words. Nothing can be said to be true that cannot be demonstrated empirically as true, and that hasn't been done.

You are right. Unbelievers need all kinds of reasons to not believe but it won't matter because none of them were chosen to believe during this temporary generation. You will have to wait until your MIND is deleted of the strong delusion that this world is deceiving you with.

 

[columbus]

When you possess the MIND of CHRIST, then you can understand why I said that.

Dang!

Arrogance is kinda your thing.
I can't say I'm surprised. I live in a very Christian world.
Tom