Evidence that God is real

[BlueSky]

Not according to Lewis Black, and he claims the OT to be his book...........he is a jew.

Lol, Jews ( non messianic ones ) reject the most important part of the story. It surprises me not his perspective here. That’s why they were destroyed by God for the last time in 70AD by the Romans after killing the long promised Messiah and their rejection of God Himself. Current Jews today, are just as lost as the rest who disbelieve, even more so, as they had the truth long ago.

 

[Write4U]

Mars is in the state it is in because of many factors, not least of which is the loss of its magnetic field, which meant it became ravaged by the solar winds, stripping away its atmosphere to leave it as it currently is. Its position within the solar system is not itself a reason for it not being life-sustaining at the moment.

Thank you for expanding on the natural forces which prevented Mars from forming a healthy organic environment.

The term entropy was poorly chosen. I basically tried to generalize all the natural factors which stripped Mars from some of its original natural resources and left us with Mars today. The thrust of my posit was that it is always a natural causality and not an intentional motivated act by some mysterious supernatural force which determines the planetary conditions and potentials for emergent life. All planets have chemistry, I believe that is indisputable.

At planetary size and time scales planetary bio-chemistry leads to life, as clearly evidenced on earth.

I would not be surprised to see bacterial life on all planets except for the most inhospitable ones. Even on earth we find living extremophiles and tardigrades in places where nothing else can grow.

But our occupation in the dynamically friendly cinderella zone enabled the incredible variety of life on Earth.
An exponential growth function in many directions and character.

If we find advanced life-forms elsewhere in the Universe, would that prove or disprove God and explain His relationship with humans?

 

[Write4U]

Lol, Jews ( non messianic ones ) reject the most important part of the story. It surprises me not his perspective here. That’s why they were destroyed by God for the last time in 70AD by the Romans after killing the long promised Messiah and their rejection of God Himself. Current Jews today, are just as lost as the rest who disbelieve, even more so, as they had the truth long ago.

Ah, so the Jews don't understand the OT, but Christians do?

Isn't that what Black just explained to you?........

 

[BlueSky]

Ah, so the Jews don't understand the OT, but Christians do?
Isn't that what Black just explained to you?

Lol,it’s the other way around actually. The ones I have spoken to do not know the OT, Nore the NT. Ironic eh? Many do, but when they do “get it” they become Christians.

 

[Jan Ardena]

As I said, I was pointing out the difference between knowledge and assumption. You can not have knowledge of God without evidence of God. You can assume anything you pull out of your ass without any evidence or rationale.

How do you, someone who is atheist, someone who fundamentally cannot accept God, someone who pretended to believe in God, know anything about how a theist can have knowledge of God?

Do you believe your understanding of God, in the sense that you know one has to have “evidence” of God, the only way to know God?

If the the answer is yes. How did you obtain this understanding?

As I said, children's belief in God is the same as your belief in God. There is no reason to think otherwise.

If they believe in God, then yes, it is the same as me believing in God. But what’s your point?

Also can you answer the question I posed?

Same with God.

Are you basing this claim on your experience, or do you have an explanation besides that.

Sometimes a typo works as well - or batter than - what was intended.

Meaning?

You might make more sense if you thought about the topic instead of trying to psychoanalyze people.

What was nonsensical about what I said?

Jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

How do you, someone who is atheist, someone who fundamentally cannot accept God, someone who pretended to believe in God, know anything about how a theist can have knowledge of God?

I could accept God - the same as I could accept Sanata Claus. As it happens, I don't accept either because there is no reason to think that either is real.

And I know as much as any theist about God because I used to be a theist.

Do you believe your understanding of God, in the sense that you know one has to have “evidence” of God, the only way to know God?

Evidence is the only way to know anything. Without evidence, what you have is assumption.

Also can you answer the question I posed?

As far as I know, I have answered all of your questions about a dozen times each. If I've missed something, you'll have to be more specific.

What was nonsensical about what I said?

Your assessment of why I don't believe.

 

[Write4U]

Lol,it’s the other way around actually. The ones I have spoken to do not know the OT, Nore the NT. Ironic eh? Many do, but when they do “get it” they become Christians.

Actually that should read; .........when they do "get it" they become atheist"........

 

[sideshowbob]

Lol,it’s the other way around actually. The ones I have spoken to do not know the OT, Nore the NT. Ironic eh? Many do, but when they do “get it” they become Christians.

I haven't met many Christians who know their way around the Bible. They may know the dogma and the apologetics but those seldom correspond to what the Bible actually says.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I could accept God - the same as I could accept Sanata Claus. As it happens, I don't accept either because there is no reason to think that either is real.

If you think Santa a God are conceptually the same, why do you have to tag Santa, when talking about God? Do you think it strengthens your position?

As you are an atheists st, I can understand that a reason for being such, is that you have no reason to think God is real.

Evidence is the only way to know anything. Without evidence, what you have is assumption.

But you choose what you regard as evidence, and as such you can decide that there is no evolution fence for ZGod. But I am talking about proper evidence. For example you choose to accept that it is evidenced in the Bible that Adam and Eve were the first ever humans, even though it doesn’t say that.
So

Your assessment of why I don't believe.

Based on you claim of belief, then not belief, your equating my belief with your lack of belief, and your obsessive need to bring Santa, and children,into the discussion. All in a bid to prop up your atheism, I asked...

...What was nonsensical about what I said?

Jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

If you think Santa a God are conceptually the same, why do you have to tag Santa, when talking about God?

It's just a comparison. I could compare God to leprechauns, if you prefer. I don't use the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot as comparisons because they're more likely to be real than God.

But you choose what you regard as evidence...

No. Evidence is the same for everybody. You don't get your own private evidence. If it isn't evident to everybody, it isn't evidence.

For example you choose to accept that it is evidenced in the Bible that Adam and Eve were the first ever humans, even though it doesn’t say that.

No. What's evident in the Bible is what it says. They way you interpret it is not what it says.

Based on you claim of belief, then not belief, your equating my belief with your lack of belief, and your obsessive need to bring Santa, and children,into the discussion.
...What was nonsensical about what I said?

That sentence in itself is incoherent and nonsensical.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It's just a comparison. I could compare God to leprechauns, if you prefer. I don't use the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot as comparisons because they're more likely to be real than God.

Why the need for any comparison, if God is no different? Why not just say God?
Do you need reminding?

No. Evidence is the same for everybody. You don't get your own private evidence. If it isn't evident to everybody, it isn't evidence.

Yet that’s exactly what you do.
Check the A+E thread for examples.

No. What's evident in the Bible is what it says. They way you interpret it is not what it says.

No it doesn’t, and I have shown that,
Can you show that the word for mankind/human race, in the bible, means two people,

That sentence in itself is incoherent and nonsensical.

You claim of belief in God.
Then you don’t believe in God
You equate my belief with your lack of belief.
You seem obsessed with the needneed to bring Santa, and children,into the discussion.

...What was nonsensical about what I said?

Jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

Why the need for any comparison, if God is no different? Why not just say God?

What a silly question. God is one myth and Santa is another myth and leprechauns are another myth. They are all myths but they're not interchangeable.

You claim of belief in God.
Then you don’t believe in God
You equate my belief with your lack of belief.

I did believe in God. Then I stopped believing in God. There is no reason to think my former belief in God was different from your current belief in God.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What a silly question. God is one myth and Santa is another myth and leprechauns are another myth. They are all myths but they're not interchangeable.

Why not just say “God”?
Why the need the need to remind yourself?

There is no reason to think my former belief in God was different from your current belief in God.

Apart from the fact you never believed in God.
You said so yourself.

Jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

Why not just say “God”?

What a silly question. Why would I say "God" when I'm talking about Santa?

Apart from the fact you never believed in God.
You said so yourself.

It's hard to tell whether you're an idiot or a liar. I did NOT say I never believed in God.

 

[billvon]

Why the need for any comparison, if God is no different?

Because they are different.

No. Evidence is the same for everybody. You don't get your own private evidence. If it isn't evident to everybody, it isn't evidence.

Yet that’s exactly what you do. Check the A+E thread for examples.

In the A+E thread you are making up your own false evidence to try to "prove" something. It is regularly refuted by the actual evidence (the Bible.) So perhaps you should follow your own advice!

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Why?

Bein especially harmful to ther oldest dauter-even to this day… they trained her up based on ther holey bible superstitions.!!!

 

[Jan Ardena]

What a silly question. Why would I say "God" when I'm talking about Santa?

It's hard to tell whether you're an idiot or a liar. I did NOT say I never believed in God.

Name calling?
Conceding so soon?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Bein especially harmful to ther oldest dauter-even to this day… they trained her up based on ther holey bible superstitions.!!!

What did they do (if you’re okay talking about it)?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Because they are different.

I know that.
You know that.
But SB is clueless.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

In the A+E thread you are making up your own false evidence to try to "prove" something. It is regularly refuted by the actual evidence (the Bible.) So perhaps you should follow your own advice!

Bilvon, you’re better than this atheists denial and rejection routine.

You know I’m not making anything up. You know that the information I bring is more credible than the undocumented belief.

Why are you from fighting it?
As a person who believes in God, why don’t you want to give the bible a shot, by understanding what it actually means?
Why do you stick to to this undocumented belief?
Even the if you do accept it, why aren’t you open-minded to the possibility of the fact that the Bible makes absolutely no mention of A+E being the first ever humans?

This is a religion sub forum in a science forum.
It used to say “Sciforums The intelligent Community”.
Why are you so close-minded on this?
I can understand SB’s motive, but I can’t understand yours.

Jan.