Evidence for god? Convince me! [CHALLENGE]

[fr0d0]

Why we're the people reporting the events of the bible more qualified than you? The disciples were everyday guys.

How did the author of Genesis know what went on before the stars were made?

As everyday guys they spoke the language of a spiritual reality lived. We speak the reality of a materialist world. We hardly understand the concepts that they dealt with as part of everyday life.

The author/s of Genesis had no clue what went on before the stars were made. What they related were the ground rules for a God who gave purpose to existence.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Do you have any support for that? Or are we supposed to take it on faith?

[Angrboda]

I've always been rather skeptical of the definition of Christian faith as "trust in something that has proved itself reliable." In the first place, trust is a relationship between two agents, because only agents have the will which allows them to betray that trust. Saying you "trust" in the ability of a chair to hold you up is using the term figuratively, because the trust can't be broken by the chair failing; either it will or it won't. Saying that's the same as trust in God is equivocation, because it's using the word 'trust' in a different sense. So for you to have trust in Jesus or God, this implies that they are agents, just like you. You must believe them to exist as agents before you can place trust in them. I think it's at this point that MFM'S point about evidence versus good evidence enters in. Most people who come to believe in God do so on the basis of non-physical evidence which we likely wouldn't accept for any other being or agent with the characteristics of God. So belief precedes trust, and that belief is based on evidences which are not tangible. For a child coming to God, I think the situation is different. For the child, their parents and peers saying that something is so is good evidence for it being so, at least while they are young. Where that leaves the mature person who comes to faith after reaching maturity other than, at least originally, coming to believe, first, without having seen evidence. Perhaps later, trust may develop; but originally, there is belief before trust. Thus the definition of faith as trust may be something that comes after, but belief is original, and blind.

[fr0d0]

Do you trust in God first or trust in what people have to say about God? I agree that it's impossible to trust in God without knowing about him first. Your point seems futile to me.

---

Do you have any support for that? Or are we supposed to take it on faith?

For what? The Genesis part? Sure...



http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0830837043

[Rampant.A.I.]

Do you trust in God first or trust in what people have to say about God? I agree that it's impossible to trust in God without knowing about him first. Your point seems futile to me.

---

Do you have any support for that? Or are we supposed to take it on faith?

For what? The Genesis part? Sure...



http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0830837043

Nobody should trust anything you have to say when you're unable to provide evidence.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0141182342

And no matter how many times it's been pointed out to you the Bible is the claim, not the evidence, you go right on preaching scripture as if it is evidence.

It is evidence: That you don't know what "evidence" means.

[*Deidre*]

Why we're the people reporting the events of the bible more qualified than you? The disciples were everyday guys.

How did the author of Genesis know what went on before the stars were made?

As everyday guys they spoke the language of a spiritual reality lived. We speak the reality of a materialist world. We hardly understand the concepts that they dealt with as part of everyday life.

The author/s of Genesis had no clue what went on before the stars were made. What they related were the ground rules for a God who gave purpose to existence.

At best, 'they' were guessing, at 'ground rules' any god could possibly have for mankind.

At worst, it's all just a lie.

I'm thinking Christianity is a combination of the two.

[fr0d0]

Nobody should trust anything you have to say when you're unable to provide evidence.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0141182342

And no matter how many times it's been pointed out to you the Bible is the claim, not the evidence, you go right on preaching scripture as if it is evidence.

It is evidence: That you don't know what "evidence" means.

That's right, pay no attention to what's said to you.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Do you trust in God first or trust in what people have to say about God? I agree that it's impossible to trust in God without knowing about him first. Your point seems futile to me.

Do you understand that this contains multiple unsupported assertions, or are you too far gone to even recognize them?

[fr0d0]

At best, 'they' were guessing, at 'ground rules' any god could possibly have for mankind.

At worst, it's all just a lie.

I'm thinking Christianity is a combination of the two.

No. They presented a coherent working model.

Why not look into what John H Walton says rather than dismiss him without even looking at what he has to say? You are far too quick to dig out the pitchfork.

[Rampant.A.I.]

At best, 'they' were guessing, at 'ground rules' any god could possibly have for mankind.

At worst, it's all just a lie.

I'm thinking Christianity is a combination of the two.

No. They presented a coherent working model.

Why not look into what John H Walton says rather than dismiss him without even looking at what he has to say? You are far too quick to dig out the pitchfork.

The OP question was can you provide evidence for God, not "can you link books on Amazon you claim contain evidence, even if you don't know what it is".