Please explain why Christians believe unsubstantiated, unverified claims?

[3sigma]

Please explain why you believe unsubstantiated, unverified claims? For example, the claims that God created humans, that the soul exists and that God exists have never been substantiated and verified. However, Christians believe those claims are true; they behave as though the claims have been substantiated and verified. Please explain why you believe such claims are true when they have never been substantiated and verified? Why don’t you consider such claims to be unconfirmed and withhold your belief?

 

[Quaero]

Please explain why you believe unsubstantiated, unverified claims? For example, the claims that God created humans, that the soul exists and that God exists have never been substantiated and verified. However, Christians believe those claims are true; they behave as though the claims have been substantiated and verified. Please explain why you believe such claims are true when they have never been substantiated and verified? Why don’t you consider such claims to be unconfirmed and withhold your belief?

Please explain why you believe unsubstantiated, unverified claims? For example, the claim that life originated from nothing suddenly, that the universe appeared ex nihilo and that despite the fact God has never been disproved you still insist on adopting an absolutist view.

However, Christians believe those claims are true; they behave as though the claims have been substantiated and verified.

Why do you believe that they cannot have occurred when your explanation is equally flawed.

Please explain why you believe such claims are true when they have never been substantiated and verified? Why don’t you consider such claims to be unconfirmed and withhold your belief?

Where did the universe originate from? Where did life originate from? Why do over 5 billion people worldwide believe in a God? Your answers will rely on the premise that scientific fact will sufficiently explain the existence (or lack ) of the Soul/God , even though it is apparent that science cannot prove, disprove, debunk or authenticate the claims made by religion. If they could, there would be no religion.

So I ask you to conclusively prove, using a verifiable method to substantiate your claim that there is no possibility of a God creating the universe, the possible existence of the soul and the possible existence of the aforementioned God .

 

[AV1611VET]

Please explain why you believe unsubstantiated, unverified claims?

Do you have any exam...

For example, the claims that God created humans, that the soul exists and that God exists have never been substantiated and verified.

Yes, they have.

However, Christians believe those claims are true; they behave as though the claims have been substantiated and verified.

They have.

Please explain why you believe such claims are true when they have never been substantiated and verified?

The question is, why do you consider them unverified? You're assuming they have been unverified, because scientists didn't document them; thus your bias is showing.

Let me explain, the Author of the Bible did this:

To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Since infallible proofs are not achievable in raw science, Jesus' miracles are rejected on faith --- that is, w/o today's scientists having been there to see these proofs for themselves.

Why don’t you consider such claims to be unconfirmed and withhold your belief?

Because we don't cater to everything scientists find acceptable and unacceptable. We don't let scientists lead us around like we are the sheep and they are the shepherds --- we have our own Shepherd.

 

[3sigma]

Please explain why you believe unsubstantiated, unverified claims?

I don’t.

For example, the claim that life originated from nothing suddenly, that the universe appeared ex nihilo and that despite the fact God has never been disproved you still insist on adopting an absolutist view.

I don’t accept as true the claims that life originated from nothing suddenly or that the universe appeared ex nihilo. I consider them to be unconfirmed. And I’m not taking the absolute view that your God doesn’t exist. I’m saying the claim that it does exist has never been substantiated and verified. If you disagree then verify the claim; prove that your God exists. I’m guessing that you believe the claim that your God exists is true, but if you can’t verify that then why do you believe it? Why do behave as though the claim has been verified?

Why do you believe that they cannot have occurred when your explanation is equally flawed.

I think the claims are unconfirmed. Why don’t you?

Where did the universe originate from? Where did life originate from? Why do over 5 billion people worldwide believe in a God? Your answers will rely on the premise that scientific fact will sufficiently explain the existence (or lack ) of the Soul/God , even though it is apparent that science cannot prove, disprove, debunk or authenticate the claims made by religion. If they could, there would be no religion.

I don’t know how the universe and life originated; no one does. These questions are unanswered at the moment so I don’t believe any particular answer is true. However, you apparently do believe you have an answer to these questions. I’m asking you to tell me why you believe your answer is true when it has never been substantiated or verified?

As for why over five billion people worldwide believe in some kind of God, I suspect it is due to a combination of credulity and insecurity. I suspect that most people rely on intuition for answers and lack the critical thinking skills to determine whether what they believe is actually true. I also suspect that religions allay the fear of death and the unknown by promising eternal life and ease people’s anxiety by offering hope that their prayers will be answered and that some benevolent being is watching over them.

As we can see, you are wrong in your assumption about my answers.

So I ask you to conclusively prove, using a verifiable method to substantiate your claim that there is no possibility of a God creating the universe, the possible existence of the soul and the possible existence of the aforementioned God .

I am not making the claims you assert that I make. You are fabricating claims I have not made. I can’t disprove these things, but because they have never been proven, I see no sound reason to consider them to be true. I consider these claims to be unconfirmed. Why don’t you?

All you’ve done in your response is evade the OP questions by attacking with a fallacious ad hominem tu quoque argument. You haven’t attempted to answer the questions in the OP at all. Please answer the questions in the OP. Please explain why you believe such claims are true when they have never been substantiated and verified? Why don’t you consider such claims to be unconfirmed and withhold your belief? If you aren’t going to attempt to answer the questions in the OP then please don’t bother responding any further.

 

[3sigma]

3sigma, you just answered you own question. If Christians didn't think their beliefs were substantiated, they wouldn't believe them.

If Christians think the claims have been substantiated then I would like them to show me that they are not simply mistaken. I would like to know why they think they have been substantiated.

 

[3sigma]

For example, the claims that God created humans, that the soul exists and that God exists have never been substantiated and verified.

Yes, they have.

Prove it. Show me that the claims have been substantiated and verified. Show me that they are true. If you can’t prove that your God exists then why do you behave as though it has been proven? If you can’t show that the claims have been substantiated and verified then why do you behave as though they have been substantiated and verified? If you can’t show that the claims are true then why do you believe they are true? Why don’t you treat them as unconfirmed?

The question is, why do you consider them unverified? You're assuming they have been unverified, because scientists didn't document them; thus your bias is showing.

No, the question was why do you consider them to be verified? Show me that the claims have been verified. To pre-empt any potential misunderstandings here, to substantiate means to establish by proof or competent evidence and to verify a claim means to establish the truth, accuracy or reality of that claim. If you can’t establish the truth of those claims then why do you consider them to be true?

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

The idea that there is no God is mathematically impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds. The idea is a "Statistcal Immposibility". For example, it is theoretically possible that you could blow up a junk yard and all the flying pieces would land and form themselves into a Cadillac - that is possible. But the odds against it are so high that it constitutes a "Statistcal Immposibility". Same goes for evolution. That only leaves one possibility: God. There's your proof, mathematically arrived at.

 

[AV1611VET]

If Christians think the claims have been substantiated then I would like them to show me that they are not simply mistaken. I would like to know why they think they have been substantiated.

Trying to push us into using that 5-letter word, are you?

 

[AV1611VET]

The idea that there is no God is mathematically impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds. The idea is a "Statistcal Immposibility". For example, it is theoretically possible that you could blow up a junk yard and all the flying pieces would land and form themselves into a Cadillac - that is possible. But the odds against it are so high that it constitutes a "Statistcal Immposibility". Same goes for evolution. That only leaves one possibility: God. There's your proof, mathematically arrived at.

That is correct --- I believe the odds have been calculated at 10[sup]120[/sup] power --- whereas anything 10[sup]50[/sup] power and higher is the definition of a mathematical impossibility.

(Impossibility --- not improbability.)

 

[3sigma]

That only leaves one possibility: God. There's your proof, mathematically arrived at.

Show me your actual working. Show me the equations, constants and variables you used. Prove to me that the only possibility is your God and that any other explanation is impossible. If you can’t prove that your God exists then why do you behave as though it has been proven? Why don’t you consider the claim that your God exists to be unconfirmed?

 

[3sigma]

Trying to push us into using that 5-letter word, are you?

If you mean ‘faith’ then no, I’m not asking you resort to that as an explanation because it doesn’t explain why you believe unsubstantiated and unverified claims, it just reiterates the fact that you do believe such claims. Faith is firm belief in something for which there is no proof. I’m asking why you believe something for which there is no proof.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you mean ‘faith’ then no, I’m not asking you resort to that as an explanation because it doesn’t explain why you believe unsubstantiated and unverified claims, it just reiterates the fact that you do believe such claims. Faith is firm belief in something for which there is no proof. I’m asking why you believe something for which there is no proof.

Au contraire --- faith is our evidence.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

FAITH = Facts Accepted In The Heart - (as opposed to facts accepted in the head).

 

[tansy]

To my mind, one proves things by trying them out. We've tried God out and found to our satisfaction that He does exist.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

My beliefs are substantiated and verified to my satisfaction, as I suspect are yours to you. If it was not so, then our beliefs would change.
Are our beliefs illogical or delusional? No. Is science really prepared to say the bulk of humanity every where and at all times has been illogical and delusional. Of course numbers do not make right, but at least one should ask which is more likely; that we are all illogical and delusional and only a small fraction of humans think rationally?

And what of the great minds among us now and through out history that have held beliefs in God or gods? Are they thinking illogically and delusional as well?

Can we demonstrate all elements of our beliefs materially? No, but it does not follow that the logic used to reach those is flawed simply because we cannot perform a science project to demonstrate it.

Are there elements of our beliefs that are illogical and/or at least beyond human comprehension? Well yes, the Trinity for one comes to mind. But our faith in these elements being true does not invalidate those other elements of our faith that are logical and evident to us by reason. For example; is it not fairly obvious that a god fully comprehendible by humans is no god at all?

Are there good arguments for God, creation and souls? I think so. Efficient Causality, change, several around contingency, design, degree of perfection, cause, miracles, consciousness, the idea of God existing, moral obligation, ontological, desires, consciousness and the already alluded to religious experience of the mass of humanity. Are these sufficient to substantiate and verify my belief in God to non-believers? Obviously not or all would believe. However if I ever needed substantiation or verification, these are more than enough for me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Show me your actual working. Show me the equations, constants and variables you used. Prove to me that the only possibility is your God and that any other explanation is impossible. If you can’t prove that your God exists then why do you behave as though it has been proven? Why don’t you consider the claim that your God exists to be unconfirmed?

Going on the universe being 20 billion years old (which I don't believe, but that's not the point here), that means that 6.307 x 10[sup]17[/sup] seconds have elapsed. In view of the fact that for life to occur, something like 100 enzymes* would have to link together in the correct order, that means that the chances of this happening are 1 in 100 x 99 x 98 x 97 x 96 etc., and this means that even if one chain per second were attempted, there is not enough time for life to have originated by chance.

* I think that's the right word.

 

[sk8Joyful]

If you mean ‘faith’ then no, I’m not asking you resort to that as an explanation because it doesn’t explain why you believe unsubstantiated and unverified claims, it just reiterates the fact that you do believe such claims. Faith is firm belief in something for which there is no proof. I’m asking why you believe something for which there is no proof.

What claims - are you thinking?
and
Proof? - how long have you noticed evidence, and done your own research to proof whatever.

 

[3sigma]

Au contraire --- faith is our evidence.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

FAITH = Facts Accepted In The Heart - (as opposed to facts accepted in the head).

Your description of faith here shows it to be imagination: the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality. Thank you for your explanation. It helps confirm that your God is imaginary and that religious believers use emotion rather than reason to arrive at their religious beliefs. As people provide more explanations, a clearer picture of why they believe unverified claims should emerge.

 

[3sigma]

To my mind, one proves things by trying them out. We've tried God out and found to our satisfaction that He does exist.

You appear to be saying that you think personal experiences and feelings are more reliable than sound, objective evidence in determining the truth of a claim. Thank you for your explanation. It helps confirm that religious believers rely on intuition and lack critical thinking skills.

 

[3sigma]

My beliefs are substantiated and verified to my satisfaction, as I suspect are yours to you.

The question is how easily are you satisfied? How weak or lax are your criteria for determining the truth of a claim? Do you use sound evidence to determine the truth of a claim or do you rely on intuition, personal feelings, emotions and imagination to arrive at your beliefs and fail to apply critical thinking to those beliefs? Please show me how you substantiated and verified those claims in the OP so that I may gauge your critical thinking ability.

Efficient Causality, change, several around contingency, design, degree of perfection, cause, miracles, consciousness, the idea of God existing, moral obligation, ontological, desires, consciousness and the already alluded to religious experience of the mass of humanity. Are these sufficient to substantiate and verify my belief in God to non-believers? Obviously not or all would believe. However if I ever needed substantiation or verification, these are more than enough for me.

Then it appears that you do rely on intuition, personal feelings, emotions, imagination and logical fallacies to arrive at your beliefs and fail to apply critical thinking to those beliefs. Thank you for your explanation. It also helps confirm that religious believers rely on intuition and lack critical thinking skills.

 

[3sigma]

Going on the universe being 20 billion years old (which I don't believe, but that's not the point here), that means that 6.307 x 1017 seconds have elapsed. In view of the fact that for life to occur, something like 100 enzymes* would have to link together in the correct order, that means that the chances of this happening are 1 in 100 x 99 x 98 x 97 x 96 etc., and this means that even if one chain per second were attempted, there is not enough time for life to have originated by chance.

I’m sorry, but this nonsense you’ve read on an apologetics web site somewhere contains several fundamental flaws that render it worthless. This is a long since debunked creationist claim. You can find the arguments falsifying this claim here, here and here. Now that you’ve been shown that this argument is false, please don’t use it again.

By the way, you evaded the questions I asked you in my previous [post=50414940]post[/post]. Please attempt to answer them.