Choosing a faith

No.
Evidence that He doesn't exist is evidence that He doesn't exist.
If I look at an empty table, this is evidence that my keys do not exist on that table.
Evidence that my keys exist at all... is validated evidence such as a vehicle I own that requires keys... that keys are shown to exist for other vehicles...We've looked in many, many places. A lot of those looks have been done where people have said "look! God must be there!"
And yet... God is never found. Anywhere.We've looked... for thousands of years... and not found God.That is evidence that He doesn't exist. Because we've looked.
There is no evidenced reason to consider God as a requirement for anything. Evidence that the resurrection wasn't historical:

• In any study ever done, humans have never been identified as capable of being resurrected
• Many people claim that they (or their uncle...) have been resurrected. If looked into, the result is always the same - they were mistaken of the situation, or over-stating what actually happened
• The Bible is known to be wrong about a great many things
• There is no indication that any of the "miracles" included in the Bible ever happened
• Verbal stories are known for being embellished to include "entertainment", even within days of the experience they're based on
• The Bible stories were passed verbally for years... decades... before being written down
• The Biblical story of Jesus includes many things that are included in other myths that are "before" Jesus:
  • The idea of coming back from the dead
  • Walking/travelling on water
  • Attempts at being killed as an infant
  • Virgin births
  • Spiritual healings
  • Moral leadership

This is all evidence that "accepting the resurrection as an historical event" is a bad place to start. If you were seeking the "truth" or #1 just as much as me... you would look for "a good place" to start from.
Our best known method for identifying truth says that when we want to identify reality - we should start from validated evidence.Since you are starting with "accepting the resurrection as an historical event" and I am not (because it is not validated evidence...) then you are quite clearly not seeking the "truth" as much as I am. You seem to be seeking something that requires accepting the resurrection as an historical event. Actually, they scream "natural processes!"Vast intelligent systems are complex, yes - but they are not overly complex.
Evolution is incredibly, ridiculously, insanely overly complex.
To the point that it's very obvious that no intelligence created it. In fact, if it was purposefully created, it certainly was not created by "intelligence" and was actually created by "absolute stupidity." It's that overly complex. It's not the discovery of processes that implies natural processes.
It's the discovery of natural processes that implies natural processes.When we look at how a whale evolved, we could have found intelligent design.
But, we didn't - we found natural processes.When we look at how eyes evolved, we could have found intelligent design.
But, we didn't - we found natural processes.When we look at how wings evolved, we could have found intelligent design.
But, we didn't - we found natural processes.When we look at how society evolved, we could have found intelligent design.
But, we didn't - we found natural processes.When we look at how morality evolved, we could have found intelligent design.
But, we didn't - we found natural processes. Fair enough.
You drive up in your F1 Pick-up Truck... and I say "hey... nice truck."
You can disagree with me all you want and insist that you're driving a car.
...but the F1 Pick-up Truck... is a truck.Actions must match words.The reason of "I can't bare to think of a contrary reason!" simply isn't good enough to say intelligent design has occurred.
Especially not when we've investigated, deeply, and all we find are natural processes.The idea of "I accept the resurrection as an historical event" simply isn't good enough to show you're after the truth.
It, quite directly, shows that you're after something that grows from accepting the resurrection as an historical event... regardless of whether or not it's actually true.I'm still not exactly sure what your highest priority is... but it's certainly not "identification of the truth."
It could be something extremely similar... like "identification of the truth as long as it includes the resurrection as an historical event." ...but that's still not "identification of the truth" as a highest priority.This also isn't "wrong."
You're allowed to have whatever priorities you'd like.
Just like you can have whatever car or truck you'd like.But if you pull up in your F1 Pick-up Truck...
I see that it's a truck.
And I'll continue to recommend that you stop calling it a car.

I don't speak biblical. I have no idea what this says or how it relates to the uselessness of the resurrection.

Gautama Buddha:

---

We are shaped by our thoughts; we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves.

---

OK, so now we get to be Buddhist. I think we should update the speculations on renewal. None of this, "I want to come back as an extant (pick a species)." No, I want to come back as a 4th Generation Cyborg from 1000 years in the future. If one were a believer this might mean something. But it hardly seems to matter given the fantasy. Neither one can accomplish the goal of getting you to the pearly gates when neither the gates nor the realm beyond are real.

There isn't. No. Message 63. That was months ago. Nothing's changed since then. A lack of evidence where there should be some if the conjecture is real is a scientific data point in opposition to your conjecture. A lack of evidence has become a data point in evidence.This is not a difficult concept. How can it be otherwise? I'm confused. I'm talking about your statement in Message 1759 "If someone is led by God to help someone in need, what scientific evidence would that produce?"Led by god? How? Do they get some unacknowledged, unfelt, unreal, majikal message lodged in their brain?"Hey, slip this guy a fiver."Or are you talking about a believer responding to their religious upbringing and taking an opportunity to perform in keeping with their faith?One is god's leading, requiring accompanying physics. The other is normal human acculturation requiring only a priest in a temple.Which one are you talking about?

That is all that there is. No one can show any reality to anything incorporeal. In this universe, so it appears, incorporeal is limited to the human imagination. You say that like it's a bad thing. Yes. That is the job of science; give an answer and get 100 more questions in return. If there is such a thing and it is physically available to us then, yes, of course, we will find it. And if we do then you know we will digest it, use it, weaponize it and turn it against the Ol' Bastard Himself. Payback's a bitch.

More like jumping to conclusions. AZPaul3 and I are not stating opposing views. We agree. AZPaul3 said "lack of evidence IS evidence." Nowhere does he say lack of evidence is evidence that something doesn't exist. He doesn't say that, he doesn't believe it, and no one here believes that. He's only saying that the lack of evidence *is* itself evidence of something.Yet you're trying to take his statement that means one thing and make it seem like it means another. Why are you doing that? After nearly 1800 messages can it really be out of ignorance? Or is it more like a determined campaign of studied and selective ignorance intended to deflect attention from views that truly have no evidence.Expanding on what AZPaul3 mean, he was saying that the lack of evidence is a fact that you're ignoring. You continue blissfully along your evidence-free path without recognizing that the lack of evidence is telling you something. That lack of evidence is not evidence that God doesn't exist. AZPaul3 never said that and doesn't believe that.His actual implication is that the path you've chosen is completely arbitrary. At one time and place people applying your approach concluded Odin and Thor were gods, at another that Zeus and Hera were gods, at another that Brahma and Vishnu were gods, at another that Jupiter and Juno were gods, at another that Vajrapāṇi and Mañjuśrī were gods, at another that God was the only god and at another that Allah was the only God.This huge diversity of opinion about the nature of the divine across time and geography is cross-confirming evidence that you have no evidence, yet you're ignoring that lack of evidence as if it weren't evidence that your conclusions couldn't possibly be anywhere close to the truth. Lack of evidence *is* evidence, just not evidence of absence as you attempted to imply AZPaul3 was saying.Why can't you just be honest and play things straight? The information we're providing isn't complicated or confusing, and it represents an extremely deep and broad scientific consensus, but instead of taking the information and delving into it and integrating it with what you already know you're instead fighting it by introducing obvious misdirections and confusions. Everything that happens or exists is evidence. The only difference between ordinary evidence (you look out the window and notice it's raining) and scientific evidence (you have a rain gauge) is the care and discipline of your evidence gathering methods.So if God exists then provide the evidence. Or if evidence of God doesn't exist today then provide a rational explanation why. This latter possibility of evidence becoming no longer available *is* something that can happen. Evidence of ancient upland landscapes from the age of the dinosaurs no longer exists because higher elevations erode away, and much of the ancient world has been lost to subduction. Evidence of the origin of the universe might disappear over the visible horizon in 5 or 10 billion years.So it is possible for all evidence of something to disappear. If there's no evidence of God today, then why is it missing, and why do you believe he exists. Please don't repeat your "intelligence can only be produced by intelligence" claim again without addressing the infinite regression. Repeating what I said earlier in another way, virtually everything is evidence, and ordinary everyday evidence can become scientific evidence if it is studied in a scientific manner. An ancient Egyptian tomb? Whooee, what spectacular but otherwise ordinary evidence of some anonymous ancient Egyptian royalty. But study that evidence scientifically and you might discover that the royalty was King Tut, that he died very young, that he participated in hunts, that royal burials of the period included certain practices, and myriad other things. There's no difference between ordinary evidence and scientific evidence. They're the same thing. It is the way you study that evidence that matters.An additional clarification. While any ordinary evidence can become scientific evidence if studied properly, the reverse is never true. For example, the evidence gathered by the LHC for the Higgs boson is scientific evidence. There is nothing ordinary or everyday about it.--Percy

Phat is here for the martyrdom. Maybe you don't realize how frustrating it is dealing with the same old crap from you guys year after year. It's like trying to house-train a puppy - but the puppy never learns.

If Phat did not get a perverse pleasure from it he would have left years ago. Do you think we should just let people spout idiocy without calling them on it? If you do, you are in the wrong place and should move along.
Have you ever thought that there is a reason why you only get support from the nut jobs?

The emoji was intended to get your attention because plain English obviously wasn't working.And it worked as far as getting your attention, but you've taken the wrong message from it. You're objecting to the style with which the message was communicated instead of receiving the message itself, namely that what you see as an expression of your religious beliefs is experienced by others as nauseating self-flattery.So if you refuse to understand plain English, and if visual aids are unacceptable to you, what is left? Mockery? Exaggeration? Caricature?My interpretation? You're raising distractions to avoid the real issues, but your mind is so steeped in Christian religious nonsense that you don't even realize you're doing it.--Percy

What is the real issue I'm avoiding. Is it lack of evidence?I have said several times that what I have is evidence is all subjective, and this is what I have. You claim that doesn't constitute evidence in your world, but it works for me.
1/ I have a written evidence in the Bible
2/ I have the fact that life and particularly sentient life exists
3/ I have the fact that we can distinguish good from evil
4/ I have life experience with the experience of love and hate, joy and sadness,
ugliness and beauty etc.I agree none of that is scientific and is rejected by pretty much everyone here. I also agree that it is not conclusive. That's fine but it is the answer I have for you wanting evidence and beyond that it is faith.Now then I posted this earlier and you chose to ignore. You take great delight in mocking other views but I have no recollection of you ever defending your own. How about an answer. You say you're a theist. This is from Webster's.

quote:

---

belief in the existence of a god or gods
specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.

---

​

It wasn't ignored. You posted that only a couple days ago and I'm at least a week behind. I mostly respond in chronological order, the post you're responding to a rare exception, although this one, too, is out of order. Anyway, this will be my only post today, it's all I have time for. It is so easy to create a real list, just click on peek to see how it's done. It literally took me only 15 seconds to change your "list" over to a real list.My views do not fit into any of the world's religions. There isn't even any religion in the world that you could say my beliefs are similar to. That was the point I was trying to make when I said, "I'm a theist, just not a Christian. Or a Jew or a Hindu or a Muslim or a Buddhist." You even quote me saying it.Somewhere in this thread I also told you that I know I have no evidence for what I believe, so the questions you just asked make no sense. I don't know if God created life or not. I don't know if he intervenes or not. I don't know his nature, and I don't know if he cares about us or is even aware of us. Witgenstein: Whereof one cannot speak one must remain silent. Translation: If you ain't got no evidence then the proper answer is, "I don't know."I did not come to my beliefs from misguided thinking about evidence that isn't really evidence. They spring from within and just are. They don't make any sense. Any effort I made to make sense of them would just be post facto rationalization. But I believe them anyway. That's what faith is.AbE: I may have said one thing that's misleading. I called myself a theist, but I don't know if God intervenes in the universe. Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. If a theist is someone who believes God intervenes, and a deist is someone who believes he doesn't, then what do you call someone who doesn't know? I have no idea.--Percy

I get that but it is not my point. That statement is just a distraction. You stated that you ere a theist. Of course you don't know. I don't know that what I believe is correct or not. To say that your beliefs just spring from within is a meaningless cop out. If someone claims to be a theist or even a deist it does mean they believe at the very least in an external intelligence. It isn't a case of knowing but simply believing and that belief has to stem from life experience or from other influences. What is it that makes you believe in an external intelligence. It doesn't mean that you need hard or even soft evidence but something has caused you to believe that there is a higher intelligence. You say that you have faith that what you believe is true. Faith in what?You are happy to attack my beliefs and the beliefs of others, but you don't have the courage to tell us what it is you believe and why. Phat in particular gets mocked here all the time, and so did Faith for that matter. But they at least had the guts to stand up for what they believe.

It isn't any of your God Damn business what he are anyone else believes. For many of us, our beliefs are private. We do not feel the need to share them with strangers or try to convince other people that our beliefs are correct or even accurate.
So shove your christian self-righteousness where the sun don't shine.I actually rewrote this because the first rendition sounded too harsh.

I note that you are angry at Christian "self-righteousness" but curse God by saying God Damn. It is really Him that you are angry at. And don't tell me i'm wrong...its my opinion and I'll say it. You and your private beliefs need to reckon with each other.

I suspect that you dont worry about it too much...which is fine in my opinion. At the end of the day, none of us really know. I guess I would call such a person either an agnostic or a seeker. You seem to be a seeker of evidence and it is that which allows you to sleep at night. Just my opinion, though.

Could it be that you dont own the house that the puppy is trying to mark as his territory? Just sayin