1818 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

 

 

SH:  >>> We all live by faith.

 

In what way do I live by faith???

Faith is belief in a person or thing without complete evidence.  Everything has incomplete evidence, therefore we all live by faith.  Faith is not blind, but intelligent and commences with the conviction and commitment of the mind based on adequate but incomplete evidence.

 

Since you do not have complete knowledge of anything, you live by faith.  You trust in order to live.

 

 By completely skewing the definition of faith, you have proven that religious faith is the same thing  or similar to that, and is therefore reasonable. Over generalization fallacy is over generalizing. 

 

And you have given no definition but your usual empty name calling.  The reality is I have given the definition of faith.  Trust me. 

[shadowhawk]

 

 

SH: >>> We all live by faith.

In what way do I live by faith???

You live in faith by assuming, eg, that tomorrow morning the sun will rise. Or that the earth will continue its rotation, or oxygen will remain breathable or that gravity isn't suddenly disrupted and we're all slung into far out craziness. We all live in this sort of "faith" that the natural order of reality will continue to support us with the same consistently from prior experience. But that's not really an absolute given, as we all clearly know. So I agree with Shadowhawk on this point (if that's the claim, anyway)

 

 

Ok none of that redifining of faith justifies religious faith. just because you attempt to use the same word does not mean that supernatural beliefs suddenly become valid. 

 

Nor have you shown That they are not valid.  Non religious faith is not suddenly valid also.  You must give evidence for atheistic faith.

[serp777]

 

 

 

SH: >>> We all live by faith.

In what way do I live by faith???

You live in faith by assuming, eg, that tomorrow morning the sun will rise. Or that the earth will continue its rotation, or oxygen will remain breathable or that gravity isn't suddenly disrupted and we're all slung into far out craziness. We all live in this sort of "faith" that the natural order of reality will continue to support us with the same consistently from prior experience. But that's not really an absolute given, as we all clearly know. So I agree with Shadowhawk on this point (if that's the claim, anyway)

 

 

Ok none of that redifining of faith justifies religious faith. just because you attempt to use the same word does not mean that supernatural beliefs suddenly become valid. 

 

Nor have you shown That they are not valid.  Non religious faith is not suddenly valid also.  You must give evidence for atheistic faith.

 

Ad ignorantium again and again and again. I do not need to provide evidence for leprechauns or santa clause or any other claim with questionable reasonableness. I'm not an a leprechaunist. You have the burden of proof to show how it is reasonable. The usual fallacies as usual. There is no such thing as atheistic faith; quite an ignorant statement. All intelligent atheists today will say they are not technically 100% atheists because they cannot disprove any supernatural beliefs, including leprechauns, the celestial teapot, Zeus, thor, and of course polytheism, etc. 

[serp777]

 

 

 

SH:  >>> We all live by faith.

 

In what way do I live by faith???

Faith is belief in a person or thing without complete evidence.  Everything has incomplete evidence, therefore we all live by faith.  Faith is not blind, but intelligent and commences with the conviction and commitment of the mind based on adequate but incomplete evidence.

 

Since you do not have complete knowledge of anything, you live by faith.  You trust in order to live.

 

 By completely skewing the definition of faith, you have proven that religious faith is the same thing  or similar to that, and is therefore reasonable. Over generalization fallacy is over generalizing. 

 

And you have given no definition but your usual empty name calling.  The reality is I have given the definition of faith.  Trust me. 

 

Name calling that doesn't exist. Nice job. Quote my name calling here please and report me. I guarantee you mods will not think I am being insulting here. 

"The reality is I have given the definition of faith"

 

The reality is that your over encompassing definition is out of scope. Faith could be more reasonably defined as absolute belief in a currently unanswerable/unverifiable/unprovable claims. If you know God certainly exists then that is faith. If you think God probably exists and provide evidence for it, then you are hypothesizing/speculating. If you think God probably doesn't exists, like most athiests, then you are again hypothesizing/speculating. If you know God certainly doesn't exist, then that is faith. 

 

"Trust me. "

WHy would I do that? 

[shadowhawk]

 

 

SH:  >>> We all live by faith.

 

In what way do I live by faith???

Faith is belief in a person or thing without complete evidence.  Everything has incomplete evidence, therefore we all live by faith.  Faith is not blind, but intelligent and commences with the conviction and commitment of the mind based on adequate but incomplete evidence.

 

Since you do not have complete knowledge of anything, you live by faith.  You trust in order to live.

 

 

No, I don't live with by faith in the least.

I absolutely know my iPhone and other electronics will work as I expect them too (unless they break), I know the sun will appear each day, I know eating certain foods will keep me healthier, etc.  I have compelling evidence, statistics, and reasoning behind these truths, that puts them will beyond the the flimsy idea of faith.

I do not live my life with any thought of faith -- it's a concept I do not need or use.

I don't even say that I have "faith" that humans will one day live greatly extended lifespans -- instead I have the expectation that breakthroughs will come to pass that allow this, likely in this century.  So really, in no way does faith play any role in my life.

 

You do not have exhaustive knowledge of anything.  You cross the street but you don't know a car will not come along and hit you.  Trust is the key word and why do you trust?  Because you do not know for sure.  You know nothing for sure.  Though you do not want to use the word "faith," you live it all the time.You have the same faith I do.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

 

 

SH: >>> We all live by faith.

In what way do I live by faith???

You live in faith by assuming, eg, that tomorrow morning the sun will rise. Or that the earth will continue its rotation, or oxygen will remain breathable or that gravity isn't suddenly disrupted and we're all slung into far out craziness. We all live in this sort of "faith" that the natural order of reality will continue to support us with the same consistently from prior experience. But that's not really an absolute given, as we all clearly know. So I agree with Shadowhawk on this point (if that's the claim, anyway)

 

 

Ok none of that redifining of faith justifies religious faith. just because you attempt to use the same word does not mean that supernatural beliefs suddenly become valid. 

 

Nor have you shown That they are not valid.  Non religious faith is not suddenly valid also.  You must give evidence for atheistic faith.

 

Ad ignorantium again and again and again. I do not need to provide evidence for leprechauns or santa clause or any other claim with questionable reasonableness. I'm not an a leprechaunist. You have the burden of proof to show how it is reasonable. The usual fallacies as usual. There is no such thing as atheistic faith; quite an ignorant statement. All intelligent atheists today will say they are not technically 100% atheists because they cannot disprove any supernatural beliefs, including leprechauns, the celestial teapot, Zeus, thor, and of course polytheism, etc. 

 

As usual no evidence, just more name calling and logical .fallacy.  Atheists can't prove materialism.nor can they prove there is no god.

 

[serp777]

 

 

 

 

 

SH: >>> We all live by faith.

In what way do I live by faith???

You live in faith by assuming, eg, that tomorrow morning the sun will rise. Or that the earth will continue its rotation, or oxygen will remain breathable or that gravity isn't suddenly disrupted and we're all slung into far out craziness. We all live in this sort of "faith" that the natural order of reality will continue to support us with the same consistently from prior experience. But that's not really an absolute given, as we all clearly know. So I agree with Shadowhawk on this point (if that's the claim, anyway)

 

 

Ok none of that redifining of faith justifies religious faith. just because you attempt to use the same word does not mean that supernatural beliefs suddenly become valid. 

 

Nor have you shown That they are not valid.  Non religious faith is not suddenly valid also.  You must give evidence for atheistic faith.

 

Ad ignorantium again and again and again. I do not need to provide evidence for leprechauns or santa clause or any other claim with questionable reasonableness. I'm not an a leprechaunist. You have the burden of proof to show how it is reasonable. The usual fallacies as usual. There is no such thing as atheistic faith; quite an ignorant statement. All intelligent atheists today will say they are not technically 100% atheists because they cannot disprove any supernatural beliefs, including leprechauns, the celestial teapot, Zeus, thor, and of course polytheism, etc. 

 

As usual no evidence, just more name calling and logical .fallacy.  Atheists can't prove materialism.nor can they prove there is no god.

 

ALso provided no evidence at all and commits more strawmans. Cannot read my argument either. Christians cannot disprove materialism nor can they prove there is a God, or that there aren't multiple Gods. 

[shadowhawk]

 

 

 

 

SH:  >>> We all live by faith.

 

In what way do I live by faith???

Faith is belief in a person or thing without complete evidence.  Everything has incomplete evidence, therefore we all live by faith.  Faith is not blind, but intelligent and commences with the conviction and commitment of the mind based on adequate but incomplete evidence.

 

Since you do not have complete knowledge of anything, you live by faith.  You trust in order to live.

 

 By completely skewing the definition of faith, you have proven that religious faith is the same thing  or similar to that, and is therefore reasonable. Over generalization fallacy is over generalizing. 

 

And you have given no definition but your usual empty name calling.  The reality is I have given the definition of faith.  Trust me. 

 

Name calling that doesn't exist. Nice job. Quote my name calling here please and report me. I guarantee you mods will not think I am being insulting here. 

"The reality is I have given the definition of faith"

 

The reality is that your over encompassing definition is out of scope. Faith could be more reasonably defined as absolute belief in a currently unanswerable/unverifiable/unprovable claims. If you know God certainly exists then that is faith. If you think God probably exists and provide evidence for it, then you are hypothesizing/speculating. If you think God probably doesn't exists, like most athiests, then you are again hypothesizing/speculating. If you know God certainly doesn't exist, then that is faith. 

 

"Trust me. "

WHy would I do that? 

 

Christians have "faith," such as I have repeatedly described.  The definition comes from The Bible and 2000 years of Church usage.  So what have you done?  You created a cartoon definition of faith which no one believes in.  Your definition says:
1.  "Absolute belief and certainty."  No one has that.  It doesn’t exist.
2.  Unanswerable, unverifiable, unprovable.  Theism does have answers, some things can be verified and absolute proof exists only as a concept in math which is subject to the incompleteness therm as we have repeatedly discussed.  What nonsense

Your definition of faith is a straw man which you have created to knock down.  Your definition of atheism likewise is shallow and in fact is Agnosticism.  Don’t let Christians speak for themselves, you might learn something.

Trust me.

[serp777]

 

 

 

 

 

SH:  >>> We all live by faith.

 

In what way do I live by faith???

Faith is belief in a person or thing without complete evidence.  Everything has incomplete evidence, therefore we all live by faith.  Faith is not blind, but intelligent and commences with the conviction and commitment of the mind based on adequate but incomplete evidence.

 

Since you do not have complete knowledge of anything, you live by faith.  You trust in order to live.

 

 By completely skewing the definition of faith, you have proven that religious faith is the same thing  or similar to that, and is therefore reasonable. Over generalization fallacy is over generalizing. 

 

And you have given no definition but your usual empty name calling.  The reality is I have given the definition of faith.  Trust me. 

 

Name calling that doesn't exist. Nice job. Quote my name calling here please and report me. I guarantee you mods will not think I am being insulting here. 

"The reality is I have given the definition of faith"

 

The reality is that your over encompassing definition is out of scope. Faith could be more reasonably defined as absolute belief in a currently unanswerable/unverifiable/unprovable claims. If you know God certainly exists then that is faith. If you think God probably exists and provide evidence for it, then you are hypothesizing/speculating. If you think God probably doesn't exists, like most athiests, then you are again hypothesizing/speculating. If you know God certainly doesn't exist, then that is faith. 

 

"Trust me. "

WHy would I do that? 

 

Christians have "faith," such as I have repeatedly described.  The definition comes from The Bible and 2000 years of Church usage.  So what have you done?  You created a cartoon definition of faith which no one believes in.  Your definition says:
1.  "Absolute belief and certainty."  No one has that.  It doesn’t exist.
2.  Unanswerable, unverifiable, unprovable.  Theism does have answers, some things can be verified and absolute proof exists only as a concept in math which is subject to the incompleteness therm as we have repeatedly discussed.  What nonsense

Your definition of faith is a straw man which you have created to knock down.  Your definition of atheism likewise is shallow and in fact is Agnosticism.  Don’t let Christians speak for themselves, you might learn something.

Trust me.

 

1.  "Absolute belief and certainty."  No one has that.  It doesn’t exist.

 

Plenty of people believe that God is an absolute certainty. You don't think for everyone; many religious people believe in absolute certainty of their God. I'm glad you agree that no one knows the truth of reality, lincluding yourself. God is not an absolute certainty at all. That would be heresy back in the day though and your faith is not as strong as theirs, especially since you seem to require evidence. 

 

"2.  Unanswerable, unverifiable, unprovable.  Theism does have answers, some things can be verified and absolute proof exists only as a concept in math which is subject to the incompleteness therm as we have repeatedly discussed.  What nonsense"

 

Huge fallacy here. Incompleteness has nothing to do with Christian truth. It supports no religion and does not support religion with it's implications as has been argued numerous times on this thread. Math depends on axioms which are not themselves provable; so absolute proof does not exist there either because of it's foundations. 

 

"The definition comes from The Bible and 2000 years of Church usage. "

 

I don't care if the Church defined it. Plenty of other religions have defined faith as absolute certainty in their beliefs. Muslims are absolutely sure allah exists. Plenty of Christians believe absolutely that their beliefs are true. Your faith is comparatively limited. 

Edited by serp777, 20 August 2014 - 01:58 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Serp777:  ALso provided no evidence at all and commits more strawmans. Cannot read my argument either. Christians cannot disprove materialism nor can they prove there is a God, or that there aren't multiple Gods.

Christians are duelists and believe in materialism.  The ground of being is God for the materialist world.  We do not want to disprove materialism.  The physical is real and measurable and caused.  The material world cannot explain its own existence and there is evidence of God.  There are defeaters for most gods but that is not the topic here.

[sthira]

Shadowhawk: if you were God is this the world you would have created?

No sence I am not God I don't even start to have the brains or wisdom to do it..

Can you imagine a better world than this world?

Yes, heaven.

Can you imagine ways in which this world could be a nicer place to live? Here's one way: how about we live in a world where cancer never strikes a baby ever again?

Can you imagine this world as a better world, Shadowhawk?

[shadowhawk]

You don’t think for Christians either and I can tell you my definition fits the vast majority of Christians and I have never heard of such a definition as yours.  Faith is trust but there is no absolute evidence of anything.  Incompleteness does have theological implications.  There are no 100% proofs and we all act by faith.  You are right, even math requires faith.

 Don’t let Christians define faith, you define it with your straw man nonsense and then proceed to knock it down.  As if you have done something.  What a farce.  I am Orthodox and hold the same views on faith as the vast vast majority of Christians.  Now you pretend to know my views are limited.
 

[shadowhawk]

 

 

 

 

Shadowhawk: if you were God is this the world you would have created?

No sence I am not God I don't even start to have the brains or wisdom to do it..

Can you imagine a better world than this world?

Yes, heaven.

Can you imagine ways in which this world could be a nicer place to live? Here's one way: how about we live in a world where cancer never strikes a baby ever again?

Can you imagine this world as a better world, Shadowhawk?

 

The best world I can imagine is a world of freedom of choice.  However that means we may choose wrong.  So a free world may have evil in it or be the way it shouldn't be.  The best world is a world where we care for each other.  This means I care for the sick.  The best world is a world, not where nothing evil ever happens but where babies are eventually taken care of and not destroyed.  They are valued.

[serp777]

 

Serp777:  ALso provided no evidence at all and commits more strawmans. Cannot read my argument either. Christians cannot disprove materialism nor can they prove there is a God, or that there aren't multiple Gods.

Christians are duelists and believe in materialism.  The ground of being is God for the materialist world.  We do not want to disprove materialism.  The physical is real and measurable and caused.  The material world cannot explain its own existence and there is evidence of God.  There are defeaters for most gods but that is not the topic here.

 

 

You just said earlier that absolute certainty didn't exist. The physical world could be fake and we might be living in the matrix. 

 

"There are defeaters for most gods but that is not the topic here."

 

Well it's relevant because proof for scientology would be proof against Christianity, and the title of the thread is evidence for Christainity. 

[serp777]

You don’t think for Christians either and I can tell you my definition fits the vast majority of Christians and I have never heard of such a definition as yours.  Faith is trust but there is no absolute evidence of anything.  Incompleteness does have theological implications.  There are no 100% proofs and we all act by faith.  You are right, even math requires faith.

 Don’t let Christians define faith, you define it with your straw man nonsense and then proceed to knock it down.  As if you have done something.  What a farce.  I am Orthodox and hold the same views on faith as the vast vast majority of Christians.  Now you pretend to know my views are limited.
 

 

No, math is a hypothesis with significant supporting evidence. You're just broadly defining faith to include everything, and then using a semantics argument to justify that all of that broadly defined faith would be equally reasonable. You're trying to have faith include hypotheses, and I'm saying different words were made for a reason. 

 

" Don’t let Christians define faith, you define it with your straw man nonsense and then proceed to knock it down. "

 

You haven't shown how it's a fallacy, therefore you commit the fallacy fallacy (which is a subset of red herrings meant to deflect and distract). 

 

"What a farce.  I am Orthodox and hold the same views on faith as the vast vast majority of Christians. "

An argument from popularity and personal anecdotes about what definitions you'd think they'd agree with is not evidence for anything. 

 

"Now you pretend to know my views are limited"

Your faith is comparatively limited by definition. I know many muslims and Christians who have claimed their belief of absolute certainty that God or Allah exists. Since you don't think God is absolutely true, your faith is < than theirs. 

Edited by serp777, 20 August 2014 - 02:53 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Math is a symbolic language describing the material and measureable world  The world is incomplete and cannot explain itself and this is reflected in math.  I am not going on arguing with your straw man definition of faith.  It is your imagination and invention.  Here again is what faith is:

----------------------------------

Faith is belief in a person or thing without complete evidence.  Everything has incomplete evidence, therefore we all live by faith.  Faith is not blind, but intelligent and commences with the conviction and commitment of the mind based on adequate but incomplete evidence.

American biblical scholar Archibald Thomas Robertson stated that the Greek word pistis used for faith in the New Testament (over two hundred forty times), and rendered "assurance" in Acts 17:31 (KJV), is "an old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence."  To be persuaded by belief that has warrant, a trust in and commitment to what we have reason to believe is true.  It is belief that the hypotheses we hold will be substantiated in the future, in fact.  Trust.  Faith should be defined as “trusting, holding to, and acting on what one has good reason to believe is true in the face of incomplete evidence and difficulties.”

“Faith in Christianity is based on the work and teachings of Jesus Christ. Christianity declares not to be distinguished by faith, but by the object of its faith. Rather than being passive, faith leads to an active life aligned with the ideals and the example of the life of Jesus. It sees the mystery of God and his grace and seeks to know and become obedient to God. To a Christian, faith is not static but causes one to learn more of God and grow, and has its origin in God.

In Christianity, faith causes change as it seeks a greater understanding of God. Faith is not fideism or simple obedience to a set of rules or statements.  Before Christians have faith, they must understand in whom and in what they have faith. Without understanding, there cannot be true faith, and that understanding is built on the foundation of the community of believers, the scriptures and traditions and on the personal experiences of the believer. In English translations of the New Testament, the word faith generally corresponds to the Greek noun (pistis) or the Greek verb (pisteuo), meaning "to trust, to have confidence, faithfulness, to be reliable, to assure".”

http://en.wikipedia....Faith#Criticism











 

 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 20 August 2014 - 03:22 AM.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

Serp777:  ALso provided no evidence at all and commits more strawmans. Cannot read my argument either. Christians cannot disprove materialism nor can they prove there is a God, or that there aren't multiple Gods.

Christians are duelists and believe in materialism.  The ground of being is God for the materialist world.  We do not want to disprove materialism.  The physical is real and measurable and caused.  The material world cannot explain its own existence and there is evidence of God.  There are defeaters for most gods but that is not the topic here.

 

 

You just said earlier that absolute certainty didn't exist. The physical world could be fake and we might be living in the matrix. 

 

"There are defeaters for most gods but that is not the topic here."

 

Well it's relevant because proof for scientology would be proof against Christianity, and the title of the thread is evidence for Christainity. 

 

Absolute proof does not exist.  Are you saying it does?

Why don't you start a thread,  "Evidence For Scientology," if you actually believe this.

Edited by shadowhawk, 20 August 2014 - 03:29 AM.

[serp777]

 

 

 

Serp777:  ALso provided no evidence at all and commits more strawmans. Cannot read my argument either. Christians cannot disprove materialism nor can they prove there is a God, or that there aren't multiple Gods.

Christians are duelists and believe in materialism.  The ground of being is God for the materialist world.  We do not want to disprove materialism.  The physical is real and measurable and caused.  The material world cannot explain its own existence and there is evidence of God.  There are defeaters for most gods but that is not the topic here.

 

 

You just said earlier that absolute certainty didn't exist. The physical world could be fake and we might be living in the matrix. 

 

"There are defeaters for most gods but that is not the topic here."

 

Well it's relevant because proof for scientology would be proof against Christianity, and the title of the thread is evidence for Christainity. 

 

Absolute proof does not exist.  Are you saying it does?

Why don't you start a thread,  "Evidence For Scientology," if you actually believe this.

 

Because, like I said, evidence for another religion would be evidence against Christianity which would be relevant to this thread since it's about the evidence relating to Christianity. WHy create a bunch of unnecessary superfluous threads when we have plenty already? 

[serp777]

Math is a symbolic language describing the material and measureable world  The world is incomplete and cannot explain itself and this is reflected in math.  I am not going on arguing with your straw man definition of faith.  It is your imagination and invention.  Here again is what faith is:

----------------------------------

Faith is belief in a person or thing without complete evidence.  Everything has incomplete evidence, therefore we all live by faith.  Faith is not blind, but intelligent and commences with the conviction and commitment of the mind based on adequate but incomplete evidence.

American biblical scholar Archibald Thomas Robertson stated that the Greek word pistis used for faith in the New Testament (over two hundred forty times), and rendered "assurance" in Acts 17:31 (KJV), is "an old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence."  To be persuaded by belief that has warrant, a trust in and commitment to what we have reason to believe is true.  It is belief that the hypotheses we hold will be substantiated in the future, in fact.  Trust.  Faith should be defined as “trusting, holding to, and acting on what one has good reason to believe is true in the face of incomplete evidence and difficulties.”

“Faith in Christianity is based on the work and teachings of Jesus Christ. Christianity declares not to be distinguished by faith, but by the object of its faith. Rather than being passive, faith leads to an active life aligned with the ideals and the example of the life of Jesus. It sees the mystery of God and his grace and seeks to know and become obedient to God. To a Christian, faith is not static but causes one to learn more of God and grow, and has its origin in God.

In Christianity, faith causes change as it seeks a greater understanding of God. Faith is not fideism or simple obedience to a set of rules or statements.  Before Christians have faith, they must understand in whom and in what they have faith. Without understanding, there cannot be true faith, and that understanding is built on the foundation of the community of believers, the scriptures and traditions and on the personal experiences of the believer. In English translations of the New Testament, the word faith generally corresponds to the Greek noun (pistis) or the Greek verb (pisteuo), meaning "to trust, to have confidence, faithfulness, to be reliable, to assure".”

http://en.wikipedia....Faith#Criticism











 

 

"It is belief that the hypotheses we hold will be substantiated in the future, in fact. "

 

Or it's just called a hypothesis, which is the point of making hypotheses. Now you're saying faith = hypothesis. What a pointless repurposing of a perfectly good definition. Faith deals with the absolutes that have no evidence. 

[shifter]

Faith deals with the absolutes that have no evidence.

 

This entire argument about evidence for a religion is stupid. The above is totally correct.

 

Religion works on faith. It is a belief system. BELIEF. If someone is tirelessly working to find evidence and requires such evidence to believe then there is NO FAITH. Even looking for evidence shows a lack of faith.

 

I have no problem with people of faith. I respect them and believe we are all entitled to believe and think what we choose. But a religion that works on evidence, isn't really a faith based religion anymore. If you read the bible even as Jesus performed miracles and the like, apparantly everything he did worked because of faith. So if you follow Christianity, then all you need is faith. NOT evidence.

 

 

Don't ask how it happened. Just accept it.

Edited by shifter, 20 August 2014 - 05:06 AM.

[DukeNukem]

 

You cross the street but you don't know a car will not come along and hit you.  Trust is the key word and why do you trust?  Because you do not know for sure.  You know nothing for sure.  Though you do not want to use the word "faith," you live it all the time.You have the same faith I do.

 

 

I know that if I look both ways, and allow electromagnetic signals to penetrate my eyes, signal my brain, and fire specific neurons, that I can make a 100% accurate -- no faith required -- decision to cross the street without a vehicle hitting with me.  Trust, nor faith, enters my decision process.  In the EXACT same way, I know if I throw a ball into the air, the mass of the earth, which has created a strong gravitational field, will pull the ball back down to the ground.  THERE IS NO FAITH OR TRUST REQUIRED IN THIS TRANSACTION WITH NATURE.

 

When it comes to "faith," a quote in The Princess Bride comes to mind for you:  

Attached Files

•  the princess bride that word quote.jpeg   32.9KB   0 downloads

[sthira]

Shadowhawk: if you were God is this the world you would have created?

No sence I am not God I don't even start to have the brains or wisdom to do it..

Can you imagine a better world than this world?

Yes, heaven.

Can you imagine ways in which this world could be a nicer place to live? Here's one way: how about we live in a world where cancer never strikes a baby ever again?

Can you imagine this world as a better world, Shadowhawk?

The best world I can imagine is a world of freedom of choice. However that means we may choose wrong. So a free world may have evil in it or be the way it shouldn't be. The best world is a world where we care for each other. This means I care for the sick. The best world is a world, not where nothing evil ever happens but where babies are eventually taken care of and not destroyed. They are valued.

Does God value children struck with cancer?

[shadowhawk]

sep777:  Because, like I said, evidence for another religion would be evidence against Christianity which would be relevant to this thread since it's about the evidence relating to Christianity. WHy create a bunch of unnecessary superfluous threads when we have plenty already?
It is belief that the hypotheses we hold will be substantiated in the future, in fact. "
Or it's just called a hypothesis, which is the point of making hypotheses. Now you're saying faith = hypothesis. What a pointless repurposing of a perfectly good definition. Faith deals with the absolutes that have no evidence.

response:
1.  Evidence for other religions can also be evidence for a religious world view.  Many of the arguments I presented in section one of this topic are also evidence for some other religions such as the Kalam argument.  The second question, after we have given evidence for God is which God?  I don’t think you have read the thread.
2.  Hypotheses start out as a belief and the belief (faith) usually has some but incomplete evidence.  I did not say belief = hypothesis.  Belief is part of the process.  Faith is based on incomplete evidence.  Christianity does not deal with absolutes that have no evidence.  This is a straw man which you have created and is nonsense.

shifter: This entire argument about evidence for a religion is stupid. The above is totally correct.
Religion works on faith. It is a belief system. BELIEF. If someone is tirelessly working to find evidence and requires such evidence to believe then there is NO FAITH. Even looking for evidence shows a lack of faith.

This is why those like sep777 say religious people believe in unicorns, magic teacups and the Spaghetti Monster.   You believe in Leprechauns!  You do it sincerely but you are a fool. Faith is not dumb or ignorant.  Jesus Christ really did exist and we have evidence for it.  Not looking for evidence means you lack the faith any can be found and you might as well smoke a joint.  

DukeNukem:  I know that if I look both ways, and allow electromagnetic signals to penetrate my eyes, signal my brain, and fire specific neurons, that I can make a 100% accurate -- no faith required -- decision to cross the street without a vehicle hitting with me.  Trust, nor faith, enters my decision process.  In the EXACT same way, I know if I throw a ball into the air, the mass of the earth, which has created a strong gravitational field, will pull the ball back down to the ground.  THERE IS NO FAITH OR TRUST REQUIRED IN THIS TRANSACTION WITH NATURE.

1. You trust that you missed nothing when you looked both ways.  How do you know your eyes are working 100% Accidents do happen and you can count on it.
2.  You trust the signals even though signals have been known to fail.  You also trust others which you have no control over to see the signals and not run the red light.   You trust their brakes will not fail.
3.  You trust gravity will never fail yet at times past it would not have supported your ball experiment and will not do so in the future.  The chances are you will die and you will have to trust what ever you believe will happen.  In fact your entire life is lived by faith and you don’t know anything with 100% surety but that does not keep you from going on.  You have faith.

sthira:  Does God value children struck with cancer?

Yes, I said God values them and I might add He values us all.  “ The best world I can imagine is a world of freedom of choice. However that means we may choose wrong. So a free world may have evil in it or be the way it shouldn't be. The best world is a world where we care for each other. This means I care for the sick. The best world is a world, not where nothing evil ever happens but where babies are eventually taken care of and not destroyed. They are valued.”  Such value and such a world is found in God.





 

[shifter]

 

shifter: This entire argument about evidence for a religion is stupid. The above is totally correct.
Religion works on faith. It is a belief system. BELIEF. If someone is tirelessly working to find evidence and requires such evidence to believe then there is NO FAITH. Even looking for evidence shows a lack of faith.

This is why those like sep777 say religious people believe in unicorns, magic teacups and the Spaghetti Monster.   You believe in Leprechauns!  You do it sincerely but you are a fool. Faith is not dumb or ignorant.  Jesus Christ really did exist and we have evidence for it.  Not looking for evidence means you lack the faith any can be found and you might as well smoke a joint.

 

 

 

 

 

I accept the evidence and history of Jesus history. Not everyone agrees with his significance - that's up to them

 

I am talking about the faith of what there can not be real world physical evidence for. For example, Jesus said (or his deciples) that the key to salvation was through him. Belief in him as the son of God and as your Lord etc. You can't gather physical evidence that simply having the belief of someones significance will get you to Gods kingdom after death. There is no real world phyical evidence of Heaven. Yet we believe. We believe through faith alone. Not evidence. Not searching for a physical place that is Heaven and then and only then to be content in it's existence.

 

You have faith it exists. But you cant aquire evidence for it's existence. Nor should you if you have faith. Faith is blind. So what? That's half the point of it.
 

 

 

Edited by shifter, 21 August 2014 - 01:56 AM.

[shadowhawk]

shifter: I accept the evidence and history of Jesus history. Not everyone agrees with his significance - that's up to them
I am talking about the faith of what there can not be real world physical evidence for. For example, Jesus said (or his deciples) that the key to salvation was through him. Belief in him as the son of God and as your Lord etc. You can't gather physical evidence that simply having the belief of someones significance will get you to Gods kingdom after death. There is no real world phyical evidence of Heaven. Yet we believe. We believe through faith alone. Not evidence. Not searching for a physical place that is Heaven and then and only then to be content in it's existence.
You have faith it exists. But you cant aquire evidence for it's existence. Nor should you if you have faith. Faith is blind. So what? That's half the point of it

I once approached a group of Students sitting at a table drinking coffee.  I said hi and told them I was going to tell them something that was true but they would not believe.  They were all ears.  I am from the planet Kluetep and I have been sent here to tell you what life is all about, I said.  Have you ever heard about the Man in the Moon?  He is my leader.  To make the story short two of the Girls prayed with me and asked Moon Man into their hearts.  I later explained to them why this was an error of faith.

Simply belief with no evidence, will get you Moon Man.  Blind faith.  That is the kind of faith Atheists have.  They have no evidence, yet they believe there is no God.

[shifter]

When Jesus healed a boy suffering seizures (back then epileptic fits were diagnosed as being possessed by demons), His diciples asked him how did he do it. Jesus responded by saying only Faith can heal that kind of sickness. (or words to that effect)

 

When he was on trial, he told Pilate that he was 'Not of this world'. Obviously he had no evidence to back that up :(

 

There is nothing wrong with religious scholars who delve into the history and trying to find meanings. But trying to find real physical evidence as to Gods very own existence?? I think that misses the point about faith.

 

 

Your moon man (personally if I were at the table I would think your crazy and would go along with it to keep the peace) is a concept to them created by you. That is just stupid faith. Nothing wrong with them if they asked for an equivilent of a bible or something in which they could follow you by.

 

Speghetti monsters and the like are just crappy things without foundation invented by regular men in jest. Perhaps one time the Christian faith was the same. Difference between the Speghetti monster and Christianity today is Christianity is embedded in human culture. Give the speghetti monster 2000 years.... lol

 

In seriousness, believing in God requires faith. Not evidence. If there was evidence, it would not be 'belief' it would be 'knowlege'.

 

For example,

I believe God is real (no evidence, just faith)

I know God is real (knowledge, backed up by evidence)

 

You'll notice in church they say 'I believe in.....'. Not 'I know......'

 

 

Edited by shifter, 21 August 2014 - 04:09 AM.

[serp777]

 

sep777:  Because, like I said, evidence for another religion would be evidence against Christianity which would be relevant to this thread since it's about the evidence relating to Christianity. WHy create a bunch of unnecessary superfluous threads when we have plenty already?
It is belief that the hypotheses we hold will be substantiated in the future, in fact. "
Or it's just called a hypothesis, which is the point of making hypotheses. Now you're saying faith = hypothesis. What a pointless repurposing of a perfectly good definition. Faith deals with the absolutes that have no evidence.

response:
1.  Evidence for other religions can also be evidence for a religious world view.  Many of the arguments I presented in section one of this topic are also evidence for some other religions such as the Kalam argument.  The second question, after we have given evidence for God is which God?  I don’t think you have read the thread.
2.  Hypotheses start out as a belief and the belief (faith) usually has some but incomplete evidence.  I did not say belief = hypothesis.  Belief is part of the process.  Faith is based on incomplete evidence.  Christianity does not deal with absolutes that have no evidence.  This is a straw man which you have created and is nonsense.

 

shifter: This entire argument about evidence for a religion is stupid. The above is totally correct.
Religion works on faith. It is a belief system. BELIEF. If someone is tirelessly working to find evidence and requires such evidence to believe then there is NO FAITH. Even looking for evidence shows a lack of faith.

This is why those like sep777 say religious people believe in unicorns, magic teacups and the Spaghetti Monster.   You believe in Leprechauns!  You do it sincerely but you are a fool. Faith is not dumb or ignorant.  Jesus Christ really did exist and we have evidence for it.  Not looking for evidence means you lack the faith any can be found and you might as well smoke a joint.  

 

 

DukeNukem:  I know that if I look both ways, and allow electromagnetic signals to penetrate my eyes, signal my brain, and fire specific neurons, that I can make a 100% accurate -- no faith required -- decision to cross the street without a vehicle hitting with me.  Trust, nor faith, enters my decision process.  In the EXACT same way, I know if I throw a ball into the air, the mass of the earth, which has created a strong gravitational field, will pull the ball back down to the ground.  THERE IS NO FAITH OR TRUST REQUIRED IN THIS TRANSACTION WITH NATURE.

1. You trust that you missed nothing when you looked both ways.  How do you know your eyes are working 100% Accidents do happen and you can count on it.
2.  You trust the signals even though signals have been known to fail.  You also trust others which you have no control over to see the signals and not run the red light.   You trust their brakes will not fail.
3.  You trust gravity will never fail yet at times past it would not have supported your ball experiment and will not do so in the future.  The chances are you will die and you will have to trust what ever you believe will happen.  In fact your entire life is lived by faith and you don’t know anything with 100% surety but that does not keep you from going on.  You have faith.

 

sthira:  Does God value children struck with cancer?

Yes, I said God values them and I might add He values us all.  “ The best world I can imagine is a world of freedom of choice. However that means we may choose wrong. So a free world may have evil in it or be the way it shouldn't be. The best world is a world where we care for each other. This means I care for the sick. The best world is a world, not where nothing evil ever happens but where babies are eventually taken care of and not destroyed. They are valued.”  Such value and such a world is found in God.





 

 

"Jesus Christ really did exist and we have evidence for it.  Not looking for evidence means you lack the faith any can be found and you might as well smoke a joint.  "

 

Elron Hubbard existed, therefore scientology. Nice job. Irrelevant joint comment. There is no evidence you can see until you can provide some. 

[shadowhawk]

When Jesus healed a boy suffering seizures (back then epileptic fits were diagnosed as being possessed by demons), His diciples asked him how did he do it. Jesus responded by saying only Faith can heal that kind of sickness. (or words to that effect)

 

When he was on trial, he told Pilate that he was 'Not of this world'. Obviously he had no evidence to back that up :(

 

There is nothing wrong with religious scholars who delve into the history and trying to find meanings. But trying to find real physical evidence as to Gods very own existence?? I think that misses the point about faith.

 

 

Your moon man (personally if I were at the table I would think your crazy and would go along with it to keep the peace) is a concept to them created by you. That is just stupid faith. Nothing wrong with them if they asked for an equivilent of a bible or something in which they could follow you by.

 

Speghetti monsters and the like are just crappy things without foundation invented by regular men in jest. Perhaps one time the Christian faith was the same. Difference between the Speghetti monster and Christianity today is Christianity is embedded in human culture. Give the speghetti monster 2000 years.... lol

 

In seriousness, believing in God requires faith. Not evidence. If there was evidence, it would not be 'belief' it would be 'knowlege'.

 

For example,

I believe God is real (no evidence, just faith)

I know God is real (knowledge, backed up by evidence)

 

You'll notice in church they say 'I believe in.....'. Not 'I know......'

Belief is not blind and the creed is based upon the historical evidence of the resurrection.  If Jesus did not rise our faith is in vain, Paul says.

[shadowhawk]

  "Jesus Christ really did exist and we have evidence for it.  Not looking for evidence means you lack the faith any can be found and you might as well smoke a joint.  "
serp777:
Elron Hubbard existed, therefore scientology. Nice job. Irrelevant joint comment. There is no evidence you can see until you can provide some.

Hubbard did exist and so does Scientology.  Hubbard's existence is evidence for Scientology and Scientology is evidence for Hubbard.  Glad you can recognize the logic of that.  However you can’t see why it would be a basic evidence for Scientology.  Strange.

Then you say there is no evidence.  Even more strange.  What do you call evidence?  The same goes for Jesus Christ.  What do you call evidence?

[serp777]

 

  "Jesus Christ really did exist and we have evidence for it.  Not looking for evidence means you lack the faith any can be found and you might as well smoke a joint.  "
serp777:
Elron Hubbard existed, therefore scientology. Nice job. Irrelevant joint comment. There is no evidence you can see until you can provide some.

Hubbard did exist and so does Scientology.  Hubbard's existence is evidence for Scientology and Scientology is evidence for Hubbard.  Glad you can recognize the logic of that.  However you can’t see why it would be a basic evidence for Scientology.  Strange.

Then you say there is no evidence.  Even more strange.  What do you call evidence?  The same goes for Jesus Christ.  What do you call evidence?

 

Strawman. We're talking about evidence that these religions reflect the truth of reality, not that they exist.