Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

A Challenge For All Christians


Guest r3alchild

Recommended Posts

Guest r3alchild

If in fact faith is no longer faith once the facts have been presented, then faith has no advantage over facts and it would be better to have facts of what you believe than faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest end3

 

 

HI end I really enjoyed our conversation about ego good to see you resurface =D. Faith in my opinion is believing in something in substitution of evidence for said belief. This implies that you can have faith to believe in something but evidence will trump that faith every time. For example I have faith that we will not launch a nuclear weapon at north Korea tomorrow. When tomorrow comes and we don't launch a nuclear missile at north Korea I have evidence to substantiate my faith earlier. In the case of applying this logic to god. One can have faith that god exists however if there is evidence to suggest otherwise it would supersede that faith. So in no way imho will faith be better than facts as far as

 

Belief

Real world application

making decisions in life.

 

the last part I will elaborate on.

 

I have faith that my neighbor is a terrorist because I had a message from god and it said to trust him and kill your neighbor to save thousands turns out the neighbor is just a little old lady incapable of doing any harm to any one by any means. Now you have a decision to make trust your faith or trust the evidence which will inform you better?

I hear you. Faith has appealed to me as a tool specifically for the inability to view reality.....x(faith) is more appealing than y(reality). In that, faith imo, could easily be "better" for a person at a specific point in their life. I don't know that facts or information negate faith as we address our reality, rather allows us to "hold on" WHILE addressing reality. Also in doing that, I think maybe it teaches us.

 

Edit: Looked a little into elementary particles....not much...but my question is, you said it wasn't classical physics, but i can't find anything that is not theory at that level.....just an extremely casual observance...please don't beat me up for my ignorance...lol.

End, I can offer my professional opinion here and say that everything in particle physics is experimentally verifiable. You may have followed the search for the Higgs Boson at CERN. It is the only bit of the standard model of particle physics not yet verified (and it may have already been found). The theory of particle physics is otherwise completely verified by laboratory observations. You would be quite wrong to view particle physics as philosophy or conjecture. The science is as valid as observations of E. Coli growth or combustion reactions.

 

Thanks Bhim...I just took a cursory look.  I know a retired physics prof. that perhaps can give me the condensed version. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Christians, I challenge you to provide proof that faith is better than facts. Here is your chance to argue for faiths sake and forever set the record strait for yourselfs and your god.

Define "better".  

 

And we can have faith in something we know to be factual.

 

Are you saying faith in something unknown or never experienced?

 

That's the first specious argument you xtian apologists love to hurl at us. If we expect a result to occur because of a, say, scientific fact which shows repeatedly the result over and over then it is NOT faith - it is simply the assumption of an event based on the repeated, empirically observable actions that have been done over and over to prove same. Example - gravity - if we tell someone not to jump from a 20th story floor based on what will happen when she/he hits the ground, it is NOT faith that the person will probably die - it's a FACT based on prior, similar events occuring.

 

Faith, on the other hand is simply what it denotes - a blind or non empirical belief. And more egregiously, when you apologists attempt to equate your beliefs with our non beliefs using the 'faith' strawman, you are denying your own bible, the alleged word of your god. The famous verses in Hebrews DEFINES what faith is, at least to you people. The substance of things HOPED for, things UNSEEN.

 

You need not reply back because I know what you'll use as an excuse already and I'm not as tolerant as these folks when it comes to you because of our past history.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest end3

 

 

Christians, I challenge you to provide proof that faith is better than facts. Here is your chance to argue for faiths sake and forever set the record strait for yourselfs and your god.

Define "better".  

 

And we can have faith in something we know to be factual.

 

Are you saying faith in something unknown or never experienced?

 

That's the first specious argument you xtian apologists love to hurl at us. If we expect a result to occur because of a, say, scientific fact which shows repeatedly the result over and over then it is NOT faith - it is simply the assumption of an event based on the repeated, empirically observable actions that have been done over and over to prove same. Example - gravity - if we tell someone not to jump from a 20th story floor based on what will happen when she/he hits the ground, it is NOT faith that the person will probably die - it's a FACT based on prior, similar events occuring.

 

Faith, on the other hand is simply what it denotes - a blind or non empirical belief. And more egregiously, when you apologists attempt to equate your beliefs with our non beliefs using the 'faith' strawman, you are denying your own bible, the alleged word of your god. The famous verses in Hebrews DEFINES what faith is, at least to you people. The substance of things HOPED for, things UNSEEN.

 

You need not reply back because I know what you'll use as an excuse already and I'm not as tolerant as these folks when it comes to you because of our past history.

 

Nothing has changed I see R.

 

There will always be something unseen/unknown, but you don't want to admit that there can ALWAYS be faith in these.  Pretty much God's lament through the Bible R.  You fall into the lost Israel crowd....minus the Israel. 

 

You might try more fiber in your diet R.  A regular movement might help your attitude....heavy on the might.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Christians, I challenge you to provide proof that faith is better than facts. Here is your chance to argue for faiths sake and forever set the record strait for yourselfs and your god.

Define "better".  

 

And we can have faith in something we know to be factual.

 

Are you saying faith in something unknown or never experienced?

 

That's the first specious argument you xtian apologists love to hurl at us. If we expect a result to occur because of a, say, scientific fact which shows repeatedly the result over and over then it is NOT faith - it is simply the assumption of an event based on the repeated, empirically observable actions that have been done over and over to prove same. Example - gravity - if we tell someone not to jump from a 20th story floor based on what will happen when she/he hits the ground, it is NOT faith that the person will probably die - it's a FACT based on prior, similar events occuring.

 

Faith, on the other hand is simply what it denotes - a blind or non empirical belief. And more egregiously, when you apologists attempt to equate your beliefs with our non beliefs using the 'faith' strawman, you are denying your own bible, the alleged word of your god. The famous verses in Hebrews DEFINES what faith is, at least to you people. The substance of things HOPED for, things UNSEEN.

 

You need not reply back because I know what you'll use as an excuse already and I'm not as tolerant as these folks when it comes to you because of our past history.

 

Nothing has changed I see R.

 

There will always be something unseen/unknown, but you don't want to admit that there can ALWAYS be faith in these.  Pretty much God's lament through the Bible R.  You fall into the lost Israel crowd....minus the Israel. 

 

You might try more fiber in your diet R.  A regular movement might help your attitude....heavy on the might.

 

 

There can always be faith in the unknown? Does that mean I can believe that the universe was built by a talking spoon if I want to? Perhaps I should say that this belief is absolute truth and that anyone who rejects it will be boiled for eternity, in chicken broth, in the afterlife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can have all the faith you want end3 but this does not mean it is better. Evidence should replace faith. Faith is fine in the absence of evidence but when evidence is presented that is for or against that position faith no longer has a purpose.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest end3

You can have all the faith you want end3 but this does not mean it is better. Evidence should replace faith. Faith is fine in the absence of evidence but when evidence is presented that is for or against that position faith no longer has a purpose.

Yes, I just don't want to fall into the trap of I have it all figured out.  As I was trying to demonstrate in the other thread.......we call it alfalfa in the US.......it's lucern down under.  I just don't want to sell myself short thinking I have the language or the intended meaning of the Bible all figured out.  Celluostic water purification is one my mind came up with years ago.....does the staff represent the purification of the Cross or is it also in a roundabout way talking about RO membranes.  Just my unusual thought patterns. 

 

Also, Moses coming off the mountain....his glowing, sure sounds alot like what happens to an element when it goes through an argon plasma.   But hey, it's just some weird thinking and obviously errant...lol.

 

And I think there was some experiment a couple years back that reported people actually emit light.....lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest end3

 

 

 

 

Christians, I challenge you to provide proof that faith is better than facts. Here is your chance to argue for faiths sake and forever set the record strait for yourselfs and your god.

Define "better".  

 

And we can have faith in something we know to be factual.

 

Are you saying faith in something unknown or never experienced?

 

That's the first specious argument you xtian apologists love to hurl at us. If we expect a result to occur because of a, say, scientific fact which shows repeatedly the result over and over then it is NOT faith - it is simply the assumption of an event based on the repeated, empirically observable actions that have been done over and over to prove same. Example - gravity - if we tell someone not to jump from a 20th story floor based on what will happen when she/he hits the ground, it is NOT faith that the person will probably die - it's a FACT based on prior, similar events occuring.

 

Faith, on the other hand is simply what it denotes - a blind or non empirical belief. And more egregiously, when you apologists attempt to equate your beliefs with our non beliefs using the 'faith' strawman, you are denying your own bible, the alleged word of your god. The famous verses in Hebrews DEFINES what faith is, at least to you people. The substance of things HOPED for, things UNSEEN.

 

You need not reply back because I know what you'll use as an excuse already and I'm not as tolerant as these folks when it comes to you because of our past history.

 

Nothing has changed I see R.

 

There will always be something unseen/unknown, but you don't want to admit that there can ALWAYS be faith in these.  Pretty much God's lament through the Bible R.  You fall into the lost Israel crowd....minus the Israel. 

 

You might try more fiber in your diet R.  A regular movement might help your attitude....heavy on the might.

 

 

There can always be faith in the unknown? Does that mean I can believe that the universe was built by a talking spoon if I want to? Perhaps I should say that this belief is absolute truth and that anyone who rejects it will be boiled for eternity, in chicken broth, in the afterlife.

 

Yes, exactly, only the arrogance leads to symbolic death for the other relationships involved when one of the members has it all figured out.  Per your example, you have no idea whether the universe was built by a talking spoon?  No idea sir.  I am all about the emperical.  I like to discuss the floating elephant thing before we move to the spoon theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest end3

Besides, y'all believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster with no evidence....and no old book to promote the FSM either....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You can have all the faith you want end3 but this does not mean it is better. Evidence should replace faith. Faith is fine in the absence of evidence but when evidence is presented that is for or against that position faith no longer has a purpose.

Yes, I just don't want to fall into the trap of I have it all figured out.  As I was trying to demonstrate in the other thread.......we call it alfalfa in the US.......it's lucern down under.  I just don't want to sell myself short thinking I have the language or the intended meaning of the Bible all figured out.  Celluostic water purification is one my mind came up with years ago.....does the staff represent the purification of the Cross or is it also in a roundabout way talking about RO membranes.  Just my unusual thought patterns. 

 

Also, Moses coming off the mountain....his glowing, sure sounds alot like what happens to an element when it goes through an argon plasma.   But hey, it's just some weird thinking and obviously errant...lol.

 

And I think there was some experiment a couple years back that reported people actually emit light.....lol.

 

 

I am sorry I think you lost me here.  what does alfalfa waterpurification argon plasma have to do with anything? Seems to me like your associating meaning with two separate things that have nothing to do with each other.

 

what does people emitting light have to do with anything  is this what you are referring to http://www.livescience.com/7799-strange-humans-glow-visible-light.html what they are reffering to is the heat bi-product of bio-chemical reactions it seems like this is normal and not supernatural nor is it visible to the human eye and absolutely useless to prove the bible with.

 

Again if you take that as evidence to prove your belief it seems to me you are no longer using faith at this point because you are using evidence not faith to justify biblical events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides, y'all believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster with no evidence....and no old book to promote the FSM either....

the early Christians had no book to believe in jesus what does age have to do with its validity. If you cant understand the concept of the FSM you need to research it more. Plus I cant vouch for everyone but being a Pastafarian does not require "belief" in the FSM. It is a demonstration in the fallacy of an argument about proving a negative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest end3

 

 

You can have all the faith you want end3 but this does not mean it is better. Evidence should replace faith. Faith is fine in the absence of evidence but when evidence is presented that is for or against that position faith no longer has a purpose.

Yes, I just don't want to fall into the trap of I have it all figured out.  As I was trying to demonstrate in the other thread.......we call it alfalfa in the US.......it's lucern down under.  I just don't want to sell myself short thinking I have the language or the intended meaning of the Bible all figured out.  Celluostic water purification is one my mind came up with years ago.....does the staff represent the purification of the Cross or is it also in a roundabout way talking about RO membranes.  Just my unusual thought patterns. 

 

Also, Moses coming off the mountain....his glowing, sure sounds alot like what happens to an element when it goes through an argon plasma.   But hey, it's just some weird thinking and obviously errant...lol.

 

And I think there was some experiment a couple years back that reported people actually emit light.....lol.

 

 

I am sorry I think you lost me here.  what does alfalfa waterpurification argon plasma have to do with anything? Seems to me like your associating meaning with two separate things that have nothing to do with each other.

 

what does people emitting light have to do with anything  is this what you are referring to http://www.livescience.com/7799-strange-humans-glow-visible-light.html what they are reffering to is the heat bi-product of bio-chemical reactions it seems like this is normal and not supernatural nor is it visible to the human eye and absolutely useless to prove the bible with.

 

Again if you take that as evidence to prove your belief it seems to me you are no longer using faith at this point because you are using evidence not faith to justify biblical events.

 

Yes, but I had faith in the glowing Moses story before the evidence arrived.   Long story shorth, that's just the way I think...Moses in the presence of God, raised his excitation state and when he got off the mountain....he as emitted....lol.  Seems  like the same pattern in type.  Same with the stick in the water.  Is it coincedence or God. 

 

Oh and let's not forget modern analytical analyses routinely uses internal standards as a way to quantify an analyte.  Seems wonderfully analogous to Christ in our hearts as a way for God to measure our holy quantity. 

 

All these are for free.  Just asking that you keep your mind open to communication via different words, patterns, etc. 

 

It's me, it's not y'all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest end3

 

Besides, y'all believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster with no evidence....and no old book to promote the FSM either....

the early Christians had no book to believe in jesus what does age have to do with its validity. If you cant understand the concept of the FSM you need to research it more. Plus I cant vouch for everyone but being a Pastafarian does not require "belief" in the FSM. It is a demonstration in the fallacy of an argument about proving a negative.

 

It was an attempt at humor James.  I knew nothing of the FSM nor the concept (and still don't) prior to arriving here in 2007. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes, but I had faith in the glowing Moses story before the evidence arrived.   Long story shorth, that's just the way I think...Moses in the presence of God, raised his excitation state and when he got off the mountain....he as emitted....lol.  Seems  like the same pattern in type.  Same with the stick in the water.  Is it coincedence or God. 

 

Oh and let's not forget modern analytical analyses routinely uses internal standards as a way to quantify an analyte.  Seems wonderfully analogous to Christ in our hearts as a way for God to measure our holy quantity. 

 

All these are for free.  Just asking that you keep your mind open to communication via different words, patterns, etc. 

 

It's me, it's not y'all.

 

 

Right now is still before the evidence has arrived regarding the glowing Moses.  The evidence this event happened is likely to never arrive seeing how the people at that "event" were mythical.

 

It's neither coincidence nor God.  It is fiction.  

 

As for keeping an open mind for using analogous . . . that is the way science fiction works.  Star Trek is famous for it.  Two characters are talking about what they are planing to do.  One will explain the plan using meaningless technobabble and then another will summarize it with a over simplified analogy.  

 

Engineer: "If we reverse the polarity on their quantum phase shift tansducer the feedback will overload their phaser array."

First Officer: "Like putting a fish in a bucket of water."

 

Having an analogy doesn't make something real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's fair now you have a hypothesis that is completely testable. Probably could use some more work in learning about the concepts that you are speaking about though. As it appears as though they are not being applied properly (no offence it just makes it hard to understand when you are using these concepts out of context without adding your thought behind them)

 

you can see though that the moment you start using evidence to support your beliefs it fails to remain faith right? It doesn't matter if your evidence is right or wrong you are justifying your beliefs without using faith. So for arguments sake excluding the validity of your claims can we agree that evidence supersedes faith? If evidence verifies your faith you no longer need faith in that belief right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest end3

that's fair now you have a hypothesis that is completely testable. Probably could use some more work in learning about the concepts that you are speaking about though. As it appears as though they are not being applied properly (no offence it just makes it hard to understand when you are using these concepts out of context without adding your thought behind them)

 

you can see though that the moment you start using evidence to support your beliefs it fails to remain faith right? It doesn't matter if your evidence is right or wrong you are justifying your beliefs without using faith. So for arguments sake excluding the validity of your claims can we agree that evidence supersedes faith? If evidence verifies your faith you no longer need faith in that belief right?

No we can't agree that evidence supercedes faith.  As I said, I had faith that Moses glowed.  The point being that in my mind, given that we don't understand "spirit" (yet it still is defined and falls in the realm of "real"), that the patterns of Spiritual events fall as do the patterns of the evidence and scientific methodolgies to which I speak. 

 

If I run my finger through the argon plasma, probably a good chance my finger will "glow" before the 13000 degrees F does whatever 13000 degrees F does. 

 

And especially the internal standard thing.  That is verbatim the Christ in us scenario.  Y'all are welcome to call me crazy, I just think it is more fun/neat thinking.

 

You talk justification, yet is not justified in that does some higher energy really make people glow?  Can a stick actually purify water?  Is "Christ" in us really a measurement that God the Father uses to measure a man, or actually and thankfully NOT measure the man?  Still James, pure faith, but suggestive in type TO reality....i.e. a shadow, or we are living in the shadow.

 

So it may disturb some, but I feel I have a handle on my comparisons and my belief through faith.

 

Hope that helps. 

 

Edit:  I will concede that if I find evidence that "kills" something held in faith, then I should give it a unbiased look before forevermore holding it in faith.  But still, these things I mentioned have not been destroyed by evidence imho.

 

You want to talk the water cycle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest end3

 

 

 

Yes, but I had faith in the glowing Moses story before the evidence arrived.   Long story shorth, that's just the way I think...Moses in the presence of God, raised his excitation state and when he got off the mountain....he as emitted....lol.  Seems  like the same pattern in type.  Same with the stick in the water.  Is it coincedence or God. 

 

Oh and let's not forget modern analytical analyses routinely uses internal standards as a way to quantify an analyte.  Seems wonderfully analogous to Christ in our hearts as a way for God to measure our holy quantity. 

 

All these are for free.  Just asking that you keep your mind open to communication via different words, patterns, etc. 

 

It's me, it's not y'all.

 

 

Right now is still before the evidence has arrived regarding the glowing Moses.  The evidence this event happened is likely to never arrive seeing how the people at that "event" were mythical.

 

It's neither coincidence nor God.  It is fiction.  

 

As for keeping an open mind for using analogous . . . that is the way science fiction works.  Star Trek is famous for it.  Two characters are talking about what they are planing to do.  One will explain the plan using meaningless technobabble and then another will summarize it with a over simplified analogy.  

 

Engineer: "If we reverse the polarity on their quantum phase shift tansducer the feedback will overload their phaser array."

First Officer: "Like putting a fish in a bucket of water."

 

Having an analogy doesn't make something real.

 

What would the point be of not having an analogous example?  For God's sake MM, Jesus talked in parables.  (Actually mixed in "for God's sake" in a tricky way..lol).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If evidence does not supersede faith end then why use the evidence to begin with. You don't need evidence to confirm your beliefs if faith is better. There is no point to evidence in that system. The moment you use evidence to confirm your belief is the moment you stop using faith. therefore as we follow this logic you are no longer using faith when talking about how Moses glowed. You are not using faith. You stated why you think he glowed you gave evidence to support your claim. You believe in it because of the evidence. Now if you take away the evidence you are using faith.  its like a see-saw as faith goes up your reliance of evidence goes down as evidence goes up faith goes down. If evidence confirms your faith that just proves you were   "right" all along this does not mean you are still using faith. 

 

 

Faith and evidence don't co-exist faith by its definition is belief without evidence not including it. by its very definition faith  subsides to evidence this does not mean that if evidence confirms your faith that you get to keep your faith because you are no longer using faith to justify your beliefs. I am not going to let you have your cake and eat it to. Either you drop the  science and keep your faith or keep your evidence and lose "faith" you don't get both this does not mean you have to stop believing in your god. I know you don't want to surrender the argument but its ok to give in this regard this does not mean you are giving up your belief in god you are giving up "faith" in god since now you have "evidence" for god. Hopefully we can agree on this much otherwise you are probably wasting your time responding as I have put it as clearly as I possibly can. if you cant see that then this means I have failed in my abilities to communicate effectively.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest r3alchild

 

that's fair now you have a hypothesis that is completely testable. Probably could use some more work in learning about the concepts that you are speaking about though. As it appears as though they are not being applied properly (no offence it just makes it hard to understand when you are using these concepts out of context without adding your thought behind them)

 

you can see though that the moment you start using evidence to support your beliefs it fails to remain faith right? It doesn't matter if your evidence is right or wrong you are justifying your beliefs without using faith. So for arguments sake excluding the validity of your claims can we agree that evidence supersedes faith? If evidence verifies your faith you no longer need faith in that belief right?

 

No we can't agree that evidence supercedes faith.  As I said, I had faith that Moses glowed.  The point being that in my mind, given that we don't understand "spirit" (yet it still is defined and falls in the realm of "real"), that the patterns of Spiritual events fall as do the patterns of the evidence and scientific methodolgies to which I speak. 

 

If I run my finger through the argon plasma, probably a good chance my finger will "glow" before the 13000 degrees F does whatever 13000 degrees F does. 

 

And especially the internal standard thing.  That is verbatim the Christ in us scenario.  Y'all are welcome to call me crazy, I just think it is more fun/neat thinking.

 

You talk justification, yet is not justified in that does some higher energy really make people glow?  Can a stick actually purify water?  Is "Christ" in us really a measurement that God the Father uses to measure a man, or actually and thankfully NOT measure the man?  Still James, pure faith, but suggestive in type TO reality....i.e. a shadow, or we are living in the shadow.

 

So it may disturb some, but I feel I have a handle on my comparisons and my belief through faith.

 

Hope that helps. 

 

Edit:  I will concede that if I find evidence that "kills" something held in faith, then I should give it a unbiased look before forevermore holding it in faith.  But still, these things I mentioned have not been destroyed by evidence imho.

 

You want to talk the water cycle?

If you can't agree fact is better than faith ask yourself about your own beliefs in god, will you always have faith in the matters of your beliefs? No, in fact when god returns all will know and have facts. Will anyone still need faith then? No. So you should agree that facts will win out in the end.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest end3

If evidence does not supersede faith end then why use the evidence to begin with. You don't need evidence to confirm your beliefs if faith is better. There is no point to evidence in that system. The moment you use evidence to confirm your belief is the moment you stop using faith. therefore as we follow this logic you are no longer using faith when talking about how Moses glowed. You are not using faith. You stated why you think he glowed you gave evidence to support your claim. You believe in it because of the evidence. Now if you take away the evidence you are using faith.  its like a see-saw as faith goes up your reliance of evidence goes down as evidence goes up faith goes down. If evidence confirms your faith that just proves you were   "right" all along this does not mean you are still using faith. 

 

 

Faith and evidence don't co-exist faith by its definition is belief without evidence not including it. by its very definition faith  subsides to evidence this does not mean that if evidence confirms your faith that you get to keep your faith because you are no longer using faith to justify your beliefs. I am not going to let you have your cake and eat it to. Either you drop the  science and keep your faith or keep your evidence and lose "faith" you don't get both this does not mean you have to stop believing in your god. I know you don't want to surrender the argument but its ok to give in this regard this does not mean you are giving up your belief in god you are giving up "faith" in god since now you have "evidence" for god. Hopefully we can agree on this much otherwise you are probably wasting your time responding as I have put it as clearly as I possibly can. if you cant see that then this means I have failed in my abilities to communicate effectively.

Certainly by default as a human there is "evidence" that proceeds faith.....again, by default.  With that, certainly evidence and faith co-exist.  Evidence does not prove God is there but bolsters faith.  There is absolutely no reason to choose evidence and deny faith once evidence makes itself known......especially to the tune of arrogance.  I don't know where we are getting our wires crossed.  If I am "right" regarding the types and patterns I like to see, then this does not bring Christ into my presences but suggests his hand in the creation.  I am still having to use faith that God exists at all.  What I have described is science matching the Bible in type.  How does this negate my need for faith that God is out there somewhere?

 

Perhaps you are taking the rigid def of faith and moving it out of the Jesus context....that to a certain extent, Jesus was evidence of God.  I can see your point from that perspective, but I would think we are describing a faith that Christ is who he said he was and will return. 

 

But this makes me think of those that are "holy" and never have heard of Jesus. 

 

I am not trying to be hard-headed...just need to communicate enough that we are on the same page.  (and we may still not be :) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are over generalizing. I am talking specifically about individual concepts vs the whole i.e you can use evidence to support your belief in moses but lack sufficient evidence for god hence you need faith to still believe in god but you are not using faith for moses do you see the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest end3

I think you are over generalizing. I am talking specifically about individual concepts vs the whole i.e you can use evidence to support your belief in moses but lack sufficient evidence for god hence you need faith to still believe in god but you are not using faith for moses do you see the difference?

Yes sir, but I've never seen someone glow.  So in my mind, I can make a comparison to an ICP, but still have to maintain faith that somehow God's higher energy enabled Moses to glow.  Again, please bear with me....I am not trying to be stubborn, just want to communicate well enough where you see my point and I see yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you prove a fictional character glowed? Or are we taking the Bible as proof that Moses actually existed?

 

ummm... no.

 

Radiation, by the way, is deadly... especially if it's enough to make someone actually put off enough to see with the naked eye. Ouch, bad science there too. Or maybe he was like those fish way deep in the ocean, bioluminescence? Or like the cephalopods! with tiny little muscles under the skin to flash color and light to communicate! It is rumored he wasn't very good at speaking.... hmmmmmm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest end3

How do you prove a fictional character glowed? Or are we taking the Bible as proof that Moses actually existed?

 

ummm... no.

 

Radiation, by the way, is deadly... especially if it's enough to make someone actually put off enough to see with the naked eye. Ouch, bad science there too. Or maybe he was like those fish way deep in the ocean, bioluminescence? Or like the cephalopods! with tiny little muscles under the skin to flash color and light to communicate! It is rumored he wasn't very good at speaking.... hmmmmmm

Your response is clear Rs.  I tried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah ravenstar I am just granting him that moses existed and the accuracy of his scientific evidence just for the sake of argument about faith vs evidence. I didn't want to get to far off topic but as you pointed out this methodology would have probably killed moses pretty fast

 

 

End3 I have never seen the Aurora Borealis but that does not mean faith allows me to believe they are real I have seen pictures of them and I have had scientific evidence to show me that this is possible. Hence I am not using faith to describe my belief in aurora borealis  I am using evidence.

 

You are using evidence to support your claim of moses glowing just because you haven't seen this happen does not mean you are not using evidence. You don't have faith in it because you are trying to propose its possibility using observation and testable hypothesis. Not faith. The mere fact that you are trying to use evidence to support your claims shows that you are not using faith and that evidence is more convincing than faith.

 

here use this test

 

convince me that the earth is round using faith.

 

convince me that the earth is round using evidence.

 

you decide which is the more use full argument this will tell you what is better faith or evidence quite clearly

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.