Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Romans 10:17 "Yet faith comes from listening to this message of good news, the good news about Christ".
The beginning point of faith is believing in God's character, He is who He says.
The end point is believing in God's promises, He will do what He says. Believing God will fulfill His promises even when you don't see them materializing. Faith is something the grows when you have a relationship with God.
Ah yes, resorting to name calling always helps one get their point across....
Notice how you had nothing to say on the issue of accusing atheists of 'ignoring' some alleged evidence for your god. I guess it's because you were doing the exact same thing you criticized me for doing. That is hypocritical.
If you can't address that, then you have nothing.
Moderator cut: rude
Last edited by june 7th; 05-27-2008 at 02:49 AM..
Reason: Unnecessarily rude comment
You must not know the definition of 'theory' when it comes to science. If an idea has no evidence to support it, it isn't a theory. It is nothing more than speculation or a hypothesis.
If an idea has no evidence to support it then it is just an idea. A hypothesis is formed after numerous observations have been made that lead to a testable conclusion.
But the evidence can still only be in theory, even when it is supported by another theory which already has been scientifically proven as true.
No. Look up the definition of 'theory' and then look up the definition for 'hypothesis'. Don't tell me that you already know the meaning of these words because you do not. You are getting them confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D
Supposedly we had no math:
If you have a theory that 3+3=6, but could not prove it, it just stays a theory.
Even when you have based this theory on MR. X's theory that 1+1=2 which only recently had been scientifically proven to be true.
If there was no math then you can logically draw the conclusion that there is also no concept of numbers.
1 + 1 does equal 2; it just goes to show how unreliable proofs can be.
Well, she didn't call me a child, but she did bring my age into the discussion like it was actually relevant.
It isn't.
I mentioned your age because in my experience I have found that most 17 year olds think they know everything. I'm not saying you aren't intelligent, I can tell by your posts on here that you are very well read and you certainly have very strong beliefs that you are willing to stand up for. I respect you for that, I truly do. But you haven't had the life experiences that I, or other much older people on here have had. As I said, because you can in no way know what I have felt and experienced in my life regarding my relationship with the Lord, you have no right to tell me that it is all in my head. It's your right to call me a hypocrite if you so choose, just don't tell me that what I know to be true FOR MYSELF is not really true.
I mentioned your age because in my experience I have found that most 17 year olds think they know everything.
In my experiences, any teen who disagrees with something an adult says is accused of "Thinking they know everything." NOBODY thinks they know everything. I see that as nothing more than a cop-out that is used when closed-minded adults can't understand the fact that there are many young people who know things they don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deb in VA
I'm not saying you aren't intelligent, I can tell by your posts on here that you are very well read and you certainly have very strong beliefs that you are willing to stand up for. I respect you for that, I truly do. But you haven't had the life experiences that I, or other much older people on here have had.
And you are not inside the mind of any atheist, so trying to accuse them of 'ignoring' some alleged evidence of your god is essentially the same thing. That is hypocritical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deb in VA
As I said, because you can in no way know what I have felt and experienced in my life regarding my relationship with the Lord, you have no right to tell me that it is all in my head.
You have no right to try to describe how an atheist thinks. You have no right to tell somebody they're 'ignoring evidence' just because they don't agree with you. The fact is, there is no evidence for your god or anybody else's god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deb in VA
It's your right to call me a hypocrite if you so choose, just don't tell me that what I know to be true FOR MYSELF is not really true.
Works both ways. Aren't you familiar with the Golden Rule? It's in nearly every philosophy and religion in history.
"As a former Christian myself, I can tell you that when you look at it from an outsider's point of view, it is nothing more than a delusion. It's definitely all in your head."
I truly do not know how you can go around with this kind of attitude in life...how old are you again...17? Have you lived my life? Have you experienced what I have experienced? Can you get inside of my heart and soul and know what I feel? Of course you cannot. Until you can do those things I would appreciate you not telling me that my relationship with my Lord and Savior is all in my head.
I'm in my late 50s and I feel the same way that Haaziq does.
I don't want anything to do with your god thing.
I don't believe in one, don't need one.
All I need to know is that I did the best I could today.
I live a happy and pretty cushy life with what I have here and now.
I am fulfilled, even without the faith you have with a creature in the sky.
I think there seems to be a disconnect between solid, cold, hard evidence means and what faith-based evidence means. Evidence, as I understand it is a means for determing events and occurences via robust methodologies for determing what is true and what is not true. Evidence is most commonly heard during crime trials. Is there enough of this robustness to determine that someone committed a crime? And, has the evidence been tainted in any way? These are important questions as evidence can lead to some big changes in people's lives.
However, when we talk about faith-based evidence I think it becomes a little trickier. I am always blown away at the things people attribute to God when they are clearly the byproduct of randomness. When prodded further on the matter, it becomes an argument of unfalsifiability. In other words "You don't know if it was God or not." This does not make evidence. This is just a suggestive argument that hides behind a lack of proof and/or what we call evidence.
Because we cannot know whether a deity performed an action or not it does become unfalsifiable and thus faith-based evidence should, in my opinion, be taken rather lightly. While I understand that many people feel that God is in control and/or affecting their lives there is simply no way to prove it with evidence at hand.
Thus, what is common perception to us, may often seem or even feel like there is some sort of divine plan set in motion to make things good. That, in my opinion, is a belief reposited on faith-based evidence. Why did I receive that extra money when I so badly needed it? Because God helped. Why did the team win the football game after losing their star player in an automobile accident? God gave them strength and willpower. And so on and so forth. My suggestion is that things happen in the world one way or the other and lacking solid, cold, hard "real" evidence it seems we revert to deciding what God did or didn't do.
Because you prayed for something and it happened does not mean it is necessarily true. On the flip side, however, when a prayer goes unanswered it's easy to write it off as "God works in mysterious ways and knows what's best." Within all of this, the general premise seems to remain behind an unfalsifiable argument and becomes intellectually dishonest. What I'm trying to put forth is that people seem to pick and choose what happens in their daily lives as the work of God or not. Naturally, many do not realize the irony of considering free will and a God-controlled life in all of this. Therefore, it seems that due to random circumstances in this world and in the universe, that people attribute the big moments (bad or good) to the works of God, whereas just doing simple things like cutting your grass and having a working lawnmower is simply over-ridden in the mindset. I've never seen anyone pray to God that their lawnmower would carry them through the trying situation of cutting their grass. It would seem almost ridiculous to watch someone do that.
Yet, when an important event happens in someone's life it seems like God is then leaned on for support once again as a notion of faith-based evidence. People are quick to ignore the unanswered prayers but often even quicker to attribute "answered" prayers to that of God. My thoughts on this matter are rather simple. If you are praying to God about something than you are aware of the situation at hand. Whether you're praying for that extra money, desiring a football team to win, or, in some odd sense, praying that your lawnmower makes it all the way through your weekly grass cutting extravaganza, you are well aware that to each occurence there are essentially two possible outcomes.
1. The outcome could be good based on your actions.
2. The outcome could be bad based on your actions.
To speak of number one in a manner of "your" actions is a little misleading. The laws of randomness suggest that given enough time doing something that things both good and bad can happen. This is well-evidenced throughout all of our lives. If we used the same lawnmower every week for every year of our lives it is suggestible to say that the lawnmower would carry us through our little mowing excursion on a consistent basis. This would be faith-based evidence.
However, the laws of randomness also suggest that by continually doing something the chance becomes greater (odds less in your favor) that something is going to break, fail, or not work the next time you crank up a lawnmower. I like to use simple things such as cutting the grass because people like to attribute all of these intricate things in life with the massive stories. I just want to take something simple.
We can look at this in any number of ways from the frequency in which we drive to work to any other event in our lives from the "norm" to the "excursioned". We drive to work on a daily basis and, I imagine, if we prayed every day before driving to work that we'd have plenty of "answered" prayers. However, the laws of randomness also suggest that given enough time and enough opportunities, you may not make it to work one day. Given the amount of other cars on the road, and the idiots driving them, also quantified by the distance of travel, and the frequency in which you drive to work, it becomes clearly obvious that this "prayer" will not be answered in due time.
Such is the law of randomness. So, my postulation is that faith is a by-product of randomness. Or should I say, faith-based evidence is a byproduct of randomness. Given randomness, we should neither be surprised or shocked when sometimes prayers just aren't answered. That, to me, is enough cold, hard, solid evidence to suggest that a deity is doing absolutely nothing at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is Faith a By-Product of Randomness?
