| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > Gimme Proof |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 14 2004, 10:40 AM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > Gimme Proof Posted by: _BenjaminTC Feb 24 2004, 10:41 PM Christians, here is your task: Give me ONE piece of evidence of a creator. Christians respond only, please. I want to see how fast this post will go to the bottom with no replies. Posted by: MR MXYZPTLK Feb 25 2004, 11:11 AM The human eye. Posted by: Reach Feb 25 2004, 11:21 AM QUOTE (_BenjaminTC @ Feb 24 2004, 10:41 PM) Christians, here is your task: Give me ONE piece of evidence of a creator. Christians respond only, please. I want to see how fast this post will go to the bottom with no replies. I'm sorry but I don't have the time to answer every guest who pops in here with a random question. There are 36,142 posts on this site at this very moment. This post may be number 36,143. If you want some evidence for or against a creator, you'll have to read for yourself and make your own decisions, just like the rest of us. No shortcuts. Welcome to the world wide web. All of us get to think for ourselves. Good luck. Posted by: I Broke Free Feb 25 2004, 02:41 PM QUOTE (MR MXYZPTLK @ Feb 25 2004, 02:11 PM) The human eye. At last; Proof!!! I'll be baptized tomorrow!!!! Posted by: big bill Feb 25 2004, 02:50 PM Do you want proof? I'll give you proof. You probably spend far too much time trying to convince people that there was no Jesus. That very notion permeates your life. It's probably like an obsession. Quick. I got to get on the computer and tell the masses Jesus never existed. Jesus, who never existed, is still dominating all of your lives. Posted by: I Broke Free Feb 25 2004, 03:08 PM QUOTE (big bill @ Feb 25 2004, 05:50 PM) Do you want proof? I'll give you proof. We're still waiting.............. Posted by: big bill Feb 25 2004, 03:10 PM QUOTE (I BROKE FREE @ Feb 25 2004, 03:08 PM) QUOTE (big bill @ Feb 25 2004, 05:50 PM) Do you want proof? I'll give you proof. We're still waiting.............. What is existence? King Lear never existed, and he's far more important than I'll ever be. It's the message. Posted by: ~Josalo~ Feb 25 2004, 04:37 PM QUOTE (MR MXYZPTLK @ Feb 25 2004, 01:11 PM) The human eye. Your joking right? Posted by: ~Josalo~ Feb 25 2004, 04:39 PM QUOTE (big bill @ Feb 25 2004, 04:50 PM) Do you want proof? I'll give you proof. You probably spend far too much time trying to convince people that there was no Jesus. That very notion permeates your life. It's probably like an obsession. Quick. I got to get on the computer and tell the masses Jesus never existed. Jesus, who never existed, is still dominating all of your lives. He was asking for proof, nothing more. And not suprisingly, you didn't give any proof. Posted by: Caddius Feb 25 2004, 05:41 PM QUOTE (~Josalo~ @ Feb 25 2004, 06:39 PM) I'm Rick James, bitch. This was a lame thread until I read this, cracked me up. Anyhow, convinse yourself that you can't prove either point. Wether Jesus existed or not will always be debated at this point. If you belive in him fine, just believe in him. Most of us that believe that Jesus did not exist are not out to prove to other he didn't...unless they are the ones asking. Posted by: kah Feb 25 2004, 06:33 PM Hey, hey, give them some time. It takes a lot of time to write good fiction. The truth that is obvious and quick. Posted by: Tocis Feb 25 2004, 06:46 PM QUOTE (big bill @ Feb 25 2004, 02:50 PM) Do you want proof? I'll give you proof. So where is it? QUOTE You probably spend far too much time trying to convince people that there was no Jesus. The key word, of course, is probably. At least you admit that you don't know for sure, and indeed your assumption is wrong. Posted by: JimmyDtD Feb 25 2004, 07:42 PM Look to the right. Posted by: Dragon_Made_Flesh Feb 25 2004, 07:46 PM Look to the right? Why so we can see a picture of a piece of cloth which has a design that has been dated to around the 1300's ..so its not Jaheezus' burial shroad. Sorry to burst ya bubble there pal... Posted by: BillJ Feb 25 2004, 07:48 PM QUOTE (JimmyDtD @ Feb 25 2004, 10:42 PM) Look to the right. I don't see no proof, all I see is the picture of some old dude. Posted by: Fweethawt Feb 25 2004, 07:58 PM QUOTE (JimmyDtD @ Feb 25 2004, 10:42 PM) Look to the right. Jimmy, your avatar is about as much proof as my current avatar is that the three blind mice actually existed. Your's has been debunked. Posted by: BastionOfSanity Feb 26 2004, 11:59 AM "the human eye" Sweet David Koresh they're dragging out their tired anti-evolution arguments. John 14:14 states that you ask "in his name" and it will be done. IF your relgion is true coming up with evidence shouldn't be a problem at all. The book you all swear is "the truth" has many instances of "god" getting involved. We ask for ONE. Posted by: Guest Feb 26 2004, 01:55 PM he was involved thousands of years ago...we weren't there....nor were you there when your precious Big Bang/Dawn of Time came to be. Posted by: =Veritas= Feb 26 2004, 02:03 PM The evidence of a Divine Creator is obvious. One only needs to look at the intricacies of our solar system, the Earth, the universal laws, and our own human bodies. Nothing of an accident can create the concise details of these things. Posted by: Dragon_Made_Flesh Feb 26 2004, 02:05 PM Guest-Person: What the fuck was that? That was a response? "Oh you weren't there either..wah wah wah" Why don't you try offering proof Mr./Mrs. Ass? Posted by: Tocis Feb 26 2004, 02:09 PM QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 26 2004, 02:03 PM) Nothing of an accident can create the concise details of these things. And no one claims that it came to pass that way. Once and for all, comprehend this or be mocked according to your prideful ignorance: Natural selection != blind, random chance Posted by: Dragon_Made_Flesh Feb 26 2004, 02:13 PM Jay: In an infinite universe there are infinite possibilities, therefore it is possible that your "divine creator" did not have one thing to do with the creation of the world or for that matter the evolution of it. If you can offer concrete proof , then that's different. But your statement, doesn't offer anything. Since your creator does not see fit to make himself/herself obvious than your statement is moot. So...as the title of the discussion says...Give ME PROOF! Posted by: BillJ Feb 26 2004, 03:28 PM QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 26 2004, 05:03 PM) The evidence of a Divine Creator is obvious. One only needs to look at the intricacies of our solar system, the Earth, the universal laws, and our own human bodies. Nothing of an accident can create the concise details of these things. So only supernatural God's can accidently come into being? Humans know nothing about causation! I will mock you! If there was evidence of a Divine Creator it would be obvious. One only needs to look at the complicated concept of the supernatural, their unlimited power, omniscience and omnipresent capabilities. Nothing of an accident can create the concise details of these things. Conjecture! Posted by: ~Josalo~ Feb 26 2004, 03:37 PM Excellent, Billj. Posted by: Starflier Feb 26 2004, 03:38 PM QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 26 2004, 02:03 PM) The evidence of a Divine Creator is obvious. One only needs to look at the intricacies of our solar system, the Earth, the universal laws, and our own human bodies. Nothing of an accident can create the concise details of these things. [The suffix "OR" is masculine. The suffices "RIX/RESS" is feminine] There is no evidence at all of a divine creatOR. A creatOR is a male deity. I, as a female was NOT created in HIS image & likeness & neither were any other females of any species. Now a Divine CreatRESS or CreatRIX is a whole nother story. Mothers give birth to both genders, fathers give birth to nothing at all, not even a cosmos, except in their imaginations. Genetics tamperings & stem cell research aside however. I can imagine living in an immense black velvet cosmic womb of the Great Infinitely Creating Mother much better than having been created a mere female second class creature by some separatist male sky deity. Still no proof of a creating being at all. All you mentioned, the solar system, earth, universal laws, our bodies, are all CREATION. That's all the proof of anything we've ever had. Still no proof of any male diety father/son creator cause of it all. Isn't it enough to worship, adore, glorify, serve & co-operate with Cosmic/Earthly Mother Nature, Mother Earth & All She Is including ourselves? I mean She is our heavenly home, isn't She? Being in the heavens with all the other stars, planets, galaxies as She is. Why must there be an egoistic male father/son/ghostly creator behind it all some where "out there" separated from all of us & Earth Herself? How remote, cold & estranged can he be? Like some absentee slumlord or abadoning father. I mean no one was there "in the beginning" so no one will ever know, will they? Or if there was a beginning of Creation at all. All the rest is just theories & more theologies based on nothing anyone can ever prove or possibly know or even guess at with our puny human brains. The very human Jesus included. He was no more the only son of Creation than anyone else ever was or is including we daughters of Creation. I mean geez, a person using ultra microscopic equipment examining a light photon or quark or even an atom might see a whole universe right there. So where did they come from? No one knows that either. Maybe a feminine & masculine light photon created everything or maybe two quarks, male & female did for all we know. I mean it takes two to tango after all. Looking at it that way we all have universes existing inside each of us, don't we? Pretty amazing to have Creation ongoing inside of ourselves, isn't it? Seems to me the male father/son creator is nothing more than primitive man's (not woman's) imagination. Some ancient men probably had their heads upside down in their underwear & jacking off said "Ohmygod, I just Big Banged...look at all that lovely sperm I created. Gee I just saw billions of stars & moons in my orgasmic mindfuck. Like the milky way it is. Some male fatherly creator must have ejaculated & created it all the same way I just did" Same batty time, same batty channel. Isn't it about time to use the brains & divinely human intelligence we were born with & think outside the box instead of always thinking inside that tiny bible box or tomb? How claustrophobic that must be!! Posted by: Guest Feb 26 2004, 04:16 PM Dragon made flesh (nice name by the way) , I was replying to Bastion OfSanity: ------------- The book you all swear is "the truth" has many instances of "god" getting involved. We ask for ONE. ------------ Can someone link me to an arrogant Christian website that has forums where the Topic is: 'Give me one reason !....' where they immaturely and vulgarly question evolutionists in a condescending manner to show us beyond a shadow of a doubt that life had a beginning and that beginning was a bang of some sort ? If you want to speak openly, I suggest you don't refer to me as an ass over one reply Posted by: Baby Eater Feb 26 2004, 04:23 PM Evidence of Zeus!!! Its his face! Look! The fact that we all know Zeus look like that is proof that this is proof that Zeus exist! Glory! Posted by: Baby Eater Feb 26 2004, 04:24 PM QUOTE Do you want proof? I'll give you proof. You probably spend far too much time trying to convince people that there was no Jesus. That very notion permeates your life. It's probably like an obsession. Quick. I got to get on the computer and tell the masses Jesus never existed. Jesus, who never existed, is still dominating all of your lives. Fool Posted by: =Veritas= Feb 26 2004, 04:30 PM "Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders," Jesus told him, "you will never believe." QUOTE And no one claims that it came to pass that way. Once and for all, comprehend this or be mocked according to your prideful ignorance: Natural selection != blind, random chance Tocis, either everything happened by random chance - an accident - or it was created and put in place by a Creator. Are you suggesting an alternative option? For the record, I don't get excited to see people say I have "prideful ignorance" - In fact, of most believers I would say I have the least of both counts. Dragon, QUOTE In an infinite universe there are infinite possibilities, therefore it is possible that your "divine creator" did not have one thing to do with the creation of the world or for that matter the evolution of it. First of all, we don't know if the universe is in fact, "infinite" - even if it was, you only can speculate that it would allow for "infinite possibilities." It sounded smart though I'll give you that. Therefore, whether you think it is or isn't possible for a Divine Creator to have anything to do with it, doesn't matter. Until you have "concrete evidence" of your "infinite universe" that demands "infinite possibilities" - the foundation of your argument is...moot. (au contraire) QUOTE If you can offer concrete proof , then that's different. But your statement, doesn't offer anything. Since your creator does not see fit to make himself/herself obvious than your statement is moot. So...as the title of the discussion says...Give ME PROOF! Actually, my statement in it's simplicity, says quite a bit. Have you studied what I've suggested? If not, do it. If you have, then give me your conclusion. Until then, my statement is everything BUT "moot" - and nobody, NOBODY has proven the Big Bang Theory. (Hence, the word "Theory" attached to the end of it). Therefore, I'm the one that's waiting... Hi BillJ, QUOTE So only supernatural God's can accidently come into being? No, a supernatural God has always been. "In the beginning" refers to our time - not God's. QUOTE Humans know nothing about causation! I will mock you! Humans, no. God, yes. Mock me all you want, I like to be amused every now and then! QUOTE If there was evidence of a Divine Creator it would be obvious. (It is, to most). QUOTE One only needs to look at the complicated concept of the supernatural Not too complicated at all actually. QUOTE ...their unlimited power, omniscience and omnipresent capabilities. See! QUOTE Nothing of an accident can create the concise details of these things. Conjecture! Really? I only extend to you the same question I just asked Dragon. Or, better yet - can you please explain to me the process of the Big Bang Theory? I've already studied it pretty extensively, but I'd like to hear how you explain that complete order, came out of complete disorder. How chemistry came out of chaos. Wanna take a stab at it? Jason Posted by: Tocis Feb 26 2004, 04:40 PM QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 26 2004, 04:30 PM) Tocis, either everything happened by random chance - an accident - or it was created and put in place by a Creator. Are you suggesting an alternative option? Not at all. But, whether you like it or not, science does not claim that blind chance is the driving force behind evolution. Chance is involved of course, but what gives the process a direction (and what fundies conveniently ignore...) is natural selection. For an example of the difference it makes, go to the main page of this site and search for the link "The Weasel applet" to the right. Check this out. Or, for another example: It's not too difficult to see that the chance of rolling an all-six with three standard dice is 1 / (6^3), roughly 0.5 %. Unless you're very lucky you'll have to try for a looong time. But try a little bit of selection: Roll until you got at least one six. Leave this die lying on the table and continue rolling the other two dice until one of them shows a six. Then roll the last die until you get the last six. Presto, you rolled all six, and you probably needed much less than the average 216 tries you'd need if you relied on pure chance. Well, you chose to ignore this fact, and if I remember correctly you didn't ignore it for the first time here... ...shuffle and deal with it. The mockery season begins now. Posted by: Sidhe Feb 26 2004, 04:50 PM Hehehehe... Yeah, you're right. The Big Bang is just a theory. Sooo... Now, take a bigass rock, hold it over your head, and let go. No? Because it'll fall on your head? How are you so certain? There's no "Law of Gravity"...just a gravitational theory. You've confused "hypothesis" and "theory". A hypothesis is something unproven, which is then the basis of experimentation, and is either proven or disproven. A theory, in scientific terms, is something that, on the basis of experimental evidence, is the best possible explanation. The reason it's not scientific law is that there's no absolute way of knowing if it's true. The big bang can't be recreated, so there's no way of proving that it's absolute truth. However, on the evidence gathered, it's the best explanation. Posted by: =Veritas= Feb 26 2004, 04:52 PM Mockery it is then... Ok Tocis, let's compare the chance of rolling dice to that of humanity - THAT'S apples to apples! Rolling dice is one thing. But the probability and percentage's aren't even close to what the big bang or evolution theories would require. A better analogy would be to say we completely disassembled a working wristwatch, and put all the disassembled parts in a shoebox. We began to shake it around, and if we shook it long enough, two parts would join together exactly how they belong. Then, if we continued shaking the box, for years, millions, billions even, the watch would assemble itself back into perfect working order. FAT chance! But nonetheless, it's what some choose to believe. Your turn. Posted by: Baby Eater Feb 26 2004, 04:57 PM QUOTE Tocis, either everything happened by random chance - an accident - or it was created and put in place by a Creator. Are you suggesting an alternative option? Jay, I'd like to be able to make you clearly understand my point of view, but I think its possible considering the insane size of all the connected ideas which are required to explain each others' logic. But in short: It is only because you have a brain that you can think that. It is not possible to have such an idea without a brain, so it is impossible to see your body as what it is without a brain. Its like, "how many chances are there that I am typing?". They are infinitely low: 0%. BEcause the chances that I have hands, fingers, a keyboard, that humankind invented this, etc, are all infinitely low. Would i be reasonable to say "it is impossible that this is pure luck! there must be a mystical reason to my typing.". Of course not, we both understand that I am only asking this question because I have the keyboard to do so. Same with the brain. Some planet in infinite space have brains on it. Only where there is a brain can a brain be percieved as how we percieve it. It is not "an accident". Its the chain of events. It is of our cultural/brain/whatever nature to seek a maker to all thing complex. Who made this? Who made that? The universe is complex, but onlike most human products, its have no creator signature, logo, label, etc. So, what with the maker thing? Its just a silly human reflex. "The door mysteriously slammed": must be a ghost (read: human)! I highly doubt a creator would make a gigantic chaotic Bang with no purpose but a foresaw life forms to appear 10 billions years later on one rock. I say we are lucky to be able to say we are lucky. We are alive and so are able to see life. Thats it. Go ask the rocks on pluto how great their life is. Posted by: Bruce Feb 26 2004, 04:59 PM Jay, That is simplistic and bad analogy. Rolling dice or playing the lottery, each time is a distinctly random event. Evolution and cosmology are not. Randomness and change in evolution for instance are not distinct. Unlike the lottery or dice, evolutionary change retains a conservation of information. For instance, genetic changes combine to develop unique expressions, based upon the conservation of information from what preceeded it. The same is true of cosmology in general. //Bruce// Posted by: Baby Eater Feb 26 2004, 05:00 PM QUOTE A better analogy would be to say we completely disassembled a working wristwatch, and put all the disassembled parts in a shoebox. We began to shake it around, and if we shook it long enough, two parts would join together exactly how they belong. Then, if we continued shaking the box, for years, millions, billions even, the watch would assemble itself back into perfect working order. Jay, read about what evolution ACTUALLY is before repeating creationist idiocies. There is no purpose in chance. It is not about "wow! It could make the watch!". Its just happen to be so. Look at the diversity of life, all from the same material: DNA. Now tell me, is there only one combinaison to your watch? Posted by: Doug2 Feb 26 2004, 05:11 PM Jay, did you just use the wristwatch analogy? Ouch, no wonder you have a torture pic as an avatar, you seem to be a masochist. Jay, that analogy is so far off it shows you must have very little understanding of evolution. I'm no scientist and I see about 47. Humans were not created by shaking earth and out pops a fully created human! Nor are humans the apex of creation or the only solution to the problem of life. (PS Jay, many natural objects in the universe to tell perfect time, ever heard of a pulsar! Scientists though aliens created them since they kept such perfect time) Atoms were present on earth billions of years ago. These atoms combined together, following the laws of chemistry and physics to create molecules. The same happened with the molecules and we get proteins. All simple combinations of atoms and molecules, all that are reproducible in a lab. With enough time (billions of years which is tough to reproduce in a lab) we get trillions of combinations and surprise surprise, the combinations which are most prolific are the ones that survive! It is all just atoms Jay. We are not made of magic, just atoms. You need to study protein and dna so you can see it is just simply that. We are only larger versions of it. When you understand what is actually happening it makes sense. It makes no sense to you because you have never taken the time to really study it beyond what hovind has told you. Posted by: Guest Feb 26 2004, 05:15 PM QUOTE A better analogy would be to say we completely disassembled a working wristwatch, and put all the disassembled parts in a shoebox. We began to shake it around, and if we shook it long enough, two parts would join together exactly how they belong. Then, if we continued shaking the box, for years, millions, billions even, the watch would assemble itself back into perfect working order. FAT chance! But nonetheless, it's what some choose to believe. That is, in fact, a terrible analogy. At the very least you ignore the fact that there wasn't just one "watch" being "shaken" at any one time. Also, in the combination of chemicals there is no predetermined way to "join together exactly how they belong" to produce a living organism. You just can't apply ignorant creationist belief to theories of evolution. Posted by: Dragon_Made_Flesh Feb 26 2004, 05:17 PM Jay, Yes The Big Bang theory is a theory because it has never been recreated since it first occured. If we tried it would destroy the universe. You sound like a child running around crying because supposidly I can't prove my argument. Of course no one knows the true begining of the universe because no one was around back then. As I think has been stressed many times already. Thus insisting that there must be some sort of "divine creator" is just as baseless because your argument cannot be proven either. And what am I supposed to study? The Bible? Christian Apologist bullshit? Please. Sorry to tell you but your point is still moot and will forever be moot unless you die, and then come back from the dead with news from Jeehezus and Gawd about how the world was created. I quite frankly am tired of you smarky supposidly know-it-all christians who put all your faith in a book that has a thousand inaccuracies and follow only what Preacher Flavor of the Week tells you. Please try to at least sound educated and not like some condescending smartass who deigns to try to convert us poor lost souls from damnation. So yeah..you are the one who's waiting. For absolutely nothing. Posted by: Doug2 Feb 26 2004, 05:19 PM The watch analogy does not allow for another important thing. If life, each small change is tested. If you are shaking a bag, and one axial gets stuck inside a wheel, and you remove those two piece because they are correct, and you allow those to two pieces to proliferate, then you have one working piece. There is not goal in evolution except survival. Whatever survives is passed on. Posted by: BillJ Feb 26 2004, 07:34 PM QUOTE Hi BillJ, QUOTE So only supernatural God's can accidently come into being? No, a supernatural God has always been. "In the beginning" refers to our time - not God's. This is pure speculation. QUOTE QUOTE If there was evidence of a Divine Creator it would be obvious. (It is, to most). You are saying that it's obvious that there is a divine creator, but yet you have no evidence to back up that speculation. It is speculative to say that the universe came into being out of nothing, but neither of the above statements are more obvious than the other. You cannot say that God is obvious when there is no evidence to form that conclusion. QUOTE QUOTE One only needs to look at the complicated concept of the supernatural Not too complicated at all actually. QUOTE ...their unlimited power, omniscience and omnipresent capabilities. See! Those attributes are based on conjecture and you have concluded that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, etc. and that his existence is obvious, but yet you have no evidence. Basically, you are saying that our existence is evidence of God and then you continue to say that God is infinite therefore he doesn't need a creator. Where is the evidence that shows God's obvious existence? All of your statements and conclusions about God are based on guesswork, and that is why God's existence isn't obvious. Even people like Stephen Hawking have doubted the need for a God even though it may not be the most fruitful idea. Posted by: JimmyDtD Feb 26 2004, 07:54 PM DNA is proof that there is a creator. Posted by: Tocis Feb 26 2004, 08:10 PM QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 26 2004, 04:52 PM) Rolling dice is one thing. But the probability and percentage's aren't even close to what the big bang or evolution theories would require. A better analogy would be to say we completely disassembled a working wristwatch, and put all the disassembled parts in a shoebox. We began to shake it around, and if we shook it long enough, two parts would join together exactly how they belong. Then, if we continued shaking the box, for years, millions, billions even, the watch would assemble itself back into perfect working order. Cling to your intentional misinterpretation of evolutionary theory fundie boy. It's the only thing you have after all. I have made it clear that the driving force of evolution is natural selection, and here you go coming up with your pure random chance again. I guess I should stop calling you a 3-brain-cells-fundie. You're a braindead fundie. QUOTE Your turn. Not really. The game is over. You lost. Posted by: Tocis Feb 26 2004, 08:15 PM QUOTE (JimmyDtD @ Feb 26 2004, 07:54 PM) DNA is proof that there is a creator. This breaks down into the same bullcrap terry tries to sell. You pridefully ignore the fact that evolutionary theory does not claim randomness, but natural selection as the engine of evolution. The sole reason for your ignorance is that you can attack the randomness misinterpretation of evolutionary theory, but not the real thing. Your point has been disproven. Either present something remotely valid or admit that you lost the game. On second thought, just admit that you lost. You have nothing valid to prove your fairy tale. Posted by: bob Feb 26 2004, 08:35 PM QUOTE (JimmyDtD @ Feb 26 2004, 07:54 PM) DNA is proof that there is a creator. Judging by Jimmy's response, I can guess that, in school when the teacher asked him for the answer to 6x9+8x25, he yelled out..."3", then sat back with a prideful grin on his face, glad he had given an answer...any answer. Posted by: Doug2 Feb 27 2004, 01:18 AM Bob Posted by: BillJ Feb 27 2004, 01:28 AM QUOTE (JimmyDtD @ Feb 26 2004, 10:54 PM) DNA is proof that there is a creator. Jimmy's DNA is proof that some individuals possess a stupidity gene. Perhaps it was caused by contaminated holy water. Posted by: BJR-1st timer Feb 27 2004, 02:04 AM I am a Christian, hopefully of at least average intelligence, and am not normally of the social persuasion to "put my 2 cents in"/post, but, here goes.... This is not the tangible proof that I'm sure you are looking for, but please bear with me, I am new at this and what you would probably consider your typical "fundy." (I'm a fulltime mom and wife). "My Case"... (This is my own experience, not "a friend of mine had a friend who experienced....blah, blah, blah") While in college a few years ago (ok maybe several years + ago) I went on a "mission" trip with a group to Equador. My spanish consisted of 2 years in high school, so I was pretty much illiterate for all intensive purposes. I did understand "!eh gringo!" though ;) We had 2 translators who had come with us; there were also 3 Chilenos(?) that joined our group. These men spoke VERY LITTLE english. Long story short, one night I gave the prayer before our meal; didn't think too much of it. Later that evening, one of our translators came to me to ask if I had said the prayer in spanish. (He thought the possibility existed- that maybe his mind had just automatically translated it to english.) I answered, "No. Why do you ask?" "Because our Chilean friends were asking me where you'd learned such fluent spanish and why you hadn't been using it all along." We asked several others who were present and they'd heard english. This was a miracle (small as it may seem) I experienced first hand. I did not believe that "tongues" (if one would wish to call it that) was a gift given to Christians 'now-a-days'. I personally do not believe in "prayer language" or that "anyone can speak tongues as long as they have the Holy Spirit", but I do believe God has the ability to do what He wishes, when He wishes. This alone has to be proof enough for me of God's existance. Of course, I also believe that I feel His "presence" in my life- when I keep an open dialogue with Him, read His Word, do not try to hide my humanity/sin. When I do not try to "lean on my own understanding", He makes my "path straight" (Prov.3) (ie: life is smooth/I'm at peace.) I do not believe I am a victim of blind faith; just a logical person who is able to accept the fact that there are some "unknowns", things that that are beyond (my) reason, like "How could my parents/how can my husband have such unconditional love for me?", "How could one human being be so brutal as to take another person's life, while other human beings would risk their lives to save another?", or "Why must I absolutely have to have milk when eating peanut butter?" Well, I believe my soap box is beginning to give way... with humble thanks for your time, BJ (Also, do most subscribers here not believe at all in a "spiritual realm"? Do you know of many xjews who join in the conversation or jews who join the conversation to defend Jehovah? thanx again.) Posted by: Fweethawt Feb 27 2004, 02:13 AM BJR-1st timer, That's not really the gift of "tongues". The prayer was spoken in English, right? It was the other person who had the gift of "ears". I don't see where you fall into the category of being a Fundie. You didn't exactly come in here shooting brimstone from your mouth. So, welcome. Peace Posted by: bob Feb 27 2004, 05:47 AM QUOTE (BJR-1st timer @ Feb 27 2004, 02:04 AM) "My Case"... (This is my own experience, not "a friend of mine had a friend who experienced....blah, blah, blah") While in college a few years ago... Welcome BJR-1st timer, I would encourage you to register if you want to post on the forum in the future. It is painless and just helps those of us, and you yourself, find past posts by you. Your experience is not unique. I have heard of this experience before. I am sure you don't actually expect a bunch of skeptics to just take your word for it, since none of us know you, or your particular brand of faith. My initial response, as a person who questions the validity of everything that sounds unnatural, is to wonder if the person who claims to have experienced the unnatural event, was either on drugs, or dreamt the entire event. Of course, what could have happened was the Chilean friends got together after your prayer and one of them, with a very vivid imagination started claiming to have understood your prayer, and the other, very impressionable Chilean friends fell right in with him. Your story would carry a little more weight if you had of personally talked to the Chilean friends immediately after your prayer, and they, through the interpreter, quoted your prayer verbatim. But you didn't even hear directly from them. The translator could have been making the whole thing up. Sorry BJR, but your supposed experience, while fun to imagine, is of no use to us. But thanks for sharing. Posted by: moorezw Feb 27 2004, 06:29 AM BJR- QUOTE do most subscribers here not believe at all in a "spiritual realm"? I have seen no evidence that a spiritual realm exists, so I don't believe in it. QUOTE Do you know of many xjews who join in the conversation or jews who join the conversation to defend Jehovah? We have a Jewish member, http://www.vanallens.com/forum/index.php?showuser=499. Posted by: Skankboy Feb 27 2004, 06:48 AM Welcome BJR QUOTE I do not believe I am a victim of blind faith; just a logical person who is able to accept the fact that there are some "unknowns", things that that are beyond (my) reason Of course there are going to be unknowns, that's one of the basic premises of being (pause for dramatic music) human. Personally, I think there will always be things outside of our understanding, but I don't think that requires a god to fill in those gaps. To me it seems like the old sailing maps, whenever there was a place that hadn't been explored yet they would put "here be dragons". You're world view seems the same to me only instead of "here be dragons" you've put "here be god". I couldn't see the world that way and still feel honest with myself... Posted by: Sam Feb 27 2004, 07:43 AM Why do you ask for proof? Posted by: Skankboy Feb 27 2004, 07:44 AM Sorry Sam, are you talking to me? Posted by: bob Feb 27 2004, 07:47 AM QUOTE (Sam @ Feb 27 2004, 07:43 AM) Why do you ask for proof? why do you ask, why we asks for proof? Sam, please register if you are going to post here on a regular basis. It's simple, painless, and helps us all keep track of our posts for future reference. Posted by: Sam Feb 27 2004, 07:51 AM I just stumbled onto this site which is why I have not registered. I will register if I will post here often. I was asking the question (why proof?) to the original post. Why would you want to have proof of a creator? What kind of proof would be satisfactory? Posted by: bob Feb 27 2004, 07:58 AM QUOTE (Sam @ Feb 27 2004, 07:51 AM) I was asking the question (why proof?) to the original post. Why would you want to have proof of a creator? What kind of proof would be satisfactory? Something that is not so easy to dispute, I guess. Perhaps something that could actually be considered proof, not just a mistranslation of history, archeology, biology, geology, psychology, etc. It doesn't even have to be proof. All I ask for is some evidence. Maybe a giant thumb print? Posted by: Sam Feb 27 2004, 08:03 AM I read the earlier exchange about hypothesis and theory. As was correctly stated, a hypothesis is a guess to be experimented on and a theory has moved past hypothesis through as a viable option. By definition, the evloutionary theory of the origin of the universe cannot be proven, because we cannot again witness the origin of the universe. Is there agreement on this? Posted by: moorezw Feb 27 2004, 08:09 AM Sam- By definition, the theory of gravity cannot be proven. Posted by: Sam Feb 27 2004, 08:11 AM How can the theory of gravity not be proven. It is a theory that can be tested and is now accepted in science as a law. Posted by: moorezw Feb 27 2004, 08:23 AM Sam- Our understanding of gravity is a theoretical model that has been modified throughout history, from Newton to Einstein and beyond. The current theory may be sufficient, for now, to explain the phenomenon of gravity, but it is not proven to be 100% correct. There are still many questions that need answering. Posted by: moorezw Feb 27 2004, 08:24 AM Sam- Also, evolutionary theory says absolutely nothing about the origins of the Universe. It describes the changing frequency of genes over time. Posted by: Sam Feb 27 2004, 08:38 AM Sorry about that, I was not intending to discuss the the law of gravity. In conclusion on gravity, the basic law has not changed. Newton first put it into words, Einstein expanded on it, but the basic law has remained the same. In reference to the earth, an object with any density will always fall. If we are agreed that a theory that is just a theory (it has not been declared a law) cannot by definition be proven, then the origin of the universe (either by evolution or supernatural creation) can also not be proven. The theory of supernatural creation claims that a creator set everything into place with natural age and then the process was over. Therefore, I see no way that the existence of a creator can be proved beyond doubt. Posted by: moorezw Feb 27 2004, 08:56 AM Sam- Exactly. Posted by: _channelcat Feb 27 2004, 09:01 AM I can't seem to log in today. There must be sum kind of glitch with my cumpooter. inyway, regarding the "prufe" Well, the prufe is: becawz the buybull ses so. And how do we know the buybull is true?: bekawz the buybull ses so. The buybull is true bekawz the buybull ses the buybull is true. What moar lojikal proof dus inywon nede? Jesus evin says so somewhere in the buybull. I beleeve it is in the gospils: He sed " Behold, the buybull is Gawds wird; it is true. " Most peepol beleeve that the buybull came about around the 4th sintury. That is a lie frum the devil. Jesus carried around the same buybull that we rede today. Don't you no inything?! He rote evirything in it! What?! You have nevir red that inywhere in the buybull?! You must have faith and shut down all fakultys of reeson... and beleeve! You cannot pleese Gawd without faith. Jesus luvs you! Accept Him or birn in Hell forevir! Posted by: Sam Feb 27 2004, 09:12 AM By its very nature, the origin of the world cannot be proven by scientific method, either by evolution or creation. However, it is obvious that the universe did at one time begin. The question becomes, how? I admit that it is possible that the origin of the universe began with a big bang with no intelligent design or interaction. If I proceed from the assumption that there is no God, then this is the best argument. However, this is a decision of faith. I accept by faith that this is how the universe began. I say "faith," because I cannot prove it. Is it at all possible that there is a God? Posted by: moorezw Feb 27 2004, 09:16 AM Sam- QUOTE However, this is a decision of faith. I accept by faith that this is how the universe began. I say "faith," because I cannot prove it. And until it can be proved, the only honest thing to say is: "I don't know." QUOTE Is it at all possible that there is a God? It's not just possible that there is a god, it's possible that there is any god. But since there's no proof of any god, I have to dismiss it as nothing more than a possibility. Posted by: Sam Feb 27 2004, 09:25 AM In terms of our existence, (origin, development), so little can be proved. Are you saying that on the issue of natural selection, your answer is, "I don't know"? Posted by: moorezw Feb 27 2004, 09:59 AM Sam- Natural selection has nothing to do with the origin of the Universe. Posted by: Sam Feb 27 2004, 01:05 PM Isn't natural selection considered development? I ask the question because you said that the only honest answer to something that cannot be proven is to say, "I don't know." So, since natural selection can't be proven (i.e. it is a theory), are you saying that in terms of our development into what we are today as humans, your answer is "I don't know"? I understand the difference between the origin of the universe and natural selection. I am leaving the discussion about origins for a moment and dealing strictly with natural selection. Posted by: bob Feb 27 2004, 01:43 PM QUOTE (Sam @ Feb 27 2004, 01:05 PM) Isn't natural selection considered development? I ask the question because you said that the only honest answer to something that cannot be proven is to say, "I don't know." So, since natural selection can't be proven (i.e. it is a theory), are you saying that in terms of our development into what we are today as humans, your answer is "I don't know"? Sam...register doggonit! I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a muscle we call the heart, beating in my chest. I have never seen it, but I can feel my pulse, and I have read somewhere that most living people have the same muscle in them. I guess the only people who know for sure are those who have seen hearts; those in the medical field, serial killers, etc. If you present me with two options for what is in my chest, pumping blood through my vains, and one of those choices is presented by science, and that choice is a heart muscle. And the other choice is presented by the church, and that choice is a grapefruit. I will most likely side with the more logical, thought out, investigated, explanation. I would most likely not accept the explanation that came from a single chapter in a 2,000 year old book. Posted by: sam1409 Feb 27 2004, 02:04 PM Bob What is the point that you are trying to make? Posted by: ~Josalo~ Feb 27 2004, 03:02 PM QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 26 2004, 06:52 PM) Mockery it is then... Ok Tocis, let's compare the chance of rolling dice to that of humanity - THAT'S apples to apples! Rolling dice is one thing. But the probability and percentage's aren't even close to what the big bang or evolution theories would require. A better analogy would be to say we completely disassembled a working wristwatch, and put all the disassembled parts in a shoebox. We began to shake it around, and if we shook it long enough, two parts would join together exactly how they belong. Then, if we continued shaking the box, for years, millions, billions even, the watch would assemble itself back into perfect working order. FAT chance! But nonetheless, it's what some choose to believe. Your turn. I find it funny how an omni-everything god exists above the solid dome firmament that covers the flat earth(as described in the bible) and has magical powers that do things such as create the universe and flood the entire earth with water(which somehow magically dissappeared along with the evidence, go figure) yet, evolution is impossible. Posted by: bob Feb 27 2004, 04:35 PM QUOTE (sam1409 @ Feb 27 2004, 02:04 PM) Bob What is the point that you are trying to make? Thanks for registering Sam. As far as what my point was...beats the heck out of me. Something just popped in my head and it spewed out my finger tips. I must be more careful. Posted by: moorezw Feb 27 2004, 06:40 PM Sam- QUOTE So, since natural selection can't be proven (i.e. it is a theory), are you saying that in terms of our development into what we are today as humans, your answer is "I don't know"? You're right. I don't know. But... There is a lot of evidence that the forces of natural selection, operating over periods of time and many generations, can cause changes in allele frequency within a population. There is also a lot of evidence that random DNA mutagenesis occurs at a measurable rate, and that it can cause polymorphisms in functional genes. Put that all together and you get evolutionary theory, which I think is the most-likely explanation for human development that we currently have. Posted by: chefranden Feb 27 2004, 07:11 PM QUOTE (Sam @ Feb 27 2004, 11:12 AM) By its very nature, the origin of the world cannot be proven by scientific method, either by evolution or creation. However, it is obvious that the universe did at one time begin. The question becomes, how? I admit that it is possible that the origin of the universe began with a big bang with no intelligent design or interaction. If I proceed from the assumption that there is no God, then this is the best argument. However, this is a decision of faith. I accept by faith that this is how the universe began. I say "faith," because I cannot prove it. Is it at all possible that there is a God? Yes, it is possible there is a god. No, it is not probable that there is a god. Christian God cannot exist by definition. Therefore if there is a god it is not TriGod. FYI there is a method to determine which hypothesis, or theory if you will, is the best explanation for any particular phenomenon. It is called the Criteria of Adequacy: Testability: A hypothesis is scientific only if it is testable, that is only if it predicts something other than what it was introduced to explain. Fruitfulness: Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that makes the most novel predictions. Scope: Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that explains and predicts the most divers phenomena. Simplicity: Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that makes the fewest assumptions. Conservation: Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that fits best with established beliefs. You don't need to go by faith. You can test Xian theories against other theories using these tests to determine which theory is most probable. Posted by: sam1409 Feb 27 2004, 07:36 PM QUOTE (chefranden @ Feb 27 2004, 07:11 PM) Yes, it is possible there is a god. No, it is not probable that there is a god. Christian God cannot exist by definition. Therefore if there is a god it is not TriGod. Why do you say that by definition the Christian God cannot exist? Posted by: Tocis Feb 27 2004, 07:49 PM QUOTE (sam1409 @ Feb 27 2004, 07:36 PM) QUOTE (chefranden @ Feb 27 2004, 07:11 PM) Yes, it is possible there is a god. No, it is not probable that there is a god. Christian God cannot exist by definition. Therefore if there is a god it is not TriGod. Why do you say that by definition the Christian God cannot exist? Start with omnipotence. Can an omnipotent entity create something too heavy for it to lift? Continue with perfection. A perfect entity would not do anything, whether it's creating a universe or anything else, because being perfect it would have no need for that. End this little posting with loving. An all-loving entity simply would not create something like hell for most people to roast in. And that's just what occurs to me spontaneously. Check out the wealth of archived articles on our site. You'll find so much proof that the christian god (biblegod) is impossible that you'd probably need several hours to read through it all. Posted by: chefranden Feb 27 2004, 07:56 PM QUOTE (sam1409 @ Feb 27 2004, 09:36 PM) QUOTE (chefranden @ Feb 27 2004, 07:11 PM) Yes, it is possible there is a god. No, it is not probable that there is a god. Christian God cannot exist by definition. Therefore if there is a god it is not TriGod. Why do you say that by definition the Christian God cannot exist? I'll answer that tomorrow. Posted by: sam1409 Feb 27 2004, 08:02 PM QUOTE (Tocis @ Feb 27 2004, 07:49 PM) Start with omnipotence. Can an omnipotent entity create something too heavy for it to lift? Continue with perfection. A perfect entity would not do anything, whether it's creating a universe or anything else, because being perfect it would have no need for that. End this little posting with loving. An all-loving entity simply would not create something like hell for most people to roast in. I apologize that I am not too familiar with the workings of the quote system. If it comes off rough, I am sorry. On the first comment, this argument is circular reasoning and is not the best way of debating the possibility of an omnipotent being. Secondly, the Christian God in the Bible is not said to have needed to create universe, nor is it overly specific as to why the universe was created. This reader comes away with the understanding that God created all things for two reasons and I will state my most speculative first. 1) Just as an artist desires to make something beautiful, so God may have desired to make something beautiful (Again, this is just an idea on my part) 2) The Bible does clearly say that God did not need to create man, but rather that He chose to in order to have a relationship with a being that could choose to love Him or not to. Thirdly, do you believe that it is possible that a hell could exist? Posted by: Tocis Feb 27 2004, 08:24 PM QUOTE (sam1409 @ Feb 27 2004, 08:02 PM) QUOTE (Tocis @ Feb 27 2004, 07:49 PM) Start with omnipotence. Can an omnipotent entity create something too heavy for it to lift? Continue with perfection. A perfect entity would not do anything, whether it's creating a universe or anything else, because being perfect it would have no need for that. End this little posting with loving. An all-loving entity simply would not create something like hell for most people to roast in. I apologize that I am not too familiar with the workings of the quote system. If it comes off rough, I am sorry. Looks like you found out how to quote correctly. QUOTE On the first comment, this argument is circular reasoning and is not the best way of debating the possibility of an omnipotent being. It is a paradox, indeed. A paradox that proves that true omnipotence is impossible for any entity. QUOTE 1) Just as an artist desires to make something beautiful, so God may have desired to make something beautiful (Again, this is just an idea on my part) 2) The Bible does clearly say that God did not need to create man, but rather that He chose to in order to have a relationship with a being that could choose to love Him or not to. So god was either suffering from desire or from need for a relationship. In both cases, it's evidence against his perfection. QUOTE Thirdly, do you believe that it is possible that a hell could exist? Do you? Your counter-question seems to have little relation to my original point... But to answer anyway, I do not believe in the existence of Hell but Hel. No that's not a spelling error, and not a joke either. Posted by: sam1409 Feb 27 2004, 09:28 PM I am not sure how to do the individual quote the way you used it in yours. Let me communicate my intention: I wish to engage in a thoughtful debate over the existence of God (of which I see that is happening). I realize that there are no shortage of "hell-breathing" people that you have encountered probably in everyday life as well as on these pages. I am not, nor do I intend to be one of those people. The debate doesn't go very far when discourse begins with "turn or burn." On the "paradox" issue... is that really what you believe is a good way to debunk omnipotence? On need vs. desire: Do you love anyone? Do you see that as an imperfection on your part? The desire to show love to someone in my opinion makes one stronger, not weaker. I have a wife and 3 children. I am a better man today because of my love for those 4 people than I was before they were in my life (certainly there are others, but I will use them for the sake of discussion). On the Hell issue. 1) What do you mean by Hel? 2) My question was not do you believe in hell, but rather is it at all possible that it exists? Posted by: bob Feb 28 2004, 06:18 AM QUOTE (sam1409 @ Feb 27 2004, 08:02 PM) ...do you believe that it is possible that a hell could exist? I would need your definition of this "hell" before I answered. But going on assumptions here, I have to assume you are referring to the biblical hell. In my previous studies, I got the impression that the location was...down...which of course would seem to mean the center of the earth. It was a hot place (lake of fire), and it was, generally speaking, a miserable place to retire to. But since it has never been detected, discovered, measures, or located, I have to state that bible hell is not probable. Is it possible?, hell, anything is possible. I lived in Louisiana for three years. Would that qualify as "a hell"? Posted by: fool_ps14:1 Feb 28 2004, 06:25 AM QUOTE do you believe that it is possible that a hell could exist? of course hell exists, its very real. and so is santa clause and the easter bunny and jesus and spinal tap Posted by: Lokmer Feb 28 2004, 07:45 AM Hey, come on, fool. Sam is being courteous and reasonably lucid so far, there's no reason to raise ad hominims. -Lokmer Posted by: _reppinthelord Feb 28 2004, 04:44 PM I think we all know that there is no exact physical proof that there is a God, if there was i'm sure the world would know about it. All Christians have is faith, and while no one else can get exact physical proof that there is no God, we will continue to keep our faith. Posted by: sam1409 Feb 28 2004, 05:18 PM QUOTE (Tocis @ Feb 27 2004, 07:49 PM) An all-loving entity simply would not create something like hell for most people to roast in. The reason why I even brought hell into the discussion was because Tocis brought it up as a reason he does not believe in a god, specifically the one mentioned in the Bible. I do not particularly enjoy discussing the topic of hell. It was brought up and so I wanted to see if he acknowledged the possibility of a literal hell and also to get his belief on the issue. Admittedly, to those who do not believe in God, or the supernatural for that matter, the concept of hell seems rather silly or even sadistic. Posted by: Tocis Feb 28 2004, 06:45 PM QUOTE (sam1409 @ Feb 27 2004, 09:28 PM) I am not sure how to do the individual quote the way you used it in yours. I do that by cutting-n-pasting your individual snippets into the main posting window (ctrl-x and ctrl-v), enclosed in "quote" code (alt-q). QUOTE The debate doesn't go very far when discourse begins with "turn or burn." Ah, if only some more people would agree with you QUOTE On the "paradox" issue... is that really what you believe is a good way to debunk omnipotence? I assume that one could find a better way, but to me, it's one method to show that the christian god concept has... well... problems. QUOTE On need vs. desire: Do you love anyone? Do you see that as an imperfection on your part? Yes on both, though in my opinion the latter is a very enjoyable type of imperfection. Please note that I don't want to say that imperfection is bad in and of itself... QUOTE On the Hell issue. 1) What do you mean by Hel? Hel is the realm where, according to the Asatru mythology, the dead go - except for the bravest of warriors who fall in battle. The holy songs and poems describe that these Einherjer (heroes) will be collected by the Valkyries and brought to Valhalla where they train for the Last Battle, Ragnarök, where they will fight for the Aesir and Vanir against the giants. Hel is supposed to be an unpleasant but not horrible place... except for one verse in the Edda that describes a house wherein the murderers, liars and adulterers wade in streams of venom and where Nidhögg (the dragon of envy) gnaws on them. QUOTE 2) My question was not do you believe in hell, but rather is it at all possible that it exists? Ah, yes. Sorry. If we allow for the supernatural at all, then naturally we can't say that such a place cannot exist at all. However, as the bible tells much that has been proven false, I see no reason to believe in a literal hell. Enough of an answer I hope? Posted by: sam1409 Feb 28 2004, 07:03 PM Tocis, What are some of the things that the Bible teaches that have been proven false? Posted by: bob Feb 28 2004, 08:38 PM QUOTE (_reppinthelord @ Feb 28 2004, 04:44 PM) I think we all know that there is no exact physical proof that there is a God, if there was i'm sure the world would know about it. All Christians have is faith, and while no one else can get exact physical proof that there is no God, we will continue to keep our faith. _reppinthelord, I, for one, have no argument against you believing what you want to believe. I have been attempting to get believers to admit that for quite a while. I think you are probably only the second one I have ever heard admit that all you have is faith. I applaud your honesty. Posted by: sam1409 Feb 29 2004, 06:01 AM QUOTE (_reppinthelord @ Feb 28 2004, 04:44 PM) I think we all know that there is no exact physical proof that there is a God, if there was i'm sure the world would know about it. All Christians have is faith, and while no one else can get exact physical proof that there is no God, we will continue to keep our faith. I am of the belief that, yes, faith is a critical part of believing in a supernatural being. However, it is not blind faith... I believe that it is also a rational possibility based on teleological evidence. Since we cannot prove how the universe came into being either by intelligent design or by big bang (other theories, etc)... aren't we all by some extent or another choosing to believe by faith? I do not use "faith" in the religious sense of the word, but rather, a conclusion one draws and accepts by interpreting the data he has. Posted by: moorezw Feb 29 2004, 06:21 AM Sam- QUOTE Since we cannot prove how the universe came into being either by intelligent design or by big bang (other theories, etc)... aren't we all by some extent or another choosing to believe by faith? I do not use "faith" in the religious sense of the word, but rather, a conclusion one draws and accepts by interpreting the data he has. Faith in the veracity of science is justified. Faith in the veracity of myth is untenable. Posted by: bob Feb 29 2004, 07:09 AM QUOTE (sam1409 @ Feb 29 2004, 06:01 AM) I am of the belief that, yes, faith is a critical part of believing in a supernatural being. However, it is not blind faith... I believe that it is also a rational possibility based on teleological evidence. Can faith based on "teleological evidence" be considered saving faith? Do you say to Jesus, "I believe you died on the cross for my sins based on the "teleological evidence"?, or do you say to him, "I believe because I trust the bible regardless of any evidence"? Seems to me that religious faith requires a certain amount of blindness. Posted by: Starflier Feb 29 2004, 09:09 AM QUOTE (moorezw @ Feb 29 2004, 06:21 AM) Sam- QUOTE Since we cannot prove how the universe came into being either by intelligent design or by big bang (other theories, etc)... aren't we all by some extent or another choosing to believe by faith? I do not use "faith" in the religious sense of the word, but rather, a conclusion one draws and accepts by interpreting the data he has. Faith in the veracity of science is justified. Faith in the veracity of myth is untenable. I certainly agree with this. Scientific evidence is always what I search for in any instance to ensure my faith in anything, even if that evidence is on a microscopic, subatomic or light photon level. Myth, fantasy, urban legends, etc. alone just doesn't cut it for me, not anymore anyway. Posted by: Guest Feb 29 2004, 11:41 AM QUOTE (bob @ Feb 29 2004, 07:09 AM) Can faith based on "teleological evidence" be considered saving faith? Do you say to Jesus, "I believe you died on the cross for my sins based on the "teleological evidence"?, or do you say to him, "I believe because I trust the bible regardless of any evidence"? Seems to me that religious faith requires a certain amount of blindness. I was speaking to the possibility of a supernatural b |