1. Joined
    02 Feb '06
    Moves
    8557
    29 Jun '06 03:54
    I have next to me a book entitle "The Young Man's Guide". This book is a very old "guide" to how a young Christian man should act. I happened to read the first few pages, and I would like to read an excerpt for everybody (believers and non-believers alike).

    pg. 4 paragraph 2

    ""Is there a God?" What an unnecesary question you are saying to yourself. And you are quite right.In regard to this point David says in one of the Psalms: "The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God." And truly; only a man destitute of reaso, a man who is mad, could make such an assertion, could question the existence of God."

    The next couple of paragraphs compares a watch to the Universe. Giving an example very similar to as follows, one person shows a watch to his friend, asks if he thinks that it would take somebody with much skill to make. Your friend would not reply, no it made itself, because you would call him crazy. This book states, scientists who state that the Universe came into being by itself are making absurd claims for this same reason! However, the authors of this book are actually kind enough to give these scientists the benefit of the doubt and say for instance that they are right. However, they owe us an explanation of the most important point, that being "whence came this primeval matter?" To which it states

    "The good gentlemen will thus find themselves driven into a very tight corner, and in order to get out of the dilemma they will be compelled to retreat to a certain extent from the position in which they have entrenched themselves, and say: "If you persist in having a God, you may give the name of God to this primary matter." But this will not help to settle the question, for to have such a God as this is tantamount to having no God at all."

    The book then talks about how through the use of common sense we can see once and for all that "God" exists. I want to see what comments believers and non-believers have about all of this before I comment.
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    29 Jun '06 06:33
    Originally posted by cmsMaster
    "The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God."
    Out of the mouths of babes come the truth. If even a fool can see that there is no God then surely those of us who are not foolish should know it.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    29 Jun '06 06:38
    If I see a watch I suspect a human maker. But only because I know that watches are made by humans, not because of its apparent complexity. This is a misleading arguement for God.
    If I show you sand dunes in the desert, so beautifull and perfectly formed, do you declare there must be a maker? If not, why not?
  4. Standard memberKnightWulfe
    Chess Samurai
    Yes
    Joined
    26 Apr '04
    Moves
    66095
    29 Jun '06 17:12
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    If I see a watch I suspect a human maker. But only because I know that watches are made by humans, not because of its apparent complexity. This is a misleading arguement for God.
    If I show you sand dunes in the desert, so beautifull and perfectly formed, do you declare there must be a maker? If not, why not?
    Every argument for God is misleading.

    X is so, thus God exists, yet there is no proof that God did, said, made X. It is all based in faith.

    I think that is where the faithers falter... They keep trying to use scietific process to prove there is a God, which simply cannot be done. There is only faith that there is a God. All things that anyone tries to attribute to God, Allah, Shiva, Brahma or any other deific entity is just striving to settle it in their own mind.

    There can be no proof, as there is no proof. That is why it is called FAITH.

    Just the opinion of one non-believer.
  5. Standard memberEnigmaticCam
    Chess n00b
    Cali
    Joined
    24 Mar '06
    Moves
    7255
    29 Jun '06 18:17
    Originally posted by KnightWulfe
    There can be no proof, as there is no proof. That is why it is called FAITH.
    Your definition of faith is misconstrued. Faith is the "assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demostration of realities, though not beheld."
  6. Standard memberKnightWulfe
    Chess Samurai
    Yes
    Joined
    26 Apr '04
    Moves
    66095
    29 Jun '06 18:341 edit
    Originally posted by EnigmaticCam
    Your definition of faith is misconstrued. Faith is the "assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demostration of realities, though not beheld."
    My definition is not misconstrued.


    Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

    Faith: The word faith has various uses; its central meaning is similar to "belief", "trust" or "confidence", but unlike these terms, "faith" tends to imply a transpersonal rather than interpersonal relationship – with God or a higher power. The object of faith can be a person (or even an inanimate object or state of affairs) or a proposition (or body of propositions, such as a religious credo). In each case, however, faith is in an aspect of the object and cannot be logically proven or objectively known. Faith can also be defined as accepting as true something which one has been told by someone who is believed to be trustworthy. It can also mean believing unconditionally. In its proper sense faith means trusting the word of another.


    Hence my statement that religion cannot be proven.
  7. Standard memberEnigmaticCam
    Chess n00b
    Cali
    Joined
    24 Mar '06
    Moves
    7255
    29 Jun '06 18:511 edit
    Originally posted by KnightWulfe
    Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
    Don't know where you're getting that, but it's a bit presumptuous to say that faith doesn't rest on logical proof or material evidence just because it's most often ascribed to beliefs you don't agree with.

    As I already stated, faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities, though not beheld. If you actually read that you would note key words, like "assured" and "evident". Faith is not a blind hope. We all have various forms of faith. Science is as much faith as anything else. All the laws of science are based on faith; faith that given certain circumstances a certain result will occur, only because they have occured before. We only know 100% sure what those results are because they've happened before and have always happened the same way. We can say that without a doubt the sun will rise tomorrow, but we aren't exactly beholding that at this moment, are we? We are putting faith in what has always happened (the sun has always risen each day). And our faith in our tried and true knowledge of space gives us assurance of it.
  8. Standard memberKnightWulfe
    Chess Samurai
    Yes
    Joined
    26 Apr '04
    Moves
    66095
    29 Jun '06 18:57
    Originally posted by EnigmaticCam
    Don't know where you're getting that, but it's a bit presumptuous to say that faith doesn't rest on logical proof or material evidence just because it's most often ascribed to beliefs you don't agree with.

    As I already stated, faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities, though not beheld. If you actua ...[text shortened]... y). And our faith in our tried and true knowledge of space gives us assurance of it.
    I read it and then looked up the definition of the word FAITH from 3 different sources... Apparently you are paraphrasing the definition to fit your argument. I am stating the bare definition of the word.

    Sources: Websters.com, Answers.com and dictionary.com
  9. Standard memberEnigmaticCam
    Chess n00b
    Cali
    Joined
    24 Mar '06
    Moves
    7255
    29 Jun '06 19:11
    Originally posted by KnightWulfe
    I read it and then looked up the definition of the word FAITH from 3 different sources... Apparently you are paraphrasing the definition to fit your argument. I am stating the bare definition of the word.

    Sources: Websters.com, Answers.com and dictionary.com
    I'm not referring to the Webster's definition. I'm referring to what the Bible has to say about faith at Hebrews 11:1. According to the Bible, faith is not blind. Or at least, those who accurately say they have "faith in God" should do so by the same means that we have "faith in science".

    Since so many people out there really do have blind faith and ascribe their blind faith to god, the word faith has lost its merit. The dictionary's definitions are based on what is widely used (as any lexicogropher will tell you), and thus you have that definition. But what it truly means to have faith in the bible and faith in god, as he wants you to, is to have an "assured expectation" based on evidence.
  10. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    29 Jun '06 20:23
    Originally posted by EnigmaticCam
    I'm not referring to the Webster's definition. I'm referring to what the Bible has to say about faith at Hebrews 11:1. According to the Bible, faith is not blind. Or at least, those who accurately say they have "faith in God" should do so by the same means that we have "faith in science".

    Since so many people out there really do have blind faith and ...[text shortened]... ith in god, as he wants you to, is to have an "assured expectation" based on evidence.
    I'm just going to refer to you as Kelly, version 2.
  11. Standard memberEnigmaticCam
    Chess n00b
    Cali
    Joined
    24 Mar '06
    Moves
    7255
    29 Jun '06 20:46
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    I'm just going to refer to you as Kelly, version 2.
    So now we're generalizing? You don't even know me.
  12. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    29 Jun '06 22:02
    Originally posted by EnigmaticCam
    So now we're generalizing? You don't even know me.
    Well, you ARE parroting out his "science is faith" argument. Pity it's a load of crap. I've pointed out to Kelly heaps of times that the way "faith" is defined by a scientist and a religious person is completely different. Same as the word "believe".
  13. Joined
    02 Feb '06
    Moves
    8557
    29 Jun '06 22:51
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Well, you ARE parroting out his "science is faith" argument. Pity it's a load of crap. I've pointed out to Kelly heaps of times that the way "faith" is defined by a scientist and a religious person is completely different. Same as the word "believe".
    No "believers" have an comments about the claims from the book?
  14. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    29 Jun '06 23:57
    Originally posted by EnigmaticCam
    I'm not referring to the Webster's definition. I'm referring to what the Bible has to say about faith at Hebrews 11:1. According to the Bible, faith is not blind. Or at least, those who accurately say they have "faith in God" should do so by the same means that we have "faith in science".

    Since so many people out there really do have blind faith and ...[text shortened]... ith in god, as he wants you to, is to have an "assured expectation" based on evidence.
    When a religious person says "I believe in God", they are saying "without empirical evidence I have a gut feeling that God exists". When a scientist says "we believe the world is 4.53 billion years old" it's quite different to a Die-Hard-Christian (DHC) saying they believe it to be 6,000 years old or a random nutter in the street who believes it was laid by the great celestial chicken (GCC) a week last Tuesday. What the scientist is, in effect, saying is this, "Based upon a huge body of empirical evidence, and in the absence of anything contradictory, the most likely age of the earth is 4.53 G.Y."

    Huge differences in implication, I'm sure you'll agree. The words "faith" and "believe" are two of the most-bandied about, and least well defined words in this thread. The other one is "theory".
  15. Standard memberEnigmaticCam
    Chess n00b
    Cali
    Joined
    24 Mar '06
    Moves
    7255
    30 Jun '06 00:47
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    When a religious person says "I believe in God", they are saying "without empirical evidence I have a gut feeling that God exists".
    Refer back to my post where I mention presumptuousness. When I use the word faith, how the Bible itself defines faith, is anything but "without imperical evidence." It is in this way that science is based on faith, not some loosely based blind hope.

    But if you want to tackle exactly what evidences one uses to base his beliefs on God, that's a whole different story. Sorry, I don't mean to make mountains out of molehills on the definition of faith. I just hate how it's taken as a grain of salt when someone says, "I have faith in God."
Back to Top