Originally posted by KellyJaydo you not have some sense of judgement? Surely when a suicide bomber takes lives apart from their own there is a judgement on their part that their faith is greater than those whose lives they took? While we can shrug our shoulders and say 'what will be will be'; do we have the breadth of will to say 'he is my brother'? 'I do have some accountability in the face of God'?
Faith, I have it, you have it, the suicide bomber has it, everyone does
to a degree it isn't always about God. That said, where and how we live
we do so by faith, we believe the universe to be thus and so, therefore
we act upon our beliefs and walk out our own faith. Reality will not
change simply because I believe it to be a certain way, be it created ...[text shortened]... er that, if not, then our lives will simply go where
they go or not when our lives end.
Kelly
Originally posted by duecerhmmmmmm strange response. you seem to argue that any story "full of holes" could therefore be true.
In many respects you are correct. The story of Genesis was a story told by the Isrealites as a way of explaining their origins. It does not mean that God did not create the universe and world, just because the story is riddled with holes.
The idea that the earth is only 6000 years old seems silly to me, and those that teach the Bible to be the unerring word ...[text shortened]... en they would have married their sisters, and propagated like rabbits until the cities were full
as I was saying.....god almost certainly does not exist.
the question returns to one which no-one has yet replied: who created the creator? and who created the creator's creator??
2 gold stars and a nobel prize for the correct answer.
Originally posted by lefou13Ages ago, men created the creator. The grandparents of the creator's creator created the creators.
hmmmmmm strange response. you seem to argue that any story "full of holes" could therefore be true.
as I was saying.....god almost certainly does not exist.
the question returns to one which no-one has yet replied: who created the creator? and who created the creator's creator??
2 gold stars and a nobel prize for the correct answer.
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayThe only true difference between us is I call what I believe faith, you call your beliefs facts.
If you do not see your head on your shoulders I suggest you look
south and inside another of your body parts! My point has been if is
in my possession I do not look for it, neither do I wonder if I have it or
not, if you tell me something that cannot be shown wrong or true, is
the truth I can either accept or reject it, I can try to with hold
judgment, true difference between us is I call what I believe faith, you
call your beliefs facts.
Kelly
No, I call my beliefs beliefs. Of course, I think my beliefs are likely true or I wouldn't hold them; and I also think to first-order that to say a belief is true is to say that its propositional content corresponds to a fact about the world. So, naturally I think my own beliefs are correspondent with fact. What's the problem here? I don't claim that my beliefs are infallible or shrouded in certainty, and I don't claim that the evidence at my disposal is indefeasible. Again, what's the problem?
You just seem to want to stick to an evidentially impoverished view and in defense say, well, one view is just as good as any other because we cannot hold knowledge about the subject at hand. I still don't understand why you think we cannot hold such knowledge. But even if there were no warranted positive views available, wouldn't it still be the case that we could call some views worse than others? Some views could be unintelligible, or fly in the face of what evidence we do have at our disposal, or rest on premises that have obvious counterexamples, or simply be self-contradictory. Yours is a view of young earth, right? Now there's a view I think we could safely say is pretty awesomely terrible with respect to the evidence at our disposal, even if we didn't have a full warranted understanding of whatever view is actually correct. At any rate, it's difficult to take one seriously who says, in effect, this is what I think but I also think I literally don't know what I'm talking about. Why do you think your belief fails to constitute knowledge? Do you think the evidence at your disposal fails to warrant the belief? If so, then why do you hold this belief? I don't understand.
I don't know why you call all your beliefs faith since it seems like a notional mistake to me. If you want to use 'faith' to designate any beliefs you hold in the absence of epistemic certainty, then fine, but it will render the word basically meaningless. According to that, it's faith on your part that you believe you have a head.
Originally posted by The Dude 84Who told you God formed himself out of nothing? I believe that God
I'd like you to answer my question from the previous page. I'll say it again. Why do you need to explain the earth's origins if it is possible for you to believe that God formed himself out of nothing? How can it be possible for something more complicated than the earth/universe to arise out of nothing but god can?
This may be asking a lot, but don't give me an answer with scriptures. Think about it, then tell me what you've come up with.
always was, is, and always will be. You believe the universe is eternal,
you believe that all the dates applied to it are false or what?
Kelly
Kelly,
I seem to be failing to explain my point properly.
To summarize:
1. Nothing can be known for sure, but some things we think we are sure of to the degree that we call them facts. However that is of course relative, so what is a fact to me might not be to you. You however seem to think that some things are facts for everyone and anything else is belief. You think you have the last say on what is or isn't a fact.
2. You question the findings of science only when it disagrees with your beliefs. You do not sit in your house in constant fear that all the nuclear power stations will blow up at any time or that your computer will explode, because you have confidence that the scientists got it right. But whenever that same science (which has been proved to be accurate time and again and without which we would not have computers, electricity etc etc) says something that contradicts your religion you declare that it could be wrong and is therefore merely 'faith' or 'joining the dots' etc.
3. If scientists are as wrong as you claim they might be then surely nothing technological that is based on that science should actually work. It must be just dumb luck that my computer works because the scientist who built it was just guessing. He did not have all the facts. He only interpreted the results of his experiment and that interpretation could have been flawed. In fact, if the earth is less than 1 million years old then his calculations are most definitely flawed and my computer is must only be working via the grace of God.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you are sure, it is a fact, is that what your telling me? Pardon me if
Kelly,
I seem to be failing to explain my point properly.
To summarize:
1. Nothing can be known for sure, but some things we think we are sure of to the degree that we call them facts. However that is of course relative, so what is a fact to me might not be to you. You however seem to think that some things are facts for everyone and anything else ...[text shortened]... ns are most definitely flawed and my computer is must only be working via the grace of God.
I disagree, that is where we part company, I am sure about a lot of
things, yet I know I cannot call them facts! I'll live my life by the
things I believe are true, yet cannot prove, but they cannot be called
facts, since I cannot prove them right or wrong one way or another.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou have other points I'll address, but to late for me to do it now.
Kelly,
I seem to be failing to explain my point properly.
To summarize:
1. Nothing can be known for sure, but some things we think we are sure of to the degree that we call them facts. However that is of course relative, so what is a fact to me might not be to you. You however seem to think that some things are facts for everyone and anything else ...[text shortened]... ns are most definitely flawed and my computer is must only be working via the grace of God.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungTrue light is constant at least that is what we all believe, yet at
Cars are known to change speed unpredictably. Light is not.
the same time I cannot tell how long a flash light has been on by
looking at the light coming out of it. You do not know when or how
the lights of the stars began, you may know the distance, but not
the beginning, the only thing we believe we know for sure if we are
correct about it is the distance nothing more. If you point to the
Big Bang, you have moved back into faith to support your beliefs
again, unless for you are certain you know what occured X years ago
so you call what you believe to be true a fact not a belief!
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYet you are quite happy to call some things facts. That is my point. You seem to think that you have the right to decide what is a fact and what isn't and nobody else does. Yet you cant seem to give any kind of criteria as to what constitutes a fact and what doesn't.
If you are sure, it is a fact, is that what your telling me? Pardon me if
I disagree, that is where we part company, I am sure about a lot of
things, yet I know I cannot call them facts! I'll live my life by the
things I believe are true, yet cannot prove, but they cannot be called
facts, since I cannot prove them right or wrong one way or another.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy are you ready to believe the distance but not the time it took the light to travel? Why accept one and not the other? You are essentially calling one a fact and one faith. Why? If we are wrong about the speed of light then we would be equally wrong about the distance. However if we are wrong then the only possible conclusion to draw is that there is some intelligent being intentionally deceiving us because for the light to reach is with the exact angles and characteristics that it does so as to look like it came from what we think it did could not happen by chance. Its like you are looking directly at a dinosaur bone and saying to your self "I don't know for sure that the light reaching my eye really left that bone or how long ago it left it so I do not really know if this bone exists." Maybe the bone is just an optical illusion created by God. But if you deny that possibility then you should also accept that the stars exist, are as far away as scientists say they are and that the light took as long to get to us as scientists say it did.
True light is constant at least that is what we all believe, yet at
the same time I cannot tell how long a flash light has been on by
looking at the light coming out of it. You do not know when or how
the lights of the stars began, you may know the distance, but not
the beginning, the only thing we believe we know for sure if we are
correct about it is ...[text shortened]... ow what occured X years ago
so you call what you believe to be true a fact not a belief!
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf I'm holding my keys in my hand that is a fact, they are in my hand,
Yet you are quite happy to call some things facts. That is my point. You seem to think that you have the right to decide what is a fact and what isn't and nobody else does. Yet you cant seem to give any kind of criteria as to what constitutes a fact and what doesn't.
if I say they may be in the car, that isn't! You want to make your
conclusionis, your beliefs about subjects factual, simply knowing you
may be wrong should stop you, even science does not do that, why do
you?
Kelly
Originally posted by snowinscotlandWhat are you talking about?
do you not have some sense of judgement? Surely when a suicide bomber takes lives apart from their own there is a judgement on their part that their faith is greater than those whose lives they took? While we can shrug our shoulders and say 'what will be will be'; do we have the breadth of will to say 'he is my brother'? 'I do have some accountability in the face of God'?
Kelly