Richard Dawkins's definition of "Faith" ....

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Do you interprete scripture in a literal way .... the way the fundamentalists interprete scripture ?

I don't interpret it - why would one need to. Can't god write clearly enough?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I don't interpret it - why would one need to. Can't god write clearly enough?

Ha ha ha ....... that's what the fundamentalists also claim.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I don't interpret it - why would one need to. Can't god write clearly enough?

If you don't interpret it at all, you really shouldn't offer any opinions on it.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
If you don't interpret it at all, you really shouldn't offer any opinions on it.

By interpret of course I mean "read into".

Originally posted by scottishinnz
By interpret of course I mean "read into".

If you don't interpret the text, you might as well use it to wipe your arse.

There's all kinds of things you can do with it if you have the inclination. You don't even have to believe in God.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
This is pure rubbish. It's merely the anthropic principle again. Existence proves only that we exist, and says nothing about how we got here. Penguin is completely correct, you say it was God, ahosyney says Allah, I say it was the Big Bang, who is right? The evidence is not equal for them all though. On my side is the cosmic background radiation, the echo of the bang. You have a book.

Your post has virtually no correlation whatsoever with any of the arguments made so far in this thread.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
Perhaps we could agree that Agerg physically exists and God philosophically exists, according to Aquinas.

Not so fast.

Accepting that Agerg exists physically requires one to be a metaphysical realist. If I held the philosophical position that everything I sense and perceive "exists" only in my head then, clearly, I do not accept that Agerg exists physically.

However, as I argued earlier, the solipsist is just as constrained as the metaphysical realist or the metaphysical idealist in accepting the existence of God.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Firstly...lets assume that there was some factual physical evidence available to us all (that can be attributed to nothing other than your god (not the flying spaghetti monster, Muffy etc...))...well then in light of such evidence you wouldn't need to have faith would you!!...more you would be accepting the truth of facts...

Er.. no. The "tr physical evidence for the existence of God is more convincing than that for your existence.[/b]

Er.. no. The "truth of facts" (whatever that means) would be the facts themselves. If the evidence were such that God were the only logical possible explanation then it would constitute part of a logical proof.

there are some people that cannot accept any truth in the fact that the earth is not 6000 years old, or that in base 2 arithmetic 1+1 = 10...chalk one up for your side on my less than brilliant phraseology here if you wish...'tis not important...what is important is that faith is subscription to an idea that has neither been justified, verified experimentally, or analysed logically such that contradictions are removed...a fact is the inverse.

Of course, it only takes a moment to take a look at a few of the thousands of pieces of 'evidence' we use in our daily lives that drive our beliefs and decisions to see how very few of them actually constitute logical proof.

Don't see what to comment here because I don't see what you're attacking

Further, why should the evidence be directly physical? Why not philosophical argumentation based on physical evidence?

Because philosophical argumentation of a theistic type tends not only to rely upon circular reasoning and/ or mis-representing the evidence but also resolves nothing that another proposition cannot answer without alluding to God (etc...), of those philosophical arguments for which we have not yet found a decent answer, ie: what started the Big Bang etc...we simply don't know yet!, your argument is still only an un-tested and un-justified idea.

Actually, no. Since (by most reckonings) God is ontologically a fundamentally different entity from magic pots, hobgoblins etc. the manner in which physical evidence supports the existence of God is also fundamentally different from the manner in which it would support the existence of these creatures or whatever. Further, I would argue that, used in the appropriate philosophical manner, the physical evidence for the existence of God is more convincing than that for your existence.

That the existence of God is ontologically different from magic pots, FSM, hobgoblins does not mean that the existence of God is any more credible...that is your own subjective view.

That magic pots are fundamentally different to invisible pink unicorns (a being that exists both invisible and pink?) is not a way to justify that magic pots are more credible than invisible pink unicorns...they are both ridiculous, as is my view with God.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]Er.. no. The "truth of facts" (whatever that means) would be the facts themselves. If the evidence were such that God were the only logical possible explanation then it would constitute part of a logical proof.

there are some people that cannot accept any truth in the fact that the earth is not 6000 years old, or that in base 2 arithmetic 1+1 = 10 ...[text shortened]... le than invisible green sprouts...they are both ridiculous, as is my view with God.[/b]

Hang on a minute, Agerg. You do not exist. You have been obliterated with pure logic, or something (green and invisible) philosophical.

So please, please don't upset LH with your continued existence. (or should I say apparent existence)?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Your post has virtually no correlation whatsoever with any of the arguments made so far in this thread.

If you can't see the point,.... well, actually, you're a Christian - we know you can't see the point!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
If you can't see the point,.... well, actually, you're a Christian - we know you can't see the point!

Ah yes, the them-ruhleeguz-folk-ah-soo-stoopid argument.

EDIT: Posts like yours make me wonder what you guys get taught in schools the other side of the Atlantic. Apparently even the ones who haven't been taught Intelligent Design in schools still cannot reason.

Just in case you're actually interested in philosophy, the anthropic principle only matters in the Teleological and Fine-Tuning Arguments for God -- neither of which I've used here.

Further, the presumption that the Big Bang was the First Cause (which Penguin and you hold) requires that you hold on the flawed Humean view of causation -- which was what I pointed out to Penguin in the first place.

So, on both counts, your post contributed nothing useful to the debate.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
EDIT: Posts like yours make me wonder what you guys get taught in schools the other side of the Atlantic. Apparently even the ones who haven't been taught Intelligent Design in schools still cannot reason.

He's British, Grand Inquisitor.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
He's British, Grand Inquisitor.

The other side of Hadrian's Wall, then.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The other side of Hadrian's Wall, then.

Hume was a Scot, too...Must be the weather.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Hume was a Scot, too...Must be the weather.

At least Hume was honest enough to admit that his account of causation meant the death of scientific investigation.

A point his "successors" conveniently forget.