1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe fact remains that Pasteur never proved any such thing and your claim that he did is a lie. I would have called it an error had this been the first time you made the claim, but it is not. I have pointed out to you in the past when you made the claim that it was incorrect. That you are repeating the claim is despite knowing it is false makes you a liar.
you can cry all you like about the definition of a sterile environment, the fact remains,
you cannot get life from non life, the best that the materialist can hope to claim is the
synthesis of self replicating RNA, which is not even close. Scientific fact and no amount
of postulation and dogma will change it.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagea) Is there a rational basis for the belief that God exists?
a) Is there a rational basis for the belief that God exists?
b) Is belief-in-the-existence-of-God synonymous with having faith / being faithful?
Not necessary.
b) Is belief-in-the-existence-of-God synonymous with having faith / being faithful?
Believing or knowing God exists requires no faith.
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou need to read the verse more closely. Faith, isn't believing in things there's no evidence for.
So you would agree that faith is believing things without evidence for those beliefs?
Those who lack faith think faith is believing in something without evidence. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Faith is substantive, and is itself the evidence of those things which cannot be seen.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI think josephw has a tendency to make pronouncements off the top of his head which do not withstand scrutiny. When people call him on it he often loses his temper.
I was wondering the same thing.
Couple that with his earlier assertion and it becomes even more perplexing:
"Believing or knowing God exists requires no faith."
The way I see it, "faith" can be evidence of something psychological or anthropological, I agree. e.g. "Javanese faith in what they call 'the wisdom of nature' is evidence of their centuries old tradition of animism." But it cannot be said to be "evidence" of the existence of the object of that faith.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneinteresting wording. without realizing it, the author of hebrews has validated and authenticated every religion as being true.
I was wondering the same thing.
Couple that with his original assertion and it becomes even more perplexing:
"Believing or knowing God exists requires no faith."
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoHow did the Hindu philosophers and saints came to know that Brahman is real and not parikalpana learned from mithya scriptures?
To put it simply, in the words of Hindu saints and philosophers, God is beyond human mind's capacity to conceive completely or correctly, let alone describe in words. Hindu philosophy, however, asserts that God exists.
😵
Originally posted by josephw"Define faith."
Hebrews 11:1 - [b]Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.[/b]
"Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
I think it is a mistake to treat Hebrews 11:1 as a definition. There are millions of expressions of the form "S is..." that are not taken as definitions of S. That mistake has been accepted by both sides. I lack credibility on at least one side, to expound on faith, so I will leave it at that. Some will get the point, others won't.
The question is, what is this thing called faith, that it can be the substance of something and the evidence of something? Hebrews 11:1 does not address this.
It might also help to look at the words in their original language and the alternative ways those words were translated in other Bible passages.
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoQ: "How did the Hindu philosophers and saints came to know that Brahman is real and not parikalpana learned from mithya scriptures?"
By direct experience of the ultimate reality, call it by whatever name you like.
Your reply: "By direct experience of the ultimate reality, call it by whatever name you like."
What do you think of the following?:
quote:
... our individual Selves are actual manifestations of the Ultimate Reality. The Self is related to the mind and body much in the same way as the Ultimate Reality is related to the whole universe - i.e. the Self is the source and cause of the mind and body but is not an intrinsic part of these. Nevertheless, the Self is always present behind the scenes and is just veiled by the various mental activities of the mind. These activities can be stilled by means of certain techniques, whereby the veil vanishes so that the Self is experienced directly. Since the Self is an actual manifestation of the Ultimate Reality, a direct experience of the Self equals a direct experience of the Ultimate Reality. [bold added]
unquote
from: http://buddhasociety.com/vedanta-yoga-meditation/