"Blind faith" versus "choosing to believe"

[Archaeopteryx]

Because no other religion even hinted this basic Christian idea. And this idea is scientifically reasonable.

And? In what way does it follow that Christianity is true? Your argument is essentially that one claim in the Bible being true somehow renders all its claims true. I'm sorry, but you have a lot more work cut out for you to show that Christianity is true. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[Joshua260]

What do you mean by "plenty"?

That's it?

So do the Spider-man comics. New York exists.

Of course, if they were written that way.

Could you provide an example of a "miracle" that could not be explained as a hoax, illusion, trick, deception, exaggeration, or a complete fabrication?

Yes. The Resurrection is one such miracle. I think we talked about this before. If you want to go into it, please start a thread on it.

 

[Joshua260]

Joshua,

From the standpoint you've given, you're points are generally cogent. BUT, our faith isn't culled, or made, from a purely demonstrable Correspondence between ideas and data. Rather, our faith is more along the line of Coherence, which is something that many atheists reject out of hand. Do you see what I'm saying? Atheists are looking for evidence presented within the framework of Evidentialism and Foundationalism. Christians don't. If we do, then we are sliding into Lessing's Ditch. So, while I agree with you that we as Christians do have evidence of a kind, it is not the type that Positivistic/Evidentialist/Foundationalist minded atheists will typically accept. So, the claims they make (i.e. the two you presented in the OP) are consistent--from the atheistic point of view. [Although, we don't have to accept their frame of epistemological reference.]

2PhiloVoid

Yes, and as I said that is a good point. But even though your typical atheist doesn't count these things as real evidence, at least some realize that it is evidence of a type. The same type of evidence one would use to demonstrate the historical truth of other historical writings.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, and as I said that is a good point. But even though your typical atheist doesn't count these things as real evidence, at least some realize that it is evidence of a type. The same type of evidence one would use to demonstrate the historical truth of other historical writings.

Peter Popoff claims to be able to heal people. He presumably has testimonials from people who claim to have been healed in his presence. This is a type of evidence. Are you convinced by it?

 

[JGG]

Still, Chapter 1 and 2. It is not written in a scientific format. So you do not understand it that way. If you insist, Gen 1:16 would be the most appropriate.

Genesis 1:16 -And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Okay, there it is. Can you explain how that says that humans only live on Earth? I'm debating pointing out that the "lesser light to rule the night" is not a light at all. I suppose I won't.

It would be difficult to understand the theology of human Creation if it took place over multiple planets.

Yes, I'm sure it would. It would be difficult to understand the evolution of humans if it took place over multiple planets. But that's beside the point. We are not talking about things that are difficult to understand. We are talking about making unsubstantiated claims. You have told us that the Bible makes a specific claim, and that is evidence for the veracity of the Bible. I would like to see what specific claim it makes. Once I see what the specific claim is, we can start into the difficult process of demonstrating it to be true.

Scientifically, we are talking about "evidence" here, not proof. If you still don't see it, then you can not see evidence.

Let's be clear, we're not talking about anything scientifically. We're not talking about evidence or proof. At this point, scientifically, we are at best, looking at a hypothesis.

Things you should know:
(1) Science only looks at evidence, not proof. But we're not at that stage, we're still examining he hypothesis.
(2) If you need to say "If you can't see the evidence, then there's something wrong with you." there's a really good chance your evidence is invalid, and it is certainly unreliable.

You can not see God anyway, even the word is literally printed there many times.

Yeahhhhh... Whut? Who cares how many times I can read the word God? Does the number of times "God" is printed somehow effect the veracity of an unspecified claim?

 

[JGG]

The fact that we can not find any, IS the evidence. It is repeatable and testable.

It does not matter. We repeated the effort. And we know what we know. That is enough to serve as an evidence.
This attitude not only applies to this issue, but to any issue about knowledge.
(This is the last one on this point. An evidence is not a proof. You get it or not, I won't repeat it any more)

Are you saying that because we've looked in many places, and have not found any evidence of other humans, that serves as evidence that there are no other humans? Are you sure that's your argument here?

 

[juvenissun]

And? In what way does it follow that Christianity is true? Your argument is essentially that one claim in the Bible being true somehow renders all its claims true. I'm sorry, but you have a lot more work cut out for you to show that Christianity is true. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Fine. At least one is down.
I am ready for the next one.

 

[juvenissun]

Are you saying that because we've looked in many places, and have not found any evidence of other humans, that serves as evidence that there are no other humans? Are you sure that's your argument here?

Yes. That is the argument. It is a combination of science and theology.
Can you do better?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes. That is the argument. It is a combination of science and theology.
Can you do better?

Theology seems superfluous to science. We can do without it.

Fine. At least one is down.
I am ready for the next one.

Take your pick. The Bible is a big book filled with extraordinary claims.

 

[juvenissun]

Genesis 1:16 -And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Okay, there it is. Can you explain how that says that humans only live on Earth? I'm debating pointing out that the "lesser light to rule the night" is not a light at all. I suppose I won't.

Very simple. The verse suggests that the earth is the only planet hosts animals and humans "among star systems of the universe".
This is a side point: I do not expect to see other "animals" in any other planet either. We will find no shrimp or fish in the sea of Europa.

 

[JGG]

Yes. That is the argument. It is a combination of science and theology.
Can you do better?

Just to clarify: If I look for something, but cannot find evidence of it, that's evidence that it does not exist?

 

[juvenissun]

Theology seems superfluous to science. We can do without it.

Take your pick. The Bible is a big book filled with extraordinary claims.

No. It is a guidance to science. In particular, the Bible is. That is why Christianity has a lot of "evidences" to be true.

 

[juvenissun]

Just to clarify: If I look for something, but cannot find evidence of it, that's evidence that it does not exist?

Yes, it is an "evidence". That is what an evidence is.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No. It is a guidance to science. In particular, the Bible is. That is why Christianity has a lot of "evidences" to be true.

In what way does theology guide science? We've seen examples of theology attempting to "guide" science before, with "guide" being a euphemism for violence or threats of violence. Thankfully, today, science operates free of theological shackles.

 

[JGG]

Very simple. The verse suggests that the earth is the only planet hosts animals and humans "among star systems of the universe".

That is a wonderful re-wording of the initial claim. However, I asked where the Bible specifically says that there are no humans anywhere else. You said Gen 1:16, but it says something completely different. It makes no mention of humans (or animals) at all.

Where does your "among star systems of the universe" quote come from? I don't see that phrase in the Bible at all.

This is a side point: I do not expect to see other "animals" in any other planet either. We will find no shrimp or fish in the sea of Europa.

Are you saying that if we ever find any kind of life form on any celestial body (Europa, for instance, is not a planet), then the whole of the Bible will be disproved?

 

[JGG]

Yes, it is an "evidence". That is what an evidence is.

That's quite the platter you've just served up anti-theists.

 

[juvenissun]

Are you saying that because we've looked in many places, and have not found any evidence of other humans, that serves as evidence that there are no other humans? Are you sure that's your argument here?

You over-stated it. "...have not found any evidence of other humans ..." is not true. It should be " ... have not found any other humans..."
We do have evidences for other possibilities.

I think you can not tell "evidence" and "hypothesis" apart.

 

[JGG]

You over-stated it. "...have not found any evidence of other humans ..." is not true. It should be " ... have not found any other humans..."
We do have evidences for other possibilities.

Oh. Okay. Are you saying that because we have not found x then that is evidence that x does not exist?

Have we found evidence of extra-terrestrial humans?

I think you can not tell "evidence" and "hypothesis" apart.

Yeah. It must be me.

 

[juvenissun]

That is a wonderful re-wording of the initial claim. However, I asked where the Bible specifically says that there are no humans anywhere else. You said Gen 1:16, but it says something completely different.

Where does your "among star systems of the universe" quote come from? I don't see that phrase in the Bible at all.

Are you saying that if we ever find any kind of life form on any celestial body (Europa, for instance, is not a planet), then the whole of the Bible will be disproved?

The word "star" in the verse bears the modern understanding of the galaxy structure of the universe.

And no. "Life" has special definition in the Bible. In science, tree is a life. But it is not in the Bible. So, I do expect to see vegetations in other planets. So I won't be surprised if we find a piece of charcoal on Mars. But, no bones.

 

[KCfromNC]

In some ways it is the opposite of a person coming to believe something through evaluation and persuasive evidence. There are studies that show we are all born as believers and continue this when we are young. It is a persuasion to rid ourselves of this belief that we end up losing that child like belief in the supernatural. But even as adults there is a natural part of us that believes. Its only the noise of this world with its skeptical arguments that we end up crowding out this belief.

Are we talking about a child's belief in Santa or in God? Seems like either would be applicable given what you've written.