"Blind faith" versus "choosing to believe"

[juvenissun]

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?

Yeah. It must be me.

Very low quality evidences. Namely oxygen(?), water, temperature, etc.

 

[KCfromNC]

However, as I'm sure you know, we have plenty of evidence surrounding the Resurrection. We have multiple attestations not only from several books in the NT (they were gathered separately and gathered into the bible around 200 AD), but also from other sources (Islam and Jewish)

Unless Muslims invented time travel, you can't be talking about eyewitness Muslim testimony of the resurrection. Is the rest of this list of "testimony" from hundreds of years after the fact as well?

 

[JGG]

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

I'm not sure how that is true. The galaxy structure of the universe is far more complex than just "star". I also do not see how that makes the claim that there are no humans in the galaxy structure of the universe, or how we get that from Gen. 1:16.

And no. "Life" has special definition in the Bible.

Oh. Chapter and verse for the Bible's definition of life?

In science, tree is a life. But it is not in the Bible. So, I do expect to see vegetations in other planets.

Really. Why would there be vegetation on other planets if not to feed animals?

So I won't be surprised if we find a piece of charcoal on Mars. But, no bones.

I will have to wait to find out how the Bible defines life, but if we find something that fits that definition on another celestial body, that would invalidate the Bible, right?

 

[JGG]

Very low quality evidences. Namely oxygen(?), water, temperature, etc.

But, if we're finding even very low quality "evidences" of "humans" on other planets, isn't that still just evidence that the Bible is false?

And, I have to clarify: Are you saying that because we have not found x then that is evidence that x does not exist?

 

[stevevw]

What studies?

Together, these studies consistently emphasize and support the notion that the cultural phenomena typically labeled as 'religion' may be understood as the product of aggregated ordinary cognition.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10637620?dopt=Abstract
Some recent findings suggest that two foundational aspects of religious belief - belief in mind-body dualism, and belief in divine agents -- come naturally to young children.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17181713?dopt=Abstract
Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke
http://www.science20.com/writer_on_...ist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982#ixzz3bisXOyvO
There is no such thing as a true Atheist
http://www.heavennet.net/writings/atheist.htm

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Together, these studies consistently emphasize and support the notion that the cultural phenomena typically labeled as 'religion' may be understood as the product of aggregated ordinary cognition.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10637620?dopt=Abstract
Some recent findings suggest that two foundational aspects of religious belief - belief in mind-body dualism, and belief in divine agents -- come naturally to young children.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17181713?dopt=Abstract
Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke
http://www.science20.com/writer_on_...ist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982#ixzz3bisXOyvO
There is no such thing as a true Atheist
http://www.heavennet.net/writings/atheist.htm

Interesting studies often become overblown headlines. Here is a recent article illustrating the problem.

 

[paulm50]

Yes, it is a wishful thinking and is deniable.

The Creation account was written a few thousand years before now. "Evidences" keep popping up over these few thousand years and what's said in Gen. 1 and 2 still stand firm (scientifically). This fact is also a very good "evidence" of the truth.

What evidence?

 

[paulm50]

Together, these studies consistently emphasize and support the notion that the cultural phenomena typically labeled as 'religion' may be understood as the product of aggregated ordinary cognition.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10637620?dopt=Abstract
Some recent findings suggest that two foundational aspects of religious belief - belief in mind-body dualism, and belief in divine agents -- come naturally to young children.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17181713?dopt=Abstract
Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke
http://www.science20.com/writer_on_...ist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982#ixzz3bisXOyvO
There is no such thing as a true Atheist
http://www.heavennet.net/writings/atheist.htm

So babies are born as believers. Explain why so many believe so many different things. From today back to Cave Drawings. Yes babies can be brainwashed, because of a "need to understand". But you can't possible take from these studies the existence of god. The one you claim is real and all the others are wrong.

As for atheist not being real. Let me check the mirror.

Yes there I am.

Scientists have discovered that “invisible friends” are not something reserved for children. We all have them, and encounter them often in the form of interior monologues. As we experience events, we mentally tell a non-present listener about it.

Mentally thinking things through by weighing the options pro and cons, back to believing in the tooth fairy. Isn't proof of any god. It shows man's frailty to understand and willingness to be led.

You might as well claim suicide bombers will get their virgins when they arrive in heaven. Because a man said it was true. When the suicide bomber was a little child.

 

[stevevw]

Yeah, pesky logic, always getting in the way of irrationality.

I didn't say logic is useless or pesky as you put it. I was merely saying that yes logic has its place as dos science. But there can come a point where logic and science cant answer or explain what is happening. But still some will try to explain something that may not be explainable. Or they will put explanations of things without any evidence and start to believe that its correct. This happens a lot. I listen to some of the docos on evolution and the universe and smile when I hear some of the statements they make like they are fact which they never qualify as a hypothesis. They say them like they have been proven.

A good example is when some scientists talk about how the universe began. They try to explain nothing as though it is something yet state that its a different kind of nothing. Then go on to say that the nothing they are describing must have been something special. This is the same for stuff like time travel, worm holes and multiverses where they say there are millions of other dimensions that could have another you and me in them. Or hologram dimensions that act like big flat screen TVs where everything is really a figment of our imaginations.

They actually believe this stuff. The thing is they come up with these far fetched ideas because they have to. What they are finding defies explanation with what we understand with our reality. So they have to step outside our reality to explain it.

But this is exactly what many have been saying with God and yet they will quickly say that there is no evidence but then cite one of their ideas as a real possibility because they have a little indirect support for it or it fits in with dealing with the many problems of explaining what they see such as with the finely tuned universe for life. By coming up with multiverses they diminish the fact that our universe is made just right for life and points to design. By having many universes it then makes our just right one to be one of millions and doesn't make it so special.

But they would rather entertain the idea of millions of other dimensions out there containing all sorts of possibilities than God. They can go to great lengths to substitute what may be evidence of a creator than admit that there could be some sort of intelligence behind our existence and life.

Like a supernatural one?

What I am saying is what I just described above. Scientists would rather come up with an explanation even if its more far fetched than God just so they dont have to acknowledge God. Even though some of their explanation are more harder to believe than God and also dont have any credible evidence they will present them like they are true.

So yes some of their evidence verges on the supernatural and science fiction. But I dont blame them because what they are trying to address is verging on the supernatural. When you consider what happens in the quantum world and what we are seeing out in our universe it does defy logic and our know physics.

What on earth are you talking about?

I am talking about some of the explanations I have heard from scientists to explain some of the things they are discovering are just that ideas and hypothesis. But because they cant find any logical explanation for some of the things they have been going from one far fetched explanation to the next. Each time saying that they are sure that this is the answer.

But the reality may be that they will never have a logical answer because if God created things then they are trying to understand Gods handy work. In other words they would rather put a man made explanation on things than admit that God had anything to do with it. Even if that man made explanation is more unbelievable than what they say about God.

It's not hard to entertain the idea. But where's the evidence that we should believe it really exists?

Well as an atheists will say, there is no evidence and there may never be any evidence while we are here on this earth. Just like evidence for other dimensions with multiverses. We can never know if it is directly true because its in another dimension. WE may only have some indirect evidence but that evidence could be wrong and be the result of something unrelated as scientists have found on many occasions. But we could say there is indirect evidence for God even at the same level of what they use for the scientific ideas and explanations.

I guess this is where the new movements of intelligent design come in. They look for scientific evidence of God or a designer of things. This can be indirectly seen with the complexity of existence and life. I believe that at the root of all this is our belief. Its a battle of personal belief and which ever side of the fence you are on will be how you see things.

 

[SkyWriting]

What if desire for any kind of salvation has absolutely nothing to do with making God ones reality in life?

.

Salvation from death, or from this planet....or what exactly.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I didn't say logic is useless or pesky as you put it. I was merely saying that yes logic has its place as dos science. But there can come a point where logic and science cant answer or explain what is happening.

Yes. That's the point where we say "We don't know."

But still some will try to explain something that may not be explainable. Or they will put explanations of things without any evidence and start to believe that its correct.

You mean like supernatural explanations?

This happens a lot. I listen to some of the docos on evolution and the universe and smile when I hear some of the statements they make like they are fact which they never qualify as a hypothesis. They say them like they have been proven.

Popular science documentaries sometimes do make overblown claims, as do some popular science articles.

A good example is when some scientists talk about how the universe began. They try to explain nothing as though it is something yet state that its a different kind of nothing. Then go on to say that the nothing they are describing must have been something special. This is the same for stuff like time travel, worm holes and multiverses where they say there are millions of other dimensions that could have another you and me in them. Or hologram dimensions that act like big flat screen TVs where everything is really a figment of our imaginations. They actually believe this stuff. The thing is they come up with these far fetched ideas because they have to. What they are finding defies explanation with what we understand with our reality. So they have to step outside our reality to explain it.

Yes, they propose hypotheses and try to find ways of testing those hypotheses. What about this strikes you as strange?

But this is exactly what many have been saying with God and yet they will quickly say that there is no evidence but then cite one of their ideas as a real possibility because they have a little indirect support for it or it fits in with dealing with the many problems of explaining what they see such as with the finely tuned universe for life. By coming up with multiverses they diminish the fact that our universe is made just right for life and points to design.

Or life is fine-tuned to the universe?

By having many universes it then makes our just right one to be one of millions and doesn't make it so special. But they would rather entertain the idea of millions of other dimensions out there containing all sorts of possibilities than God. They can go to great lengths to substitute what may be evidence of a creator than admit that there could be some sort of intelligence behind our existence and life.

steve, we've covered this territory before... Your preferred hypothesis doesn't triumph by default.

What I am saying is what I just described above. Scientists would rather come up with an explanation even if its more far fetched than God just so they dont have to acknowledge God.

They don't need an alternative explanation in order to reject an explanation for which there is no good evidence.

I am talking about some of the explanations I have heard from scientists to explain some of the things they are discovering are just that ideas and hypothesis. But because they cant find any logical explanation for some of the things they have been going from one far fetched explanation to the next. Each time saying that they are sure that this is the answer.

What? No, they don't say that.

But the reality may be that they will never have a logical answer because if God created things then they are trying to understand Gods handy work. In other words they would rather put a man made explanation on things than admit that God had anything to do with it.

As I keep repeating in conversations with you, your hypothesis does not triumph by default. Your favourite fallacy is this argument from ignorance: if scientists can't come up with a credible explanation, then you assume your explanation wins.

 

[JGG]

Together, these studies consistently emphasize and support the notion that the cultural phenomena typically labeled as 'religion' may be understood as the product of aggregated ordinary cognition.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10637620?dopt=Abstract

It might be. That doesn't make the claims of religion any more credible or true.

Some recent findings suggest that two foundational aspects of religious belief - belief in mind-body dualism, and belief in divine agents -- come naturally to young children.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17181713?dopt=Abstract

Yes, but so do imaginary friends, and giving personality traits to inanimate objects. It's a trait of scaffolding: Using a basic framework to make sense of the world, and then deconstructing that framework to continue into maturity. It's why we use Big Bird, play learning, and learning through song to teach kids about things.

Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

http://www.science20.com/writer_on_...ist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982#ixzz3bisXOyvO

This link won't open for me.

There is no such thing as a true Atheist

http://www.heavennet.net/writings/atheist.htm

Article immediately confuses agnostic as an intermediary step between believer and atheist. I am indeed agnostic. But I am still not a believer. That makes me an atheist.

 

[Joshua260]

Unless Muslims invented time travel, you can't be talking about eyewitness Muslim testimony of the resurrection. Is the rest of this list of "testimony" from hundreds of years after the fact as well?

There are several testimonies from people who were alive at the time of these events. But if you want to review the evidences for the Resurrection, start a new thread.

Let me re-state the point of this thread clearly because I want to stay on topic:
An atheist cannot (rationally) claim that the only way one comes to believe in something is through evidence and argument, and then in the next breath accuse Christians of having a blind faith...or beliefs built on zero evidence! Atheists who subscribe to both claims are contradicting themselves.

 

[Joshua260]

As for atheist not being real. Let me check the mirror.

Yes there I am.

Shouldn't you not misrepresent yourself (under your icon) as being a Christian then?

 

[Joshua260]

Scientists would rather come up with an explanation even if its more far fetched than God just so they dont have to acknowledge God.

Your inputs are so thoughtful, and I appreciate them.

Yes, even Richard Dawkins acknowledges that he cannot figure out how life could have come from non-life on this planet. So instead of even considering the possibility of a supernatural influence, he actually believes that we were "planted" here by aliens!! (but of course, that only pushes the question further back).

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Your inputs are so thoughtful, and I appreciate them.

Yes, even Richard Dawkins acknowledges that he cannot figure out how life could have come from non-life on this planet. So instead of even considering the possibility of a supernatural influence, he actually believes that we were "planted" here by aliens!! (but of course, that only pushes the question further back).

You are misrepresenting Dawkins, ironically in the post after you accused another member of misrepresentation.

 

[Davian]

Yes. The Resurrection is one such miracle.

That is your belief.

I think we talked about this before. If you want to go into it, please start a thread on it.

Apologetics is off-limits for this forum.

 

[juvenissun]

I will have to wait to find out how the Bible defines life, but if we find something that fits that definition on another celestial body, that would invalidate the Bible, right?

That would force a new definition of life. Don't exaggerate the implication.

Lev. 17:14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh isthe blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

 

[juvenissun]

What evidence?

Good evidence.

 

[juvenissun]

But, if we're finding even very low quality "evidences" of "humans" on other planets, isn't that still just evidence that the Bible is false?

And, I have to clarify: Are you saying that because we have not found x then that is evidence that x does not exist?

Then we should evaluate the evidences. There are always positive and negative evidences on things which is not scientifically clear.

You keep asking the same question. What was wrong with my answer to that question? If we could not find any evidence of a murder, would that be an evidence of innocence?