No, but I have explained. And if you knew that you were asking for a physical answer regarding a non-physical subject, you would know that it is a foolish question.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
From faith to fact.
- Thread starter Veera Chase
- Start date
You mentioned DNA. The complexity and elegance of DNA is a fact, and it proves that the Creator created this FACT.
It is impossible for something like DNA to simply come into existence by chance. So yes, faith is supported by all kinds of facts, to which some wish to be wilfully blind.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:20).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,706
- 4,688
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
An objective assessment is one that matches objective reality, so if an assessment is wrong about anything, then it does not match objective reality and can't be an objective assessment. Someone can make an assessment that happens to match objective reality, so I take back that we can't make objective assessments, but rather the point I was trying to make was that we can't make assessments that we can establish as being objective because doing that would require establishing that it can't be wrong.
That is what I have been asking for and what you have been dodging by saying that it is a what, not a who.
Evidence does not interpret itself, so it can't be a what, but rather evidence must be interpreted by someone. I am in agreement that some assessments are closer to objective reality than others, but determining which ones are closest is based on my subjective opinion and which most closely correspond to my own assessment.
Indeed, everyone is justified in believing the way they do by the reasons they have for believing the way they do, which is pretty straightforward rather than bizarre. If one person thinks one of your beliefs is strongly supported by the evidence and that you used good reasoning to arrive at it, while a second person thinks just the opposite, what of it? Their evaluations of the evidence is not relevant to whether your belief is justified. The strength of your belief is based on the strength of its justification, so if a person thought they had a stronger justification, then they would be more confident in their belief, and vice versa.
To put another way, do you have any beliefs that you don't think you are justified in being at the confidence level that you are at? If after a close investigation of the same evidence, someone maintains that one of your beliefs is unjustified and you remain unconvinced, how do we determine whether or not your belief belief is justified? You can't say it's the evidence because you're both using the same evidence to support opposite positions. A third person who tried to arbitrate would determine whether you are justified based on their own interpretation of the same evidence, so that gets us nowhere.
I think it has to do more with not considering remote possibilities than with insincerity. We very often use inclusive or exclusive statements that nevertheless have exceptions. Most people don't consider the remote possibility of being in a matrix when making these statements, but that doesn't call their sincerity into question.
Can you quote where he has denied that?
Confidence doesn't come from nowhere, so the confidence level is based on the level of justification for a belief, not something that ever serves as a justification for a belief.
The Bible makes many claims, many of which can be independently verified, which can give us confidence about the claims that we can not independently verify. As someone continues to create a record of having a trustworthy past, our confidence continues to grow that they will continue to be trustworthy about something in the future.
Upvote
0
- May 11, 2015
- 17,420
- 3,593
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Creationism AND Evolution are words that we find in our dictionary. Both of these words are going through extreme revision in definition and meaning. Mostly because we have a lot of new evidence from Science. Each generation has to discover the Bible new for themselves and their generation. We can not sit on our laurels and trust in our grandparents understanding of the Bible because we have a lot more information today then what they had in their day.
Upvote
0
No it proves that Ganesh who is the Lord of Good Fortune who provides prosperity, fortune and success, the Lord of Beginnings and the Remover of Obstacles of both material and spiritual kinds was the creator of everything.
I jest of course because as everyone knows it was the Egyptian God Ra, the king of Gods who did it all.
Anyone can make unfounded claims about anything and everything with none having more merit than the next, from nothing comes nothing, an idea remains nothing more than an idea until it is backed by hard evidence, not imagined evidence but real hard irrefutable evidence, without evidence it's all just opinion, thank you Job8 for giving us your opinion.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
And then there are those who really don't care if hard evidence exists. We see that all around us every day as well as on the Forum. And since you bring up false and mythical gods, it proves that you are running from the truth about the one true God.
Upvote
0
Of course it does, I'm afraid of your imagined God, other Christians are not afraid of your imagined God but their own imagined God scares them to death, yours doesn't bother them one little bit.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
As I explained earlier, 'objective' is not equivalent to 'infallible.' That an assessment is objective does not imply that it is totally free of error.
It wouldn't require that at all since 'objective' doesn't imply infallible. That's not what 'objective' means.
Dodging? You keep asking "who?", despite that being irrelevant.
You are still confusing the strength of a belief with the strength of its justification. What's bizarre about this is what follows: everyone is justified in believing as they do. No one is ever unjustified about anything, even if they hold beliefs for demonstrably bad reasons. In fact, the more confident they are, the more justified they must be.
No, but the evidence is relevant to whether it really is justified. So is it justified or isn't it? How do we find out? By examining what?
But you already conceded that not all interpretations are equal and that not all assessments are equally objective. So it is wrong to say that we "using the same evidence to support opposite positions." If the same "evidence" supported mutually opposed positions, then it wouldn't evince either of them.
Read the first chapter of Reasonable Faith, or excerpts from his website. In Craig's view, reason must always be subservient to faith, and can only be used legitimately in the support of faith-based beliefs, or more specifically, Christianity. Any use of reason that contravenes his Christian theological commitments is thus deemed illegitimate and dismissed. How then can one provide him with a "better explanation" if such an explanation will be dismissed out of hand as illegitimate?
Which brings me back to my earlier question: trust based on what? What is this trust based on specifically?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Here's the logic. Something as complex and elegant as DNA CANNOT happen by chance. There must be an extremely brilliant Designer behind that.
Therefore to dismiss the existence of something like DNA as PROOF POSITIVE that Christian faith is based on solid scientific fact is absurd. Then to bring in mythical false gods as red herrings is ludicrous.
If DNA cannot be accepted as proof of a Divine Designer, then the one rejecting that proof does not really want evidence or facts. Just the myth that God does not exist.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The non-physical (spiritual) is always superior to the physical, since it is eternal. Those who focus merely on the material do not really understand how the world and the universe are constituted. That is why the Soviet Union collapsed. All they had was Dialectical Materialism.
Upvote
0
If God is imaginary, then the world is also imaginary, and so are you. This is what is called Deliberate Delusion.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
