Argument for God's existence.

[ToddNotTodd]

ok, ok I give in, I will post some more on this thread. There are no other threads open at the moment that I am interested in:

I read this is a book today, I liked how he said it better than the way I say it, so lets see if this causes any discussion:

"
If Atheism is true, there is no foundational reason why one would expect the universe to be orderly and rational (or even comprehendible at any great depth by a rational mind; i.e., to any level greater than needed for our day-to-day meager survival).


However, if Christian Theism is true, there is a Rational Mind (God) behind the Universe. This Rational Mind created the universe, and with a purpose in mind (to provide an environment for rational free-willed creatures such as us to make rational choices to help determine their characters, to make them/us a Joy to be with for Eternity).


In such a view, the Universe itself is God’s art-project and that is why it is so beautiful.


And the Universe is an expression of God’s Mind (which is Rational). And so the universe is orderly and rational.


So, Christian Theism provides a Rational Foundation for an Orderly and Rational Universe that can be comprehended at a deep level by Rational Creatures (such as ourselves).


So, Christian Theism actually provides a better explanation (than atheism does) for the orderliness and rationality of (and in) the universe.


And therefore, Christian Theism provides a better foundation for Science than atheism does.

"
above quote from God
&
Atheist Objections

(130+ Atheist Objections
with Responses
by an Ex-Atheist Scientist)
by
John M. Kinson

It’s speculation with a dash of argument from incredulity.

It’s a non starter.

 

[gaara4158]

ok, ok I give in, I will post some more on this thread. There are no other threads open at the moment that I am interested in:

I read this is a book today, I liked how he said it better than the way I say it, so lets see if this causes any discussion:

"
If Atheism is true, there is no foundational reason why one would expect the universe to be orderly and rational (or even comprehendible at any great depth by a rational mind; i.e., to any level greater than needed for our day-to-day meager survival).


However, if Christian Theism is true, there is a Rational Mind (God) behind the Universe. This Rational Mind created the universe, and with a purpose in mind (to provide an environment for rational free-willed creatures such as us to make rational choices to help determine their characters, to make them/us a Joy to be with for Eternity).


In such a view, the Universe itself is God’s art-project and that is why it is so beautiful.


And the Universe is an expression of God’s Mind (which is Rational). And so the universe is orderly and rational.


So, Christian Theism provides a Rational Foundation for an Orderly and Rational Universe that can be comprehended at a deep level by Rational Creatures (such as ourselves).


So, Christian Theism actually provides a better explanation (than atheism does) for the orderliness and rationality of (and in) the universe.


And therefore, Christian Theism provides a better foundation for Science than atheism does.

"
above quote from God
&
Atheist Objections

(130+ Atheist Objections
with Responses
by an Ex-Atheist Scientist)
by
John M. Kinson

God fits as an explanation in any place you don’t understand or know everything about. That’s not evidence for God, that’s evidence for your ignorance.

 

[createdtoworship]

God fits as an explanation in any place you don’t understand or know everything about. That’s not evidence for God, that’s evidence for your ignorance.

it is evidence however if the only explanation that fits, is God. Atheism does not explain why the rational mind exists in a universe of chance. Theism does. So it's not just because it fits that theism is better, it's because out of three options it's the only option that works.

 

[gaara4158]

it is evidence however if the only explanation that fits, is God. Atheism does not explain why the rational mind exists in a universe of chance. Theism does. So it's not just because it fits that theism is better, it's because out of three options it's the only option that works.

Ok, demonstrate that absolutely no other explanation fits but God. Note that not understanding how it could be plausible under atheism does not constitute demonstration that it isn’t.

 

[createdtoworship]

Ok, demonstrate that absolutely no other explanation fits but God. Note that not understanding how it could be plausible under atheism does not constitute demonstration that it isn’t.

really? ok. a multiverse that is without causation is not even close to rational. Note I am not even mentioning it as unprovable. For now I don't want to go there. Lets just look at the rationality of something in the universe, that lacks time and is not caused. For a God to do that and be that, is rational. But for a thing or a place to be causeless does not make sense. It violates the basic rules of cause and effect. But God being without cause does not violate cause and effect. Because God is not an effect. The universe is an effect, and operates on the same realm as any other effect in the universe.

 

[createdtoworship]

duplicate

 

[gaara4158]

really? ok. a multiverse that is without causation is not even close to rational. Note I am not even mentioning it it unprovable. For now I don't want to go there. Lets just look at the rationality of something in the universe, that lacks time and is not caused. For a God to do that and be that, is rational. But for a thing or a place to be causeless does not make sense. It violates the basic rules of cause and effect. But God being without cause does not violate cause and effect. Because God is not an effect. The universe is an effect, and operates on the same realm as any other effect in the universe.

Sounds like you’re just defining anything that transcends time and space as “God.” You have to do a bit more work to explain why a universe/multiverse/cosmos couldn’t have that trait as well. Merely declaring it irrational assumes that you are perfectly rational, and you can’t demonstrate that, so you’ll have to try some other way of demonstrating that the cosmos can’t be self-existing but God can.

Your argument states that because all other options are impossible, God must exist. Your argument requires you to list out every plausible alternative to the Christian God, including other gods, simulations, eternal beings, etc., then prove why they couldn’t possibly be the answer. You can’t. This is a bad argument to make. You’re taking on an insurmountable burden of proof.

I wouldn’t hold you to such a high burden of proof if I were just asking you why you believe God exists, but for this particular argument that you’ve chosen to make, you have to prove a lot. I advise against proceeding. Save yourself.

 

[cvanwey]

really? ok. a multiverse that is without causation is not even close to rational. Note I am not even mentioning it it unprovable. For now I don't want to go there. Lets just look at the rationality of something in the universe, that lacks time and is not caused. For a God to do that and be that, is rational. But for a thing or a place to be causeless does not make sense. It violates the basic rules of cause and effect. But God being without cause does not violate cause and effect. Because God is not an effect. The universe is an effect, and operates on the same realm as any other effect in the universe.

Many may only not reply, as many won't address such an arrogant statement, of the 'unknown.' Unknown in the sense that we may never 'know', or may not reach a conclusion in any foreseeable future... If the universe is eternal, then every bold assertion you make, appears to refute itself. I'm in the camp of, it is yet known, any more or less than you 'know'. Your 'gut feeling' does not resolve such a complicated topic. You might want to check out the 'quantum eternity theorem', just for starters. Many intelligent scientists argue such a proposition. And yet, are not as arrogant enough to assert, without a doubt, it IS concluded. Theists, such as yourself, can stick by the always tried and true, you can't prove your model, beyond a shadow of a doubt, because we were not there to test/retest. Theists, like yourself, also like to point out that such conclusions, also rely upon 'faith' - Attempting to place all such study on an equal playing field, as your demonstrated argument from ignorance, that we all exercise 'faith' the same.

Your a priori is God. Great, prove it. Again, I choose prayer. A topic you have avoided. Your God states He answers prayer. Well, demonstrate one case, where a limb was restored after prayer. As I stated many responses ago, medical science, up to this point, admits they cannot restore/regrow limbs. Thus, if after prayer, a limb grew back, one might then have a 'rational' basis to conclude that science, or the bodies own natural processes could not have had a hand in the process. Thus, it would then be 'plausible' that a claimed interactive God could very well be the culprit; as I would assume the prayed to God was Yahweh.

So, you got that AMA article, followed by the AMA's response to the MD's publication??? Because again, if your posts are to demonstrate truth, I'm asking for evidence. And again, evidence currently suggests that human limbs don't grow back, even with prayer.

Thanks

 

[ToddNotTodd]

really? ok. a multiverse that is without causation is not even close to rational. Note I am not even mentioning it it unprovable. For now I don't want to go there. Lets just look at the rationality of something in the universe, that lacks time and is not caused. For a God to do that and be that, is rational. But for a thing or a place to be causeless does not make sense. It violates the basic rules of cause and effect. But God being without cause does not violate cause and effect. Because God is not an effect. The universe is an effect, and operates on the same realm as any other effect in the universe.

Once again, nothing but blind assertions and arguments from incredulity. You’re not even presenting it as a syllogism.

No one with any background in logic will find this persuasive.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I don't expect many replies to my last post, so I wanted to share something: Last night I had a dream I was in heaven (I think it was a vision), but every cell in my body was shouting in praise over being in a glorified state in heaven. I have never in my life felt like I did that short period. I would sell everything I had to experience ten more seconds. All I can say, is heaven is well worth it. It's definitely not sitting on clouds with a harp. There was lots of light. No darkness, and it felt so incredible. I had to journal my experience so I would not forget. View attachment 255297

If this is an attempt at postalizing, I do believe that’s a no no in this forum...

And dreams aren’t reality... they’re dreams...

 

[createdtoworship]

You might want to check out the 'quantum eternity theorem', just for starters. Many intelligent scientists argue such a proposition.

this is irrational, and actually your argument above is an appeal to authority, a fallacy. Elsewhere known as the bandwagon fallacy.

Your a priori is God. Great, prove it.

If you can prove any known fact, I will at least attempt to prove God exists.

Again, I choose prayer. A topic you have avoided.

prayer is answered every single day. I prayed probably 10-20 times today, 80% of them were answered afirmatively within half an hour. The other 20% were either a "no" or "not now." So I don't understand you problem with prayer.

Your God states He answers prayer. Well, demonstrate one case, where a limb was restored after prayer.

I am sorry that your gotcha point was disproven when I mentioned a guys finger grew back after prayer.

As I stated many responses ago, medical science, up to this point, admits they cannot restore/regrow limbs.

God is not science/

Thus, if after prayer, a limb grew back, one might then have a 'rational' basis to conclude that science, or the bodies own natural processes could not have had a hand in the process.

The Bible has dozens of cases like this.

Thus, it would then be 'plausible' that a claimed interactive God could very well be the culprit; as I would assume the prayed to God was Yahweh.

Ok great, now that you are a thiest, I recommend calvary chapels, as they teach through the Bible once every seven years. Something you don't see in most churches.

So, you got that AMA article, followed by the AMA's response to the MD's publication??? Because again, if your posts are to demonstrate truth, I'm asking for evidence. And again, evidence currently suggests that human limbs don't grow back, even with prayer.

I can provide all the evidence I have on this case as soon as you confess you use faith every single day. You can't prove the earth is spherical, you can't prove any of the laws of science, you can't prove any well known fact. But you believe all. So if they are nOT proven, what faculty in the brain believes them? Faith. Plain and simple. If we don't have absolute proof we trust in something other than proof, trust is faith. So admit you use faith every day in nearly every situation and I will give you everything I have on that finger growing back.

Thanks

your welcome

 

[Skreeper]

this is irrational, and actually your argument above is an appeal to authority, a fallacy. Elsewhere known as the bandwagon fallacy.

The appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority you cite isn't an actual expert in the field that is being discussed, e.g. you cite a physicist in a discussion about evolution.

prayer is answered every single day. I prayed probably 10-20 times today, 80% of them were answered afirmatively within half an hour. The other 20% were either a "no" or "not now." So I don't understand you problem with prayer

What absolute rubbish. This is a no-lose scenario for you based on confirmation bias.

How do you know that the event that you prayed for happened because of the prayer, couldn't it have happened anyway?

All studies on prayer have shown that prayer works at the rate of chance, as expected. In some cases prayer even made some things worse.

I can provide all the evidence I have on this case as soon as you confess you use faith every single day. You can't prove the earth is spherical, you can't prove any of the laws of science, you can't prove any well known fact. But you believe all. So if they are nOT proven, what faculty in the brain believes them? Faith. Plain and simple. If we don't have absolute proof we trust in something other than proof, trust is faith. So admit you use faith every day in nearly every situation and I will give you everything I have on that finger growing back.

This is the sneaky and dishonest way apologists work.

When I drive my car, i don't have "faith" that it does not suddenly explode. I have a reasonable expectation based on evidence.

Religious faith does not rely on evidence, it simply is unjustified belief because you want to believe.

 

[createdtoworship]

The appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority you cite isn't an actual expert in the field that is being discussed, e.g. you cite a physicist in a discussion about evolution.

you are correct, but the fallacy that was committed was not authority I said the wrong word, it was appeal to the populus. Just because many scientists believe a certain thing does not make it true. The majority of scientists at one point believed the earth was flat, and that draining blood actually helped people, and furthermore they believed in bad science such as spontaneous generation (something we now call abiogenesis).

What absolute rubbish. This is a no-lose scenario for you based on confirmation bias.

How do you know that the event that you prayed for happened because of the prayer, couldn't it have happened anyway?

All studies on prayer have shown that prayer works at the rate of chance, as expected. In some cases prayer even made some things worse.

I can post thousands of testimonies of people getting answer to prayer, but that would not be enough. Because you don't want evidence you want proof. But with the same mouthful, you cannot prove a single premise of your own belief system. But lets try one more time: God is a God of miracles: A guy on the next door app asked for prayer for his wife back in November for cancer. She had a 5% chance of living. She went through chemo and now just got results and there's no cancer left. Praise God! It was something like 279 people that responded to the guys post and I think most everybody was praying for her. God answers prayer!

This is the sneaky and dishonest way apologists work.

actually being sneaky is when you are not forthright with all your demands, I was very clear with everything I require.

When I drive my car, i don't have "faith" that it does not suddenly explode. I have a reasonable expectation based on evidence.

Religious faith does not rely on evidence, it simply is unjustified belief because you want to believe.

faith just means trust. so if you are trusting that your car does not explode you are using faith. Lets put it this way. Do you leave for work a half hour early just in case you blow a tire? You would need a half hour to change it. So if you don't leave a half hour early, to prove you don't blow a tire, you are trusting that on any given day you will have a good day and the tire will not blow. You make these assumptions hundreds of times a day, should I go on?

 

[createdtoworship]

I updated this post so I wanted to repost it:

The night before last I had a vision I was in heaven. Every cell in my body was shouting in praise over being in a glorified state in heaven. I have never in my life felt like I did that short period. I would sell everything I had to experience ten more seconds. I emailed everyone I knew, and posted it on every social media I had just to declare what I saw. All I can say, is heaven is well worth it. It's definitely not sitting on clouds with a harp. There was lots of light. No darkness, and it felt so incredible. I had to journal my experience so I would not forget. One of my relatives said when he was in his twenties he had a friend who had a similar vision. I would literally sell all my earthly possessions to bring my family there. It was amazing, it wasn't just a place it affected my whole being. I felt it on a cellular level, it was incredible. I prayed I could have another dream of heaven last night, but I did not get one. Some day I will see it again, all I can say is that if an eye is keeping you from heaven, gouge it out and cast it from you, or if your hand is causing you not to go to heaven, cut it off and cast it from you. What will a man give in exchange for his soul? What if a man gained the entire world, but lost his soul? If I said to you I will give you a million dollars for one eye, would you do it? How about 500 million for both eyes? Yet God says that we are to count one of our eyes as less valuable than our soul. Strive to enter the narrow gate, for many there are that go the broad way to destruction, few there are that find the straight and narrow path to heaven. What do you call someone who has stolen a paperclip? Or a pencil? They are called thieves. Have you ever lied? What do you call someone who has lied? A liar. Have you ever looked at a woman or man with Lust? The Bible calls that adultery. So that is just three of the ten commandments. On judgement day will you be guilty or innocent? Guilty. So at this point a way of salvation becomes important. The abounded and you died under the weight of the Law of God. Now once you have been killed to the Law, you can be brought to life by the grace of God. Repent of your unbelief, cast it from you just like gouging out an eye or chopping off a hand. And turn in believe to Jesus. Believe in Him and you shall have the free gift of eternal life, and one day you will experience the complete bliss of heaven. It's not about going to church, going to church does not make you a christian. It's about a personal relationship with Christ. Have you ever had prayers to God not answered? The Bible says the prayer of the lawless is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9. God answers the prayers of His children. Satan can give you the world and it's riches. But like I said, I would sell everything I had of earthly goods to experience just a few more seconds of eternal bliss. Every cell of my body was shouting in praise, finally a glorified state, no more sore knees, no more wrinkled skin, no more hurt feet. A body that does not age! A body that is like the angels. The Bible says our glorified body will be like the angels. That means that just as angels can manifest in this dimension at will, so will ours be able to. The Bible says those who Follow Jesus will be raptured up, at any given time. It could be today. We will have a wedding feast with God for seven years, while the earth goes through tribulation, and judgement from God, hail, sickness, famine, plagues, and angelic destroyer angels. At the end of that, The Bible says we will be given a thousand years of God's kingdom on earth (a millenial reign), isreal will be given the entire land grant of 3/4 of the middle east. Jersusalem will have a new temple, and the church will rule and reign the gentile nations on earth from the new jerusalem. A planet like object in the atmosphere, either in this dimenstion or multidimensional. It will be cubed. And from there we will rule and reign on earth. Jesus himself will then sit on the throne of david, and fulfill the messiahship the Jews have waited thousands of years for. Those nations that persecuted Israel, will be under her in the millenium. They will be of the gentile nations. Then after that thousand years, satan will be released again (from his captivity), to tempt the children of the millenium, who did not know what temptation was, to fulfill their free will to follow God or not. Then there will be the battle of armaggedon. Then after the battle, God will call us to our eternal place in heaven.

 

[Moral Orel]

and furthermore they believed in bad science such as spontaneous generation (something we now call abiogenesis)

This is factually incorrect. Using your source:

"Such ideas have no operative principles in common with the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis, which asserts that life emerged in the early ages of the planet, over a time span of at least millions of years, and subsequently diversified, and that there is no evidence of any subsequent repetition of the event."

 

[ToddNotTodd]

God is a God of miracles: A guy on the next door app asked for prayer for his wife back in November for cancer. She had a 5% chance of living. She went through chemo and now just got results and there's no cancer left. Praise God! It was something like 279 people that responded to the guys post and I think most everybody was praying for her. God answers prayer!

Or... confirmation bias. So where’s that evidence that an amputated limb has grown back?

faith just means trust. so if you are trusting that your car does not explode you are using faith. Lets put it this way. Do you leave for work a half hour early just in case you blow a tire? You would need a half hour to change it. So if you don't leave a half hour early, to prove you don't blow a tire, you are trusting that on any given day you will have a good day and the tire will not blow. You make these assumptions hundreds of times a day, should I go on?

I don’t know why you feel like getting someone to admit that they employ faith or trust is a “gotcha” moment. It isn’t, because rational people require evidence to go along with trust when they believe a claim. I don’t base any of my beliefs on faith without any evidence at all.

In addition, we have varying requirements for the evidence we’ll accept depending on the claim. Extraordinary claims require more evidence than ordinary ones.

 

[cvanwey]

this is irrational, and actually your argument above is an appeal to authority, a fallacy. Elsewhere known as the bandwagon fallacy.

The only fallacy I've seen committed right here, is the 'Texas Sharp Shooter' fallacy. You appear to have severely chopped all of what I've said, leading directly up to the one line you decided to respond. If you are going to address/acknowledge/reply to a post, please address it in context. Here, I will help you out. The part in green, you avoided. The part in purple in which you decided to respond:

'Many may only not reply, as many won't address such an arrogant statement, of the 'unknown.' Unknown in the sense that we may never 'know', or may not reach a conclusion in any foreseeable future... If the universe is eternal, then every bold assertion you make, appears to refute itself. I'm in the camp of, it is yet known, any more or less than you 'know'. Your 'gut feeling' does not resolve such a complicated topic. You might want to check out the 'quantum eternity theorem', just for starters. Many intelligent scientists argue such a proposition. And yet, are not as arrogant enough to assert, without a doubt, it IS concluded. Theists, such as yourself, can stick by the always tried and true, you can't prove your model, beyond a shadow of a doubt, because we were not there to test/retest. Theists, like yourself, also like to point out that such conclusions, also rely upon 'faith' - Attempting to place all such study on an equal playing field, as your demonstrated argument from ignorance, that we all exercise 'faith' the same.

************

Care to take another honest stab at it, in context?

If you can prove any known fact, I will at least attempt to prove God exists.

As I've already stated, if you are going to trivialize and marginalize any 'known fact', then this entire process is futile. As stated many responses ago, I would assume we both agree that the world is spherical, and that 2 + 2 = 4. Furthermore, to lend such energy, to demonstrate that such two assertions are fact, is a pure waste in time. Furthermore, I'm sure we both already agree to both such conclusions. You are then placing a God assertion into the very same level of probability, by equivocating the word faith.

prayer is answered every single day. I prayed probably 10-20 times today, 80% of them were answered afirmatively within half an hour. The other 20% were either a "no" or "not now." So I don't understand you problem with prayer.

As I've stated, prayer seems to currently only work for things in which could/may also happen without prayer. Hence, the reason I chose amputees. If a limb grew back after prayer, thus far, there would be no argumentation of coincidence, appealing to nature. A regrown limb, after praying to Yahweh, would be a start, in singling out prayer as a possible culprit. Hence, the reason I would be more than willing to explore your mentioned AMA contact, in which you appear unwilling to furnish?.?.? And since you continue to withhold as such, I can only conclude that you either: 1. don't have it, or 2. know it is not as compelling as you think it might need to be to an unbiased party, or 3. does not actually represent what you are asserting.

I am sorry that your gotcha point was disproven when I mentioned a guys finger grew back after prayer.

This response appears disconnected from anything I'm saying... I'm actually asking for the publication given to the AMA, and the AMA's formal response. As stated from the jump, I would be very curious to see such a situation. The fact that I lay out for you, a compelling case to cause for my questioning, for the apparent lack in reliability in prayer, and your continued refusal to simply furnish as such, is starting to become telling.

God is not science/

When did I assert that 'God is science?' I'm stating that if science cannot restore limbs, and the bodies own natural processes also cannot perform as such, and prayer to Yahweh produced the said result, that would surely raise an eyebrow or two, me included. So please simply provide the evidence in which you appear holding for ransom - (in trying to first 'level the playing field' that we all appeal to faith in all conclusions exactly the same in everything).

The Bible has dozens of cases like this.

So do other competing claimed holy books, in which I'm fairly confident you reject. Anecdotal asserted miracles, are a dime a dozen. Even today. Example... Many claim answered prayer, praying to a competing God. I would assume you don't believe them either. Hence, the reason I choose amputees. Praying amputated limb victims would act as the common denominator. If the limb grew back, one then could rule out natural processes and/or medical intervention; which may lend further credence to other plausible conclusions. In this case, the prayed to God(s). This would not mean God was the only conclusion quite yet, but coincidence, in mixing medical intervention and the bodies owned processed could logically be excluded or ruled out.

I can provide all the evidence I have on this case as soon as you confess you use faith every single day. You can't prove the earth is spherical, you can't prove any of the laws of science, you can't prove any well known fact. But you believe all. So if they are nOT proven, what faculty in the brain believes them? Faith. Plain and simple. If we don't have absolute proof we trust in something other than proof, trust is faith. So admit you use faith every day in nearly every situation and I will give you everything I have on that finger growing back.

I happily admit the word 'faith' can be used in many ways. Faith can be interchanged with 'trust' and 'belief'. But as I stated in my first reply to you, my 'definition' of faith pertains to applying such a conclusion, in direct place of evidence. In such a case for my 'faith' in a spherical world, or 2 + 2 = 4, people do not seem to apply the word faith. I 'trust' you/I both conclude there exists a fair amount of evidence to both conclusions, without appealing to 'faith'.

Can you please provide the AMA stuff now?

 

[createdtoworship]

This is factually incorrect. Using your source:

"Such ideas have no operative principles in common with the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis, which asserts that life emerged in the early ages of the planet, over a time span of at least millions of years, and subsequently diversified, and that there is no evidence of any subsequent repetition of the event."

it's wikipedia, you can't get much more biased. But you are correct it's my source. But try to find a perfect source is few and far between. But I do find it amusing that they too found a link between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. It's just proves to me that there is in fact a link. A link that is so dead on that they have to specifically correct it with no citation to peer review or other scientific work proving that there is no link. So in conclusion logic dictates that spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are one and the same. Every operative principle of spontaneous generation carries forward into abiogenesis. Creation of the cell from literally nothing. Creation of DNA from no source code, creation of protein from muddy water electrocuted by lightening. It's spontaneous generation right there.

 

[createdtoworship]

As I've already stated, if you are going to trivialize and marginalize any 'known fact', then this entire process is futile.

yes sir it is.

if you are not going to actually reply to what I said, and admit your error than I can't help you. Honesty is first and foremost. If you can't be honest with yourself, how can I do it for you? Thanks for the debate. But I am done with this for now. I will adress other posters but not yourself. I have given you half a dozen or more chances to confess that you use faith and you would not admit that. So I won't answer your questions. I will mark your user for unblocking in two weeks. Thanks again. Thanks for being courteous and in general civilized in your debate. But part of debate is admitting when we make mistakes. And you can't seem to do that, so I feel that is the first step in any civil debate is admitting when we make mistakes. I thank you for your posts and for staying kind.

 

[createdtoworship]

Or... confirmation bias. So where’s that evidence that an amputated limb has grown back?



I don’t know why you feel like getting someone to admit that they employ faith or trust is a “gotcha” moment. It isn’t, because rational people require evidence to go along with trust when they believe a claim. I don’t base any of my beliefs on faith without any evidence at all.

In addition, we have varying requirements for the evidence we’ll accept depending on the claim. Extraordinary claims require more evidence than ordinary ones.

thanks for attempting to reply to the faith that we all use every day. Blind faith is what we christians call faith that does not have evidence. But my definition of faith deals with trust. When you have a known fact, say the second law of thermodynamics. Have you specifically done tests to find out if that fact is true? No. You rely on other peoples studies, you trust that they were honest about the report and didn't radio in figures according to their many biases. You trust that the tests were done accurately, and you trust that they relayed the data from the test to the book or article, and that no one else in the mean time, no moderator, editor etc has altered that material. That is what? Five occasions of trust you use in just that one simple fact. Many many assumptions are made. That is what I call faith, technically and literally faith is trust. So when you have faith in christian forums for example to allow atheists to freely post negative opinions about christianity over and over again on a christian forum, that is trust. You have faith in CF that they won't ban you.Who is to say that a moderator won't go through your post history and find out that over the last few months you flamed, 20 times? This is all hypothetical of course. I don't agree with your posts of the past, nor your tactics. But you have been civil at least on this post. and I have hope that you can be civil in another one. One step at a time. So you use faith all the time. Blind faith, something that has no evidence, is a blind trust. So when you went to work this morning did you leave fifteen minutes early to make sure you had time to change your tire just in case it blew, or did you have blind faith in your tires this morning. When you turned on your computer to log in to christian forums, did you have blind faith that your computer fan is clean of lint and working properly and that it won't over heat, or did you keep a can of dusting air on the side of your computer? I expect you used blind faith in both situations. There is no evidence that a computer fan must work right now, nor evidence that a tire must stay inflated. Thats blind faith, didn't you say you didn't use blind faith?