I see, like those that read Genesis literally. It can be shown to be wrong and yet deniers are afraid to learn the science that would allow them to see this.
Well you're argument is basically between what is metaphor and literal. Jesus is called the bread of life yet that was not a loaf of bread that was crucified.
Don't conflate the beginning of the universe with God.
I'm not. I'm saying the term God according to scripture is the word given to describe the source of the energy that created the universe. Since God reveals Himself a Person in the Christ the term God then becomes axiomatic.
In fact we do not know how the universe started and there does not seem to be any good reason to say that a God did it.
But scripture is not saying 'a' god did it. Scripture is saying Thee God did it. This is again the difference between superstition and faith in scripture. It's like you're thinking and saying, that a Christian is saying, that they believe something unrealistic has created reality, and then commenting on the errant paraphrasing by proclaiming
there does not seem to be any good reasoning to say a god did it.
At times the correct answer is simply "We don't know yet". We can tell roughly how long ago the beginning of the universe as we know it began. That idea can be tested by more than one mean. And none of the gods that I pointed to were any more false than others. All of them are believed in based upon the same "faith". And it appears that it is you that is calling faith "superstition" not me. As I so correctly pointed out faith is not a pathway to the truth.
Of course, I am obviously the one in our discourse making the distinction between faith and superstition, while you are the one asking
"Where did I ever conflate faith with superstition?" Those other gods or rather images of god/gods/goddesses are clearly not the same faith as Christianity.
You asserted that faith is not a pathway to the truth when what you really mean is superstition is not a pathway to the truth, since to you, all things called god are not even real. Moreover you don't factor in that knowing the truth of God's Character involves determining the Person of Christ as either trustworthy or untrustworthy, which makes the term God axiomatic.
But if you claim that your beliefs are not faith in the sense that other religions are that would seem to indicate that you think your beliefs are rational. This is a very honest question. How would you test your faith? What reasonable test could possibly show your faith to be wrong?
Faith comes by hearing the Gospel, which means understanding the Gospel in a spiritual introspect.
Fundamentally The Gospel Truth presents that
either I believe that Love/empathy is an attribute of the Creator manifesting in the creature, or an attribute of the creature apart from any self aware Creator. Which is why I must perceive that to understand God as a Spirit in me, there is nothing in the moral/immoral purview that can be thought or said that did not in some degree affirm Him in the positive or the negative as in moving towards Him or away from Him. The determination I make will define all the moral terms I reason upon and the conclusions and demeanor that will result when I deliberate on them. An important thing to note is that in either case, Love/empathy is a positive valued as the highest virtue, but only in the worship of self does it become vain and corruptible. Moreover, the self sacrificial Love I see in the Christ is an extreme display of endurance and perseverance unto death all for the sake of forgiveness, according to the Gospel. It is pure and moving towards wanting to believe/trust in purity, and not corruption. Which is why the only suitable avenue for unbelief to take, is to either count Jesus crazy, or to deny the story ever happened as told all together.
Negatives usurp from positives. Positives do not usurp from negatives. Truth is a constant. Something is greater than nothing. In other words, Truth precedes a lie in existence hence a lie corrupts what is good, such as wanting to believe in something pure. Sure, I know there's a voice/thought inside of me that says,
You don't know if the Gospel account is even real. It's a response to the Gospel that looks true enough when appealing to honesty, but in practical application is no different than,
I don't know it's not real. What matters is whether I view the Love I see on the cross as coming from somewhere higher than ourselves, and the doubt only serves to not make that distinction. Since the doubt serves to dismiss out of hand rather than leans towards seeking to understand what is being presented, it is illogical. Therefore the voice or thought is sowing a doubt based on a negative prejudice not logic or evidence. The doubt is using the sentiment of 'lack of evidence' (occasion of ignorance), to avoid evaluating what is self evident in The Gospel including the atheism presented therein.
Respectfully, the application of faith in your commentary is inaccurate in the sense that it seems that it's my faith that establishes certain facts other than my faithfulness. It's actually the certain facts and logic that support the reasoning for faith so that I may be faithful (become filled with faith).
Consider the analogy of needing three points to navigate the seas. We need to know where we're coming from and where we're going to, and one constant relative to both which we can trust in. So it's inescapable that when I reason upon the Spiritual knowledge of God I am also discerning atheism in the process, whereas atheism could not make that same claim being disabled in it's carnal terminology of psycholinguistics. Wherefore I can tell you assuredly that the term 'faith' in Christianity can only be pointed at God when seeing Christ as a trustworthy person, which is why faith must be pointed at an established positive that is reliably constant and pure wherein we will not be diminished in our hope thereof for all people. When pointed towards the negative it is unbelief/distrust, and when pointed at something that does not exist or is myth, it is actually superstition having nothing to do with faith at all.
My faithfulness is attacked/tested everyday in a world that seeks to corrupt my trust in empathy/Love as Eternal and therefore as God. There is no reasonable test that could prove I am wrong about the one Faith in the one Truth common to all of mankind because unfaith would be unreasonable.
