A
aeroz19
Guest
If it could not ever be disproven, then it wouldn't be science. All it takes is one example of a failure in the theory to disprove the theory.kedaman said:If you could prove a theory, it wouldn't be science.
Upvote
0
If it could not ever be disproven, then it wouldn't be science. All it takes is one example of a failure in the theory to disprove the theory.kedaman said:If you could prove a theory, it wouldn't be science.
Small details in a theory can easily be changed when evidence permits.aeroz19 said:If it could not ever be disproven, then it wouldn't be science. All it takes is one example of a failure in the theory to disprove the theory.
now thats betteraeroz19 said:If it could not ever be disproven, then it wouldn't be science. All it takes is one example of a failure in the theory to disprove the theory.
If I can present you with a situation from the Bible in which God does NOT do what He says He will do, how would that change your conviction? Hint: there are several such references. And "Let's see the references" isn't a proper answer; note I am asking you how your point of view would be changed.JohnR7 said:You do not understand what Bible faith is. We do not have faith untell God tells us something. Then our faith is that we believe that He is going to do, what He says He is going to do.
Unless you get that faith from divine inspiration or reading a diary of her actions which someone else wrote a long time ago, it's quite a different faith from the faith you have in God. For starters, as others have already pointed out, you can easily determine and demonstrate that your wife exists, which is not the case at all with God.When my wife tells me something, then I have faith to believe that she is telling me the truth and that she is going to do what she told me that she was going to do.
Leaving aside the issue of whether God always keeps His promises, your concept of "contract" is a little blurry. A covenant, or contract, between two parties is an agreement approved by both parties. In exchange for "consideration" (currency, goods, or services) provided by the first party, the second party agrees to provide similar "consideration". Agreement is typically indicated by a handwritten signature on a written contract instrument. What you would like to pretend is a contract consists, probably, of God's offer to provide eternal salvation from hell to humans after their deaths, in exchange for humans adopting and sincerely believing certain articles of faith, which generally orient a person in the direction of what is considered "good" behavior, but which is also used by church administration for political, social, and economic control of large groups of people.In other words, we have a covenant with God, just like a contract. If we keep out part of the agreement, then by faith we know that He is going to keep His part of the covenant or agreement.
Aye - it only takes one white crow to disprove the theory "All crows are black."aeroz19 said:If it could not ever be disproven, then it wouldn't be science. All it takes is one example of a failure in the theory to disprove the theory.
Anyone can read but that does not guarantee understanding. Understanding comes with experience and if you haven't experienced it you can't understand it. In order to understand the fine print of The Contract one must be able to comprehend legalese and this contract's legalese can only be discerned spiritually otherwise it is but foolishness to the foolish for it is impossible for them to understand the things of God for their heart is stubborn, their will unbending and the unwilling can see only the worldly.OccamsLaser said:I have reviewed the particulars of the "covenant", and have read the "fine print" (specifically, I have read the Bible cover to cover five times, with a sixth planned for next year). Based on the details in the "contract", I do not agree, and choose not to enter into this covenant. On that basis, whether God can justly choose to inflict eternal punishment on me for failing to enter into the agreement - or simply if God wants to provide a threat of eternal punishment in hell as something He can protect me from - reduces God to the level of a Mafia strong-arm enforcer in a protection racket.
I'm not claiming understanding. All I'm claiming is that I choose not to enter into the covenant.Pilgrim 33 said:Anyone can read but that does not guarantee understanding.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22." (Yossarian, in Joseph Heller's Catch-22)Understanding comes with experience and if you haven't experienced it you can't understand it.
You had me up to the middle part. Go ahead and consider that one of the reasons I choose not to enter the covenant is because it is as hard to understand as your sentence here which attempts to explain why it is hard to understand.In order to understand the fine print of The Contract one must be able to comprehend legalese and this contract's legalese can only be discerned spiritually otherwise it is but foolishness to the foolish for it is impossible for them to understand the things of God for their heart is stubborn, their will unbending and the unwilling can see only the worldly.
Sorry, I may have misread that. It looked like a pretty good example of a Catch-22, anyway.Pilgrim 33 said:Understanding comes with experience and if you haven't experienced it you can't understand it.
h2whoa said:I have sort of been losing faith in humanity of late whilst reading these forums.
So please, Creationists, I have one request to make. Please just use this thread to admit that no amount of evidence will ever sway you away from a literal reading of Genesis.
You see, at least then I can hear that your position is routed in faith and not in what I perceive to be ignorance.
As the thread starter, I would like to say that there should be no attacks on Creationists in this thread. I just need to hear it said, and if there are attacks on that position, then they won't post.
h2
No, there is no catch-22; indeed, where (spiritual) understanding is devoid there can be no catch-22.OccamsLaser said:It looked like a pretty good example of a Catch-22, anyway...[]...You may be under the misunderstanding that I've never been a Christian. I was, for about a dozen years
Aye - Then we change the theory to "All crows are black... except that one over there..."OccamsLaser said:Aye - it only takes one white crow to disprove the theory "All crows are black."
The object of our faith is that we believe God is trustworty and true. We believe that He will do what He says He will do. God keeps His promises. We do not put faith in ourselves and in man's ability. We put faith in God and and His ability.Pilgrim 33 said:What is The Object of your faith?
JohnR7 said:The object of our faith is that we believe God is trustworty and true. We believe that He will do what He says He will do. God keeps His promises. We do not put faith in ourselves and in man's ability. We put faith in God and and His ability.
Of course the problem is when people put faith in something that God never said that He was going to do.
Pilgrim 33 said:"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."-Hebrews 11:1
Faith is not based on belief nor can faith be based on evidence. So what is the substance of faith or, better put, in the end what really matters is correctly choosing The Object of our faith. What is The Object of your faith?
Can't there be an albino crow?Pilgrim 33 said:non sequitur, it's not a theory; if it wasn't black it wouldn't be a crow.