Determining Reality

[oi_antz]

What definition of faith are you using? I would be using the modern definition, and I don't see many scientists using faith in their work.

Has anyone observed a quark?

You asked me why I consider "facts" in the bible to be fiction. I'll need to know what "facts" you're referring to before I can answer that.

You tell me. I have heard you say before that you "don't believe in Jesus". I don't really know what you mean, perhaps it is simply that you don't believe He is divine.

Scientists don't "know" god didn't create the universe to appear old, just as you don't "know" that he did.

How do you know that is truth and not belief?

Scientists don't hold that belief because there is no evidence to support that idea.

There is actually evidence to support the belief but they (believers in evolution, not all scientists) dismiss it.

Evolution is true because of the tremendous amount of evidence that supports the idea.

Actually, it is only a belief about the reality we find ourselves in.

I don't know what "means to an end" you're referring to.

Evolution is fundamental to biological science, which is fundamental to modern evolution.

 

[secondtimearound]

I think you misunderstood me on several points, especially in the second paragraph where you mischaracterized my statements entirely.

Did I? Let's put that to the test.

FIrst off, you are correct, beliefs to affect minds and influence actions. In that way, they do affect reality.

I know! It's cray yo! My apologies, I heard some kids say that and wanted you to think I was cool.

Perhaps I would've done better to say, "Beliefs don't affect the reality they are based upon." That is, something isn't true simply because you believe it. You can't believe something into existence. Your beliefs about past events doesn't affect how those events played out. In essence, whatever information is used to create a belief is not affected by that belief.

Would like to use a lifeline? Phone a friend? I'll be your friend and give you a hand with this (I'm not trying to be patronizing, I just have a sense of humor). Truth is singular by nessecisty and like the Highlander, there can only be one. Truth is not relative, it is absolute. Your beliefs or my beliefs do not affect this, it exists wholey apart from anyone's beliefs. Check this out, Christ claimed to be the truth. God logic.

Try rereading the part you called "special pleading" because it isn't. I hold my beliefs to the same standards as anyone else's.

Let's get down. You said:

Some people (especially on CF) seem to think that because they believe something, it is true. My point (which you seem to have missed) was that some people think that because they believe something, it Is true. This is never the case. I believe things because they are true, they aren't true simply because I believe them. Also, I never said anyone's beliefs are false, I simply said they aren't true because they are believed.

Do you believe that your beliefs are true? That's a trick question, don't answer it. Of course you believe your belief''s are true, you wouldn't believe in something you believe to be false, unless of course your belief was in the belief of a proposition's negation. So you are doing the same thing you accuse people of doing in regards to their beliefs and then turn around and point the finger at they who are doing the same thing you are doing. Ever hear the expression "don't point a finger at someone because you have three pointing right back at you"? So is it speacial pleading? Maybe not. Hypocritical; you bet.

What exactly was this transforming power of The Holy Spirit that you experienced? Can you tell me what the experience was and how you know the Holy Spirit was the cause?

You want to read my testimony you can go to this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7642129/
If you have any questions than feel free to ask me, but I have no doubt as to the truth that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Faith and intellect.


This is the tip of the iceberg.The bible has certain characteristics to conclude it could only be written by God. No other religious book does this.
Visit: www.TheBibleProofBook.com, (you will need acrobat reader for this), read The Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell a former agnostic- and Examine the Evidence by Muncaster a former athiest/The Case for Christ and The Real Jesus by Lee Strobel a former athiest.

100 fulfilled Bible prophecies
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible (science website)
Eyewitnesses to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
Apologetics Study - Evidence For The Christian Faith
Bible Reliability: M-A-P-S to Guide You through Bible Reliability

Historical Accuracy(bible is the most accurate history book)
The bible is loaded with historical statements concerning events hundreds of years ago and has not
been proven incorrect in any.
(Bible compared to other ancient documents):
New Testament starts - at 25 years between original and first surviving copies
Homer - starts at 500 years
Demosthenes - at 1400 years
Plato - at 1200 years

Number of Manuscript Copies-New Testament - 5,686/Homer - 643/Demosthenes - 200/
Plato - 7/Caesar -10

Hey there Salida, thanks for answering. Unfortunately it seems everything after the first line has nothing to do with my question. Can you explain what you meant by faith and intellect?

As for the rest of your post, did you want some response to it? Or did you just want to link up to some websites? I couldn't find the first two articles you referenced but I've read through almost all the other links and I'm pretty confident I can show you the logical errors in each of them without it getting too complicated. Of course I'll have to check with a moderator before doing this in-thread. Even if it would be considered against the rules I could always PM you this info if you like.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Don't answer that question!

What question are you referring to? The OP?

 

[fschmidt]

Also, please don't report any non-Christians who want to answer the OP. I'm mainly interested in the Christian responses but as an afterthought I figured if anyone else wanted to answer the OP it could make an interesting comparison.

I am not Christian. You can see my beliefs in the link in my signature. To answer your question, the only areas where one can determine truth is in formal logic and mathematics. In science, a theory can only be proven false, not true. Accepting inductive logic, we assume that a scientific theory that has been tested extensively and not found to be false should be accepted as true for now. But most real life beliefs don't fall in the realm of science. What most people actually do is to accept certain assumptions that they were brought up with and then base their worldview on that. We now live in a Liberal world where virtually everyone blindly accepts Liberalism, basically on faith, without questioning Liberal assumptions. Serious Christians accept a different set of assumptions which at least they have the decency to recognize as a faith. I am an extreme skeptic who questions all assumptions. I have found Liberalism to be the most false worldview that I have seen. I have found the Old Testament to be amazingly accurate regarding questions of morality. I judge accuracy here by consistency with historical evidence and with scientific theories like the theory of evolution.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Did I? Let's put that to the test.



I know! It's cray yo! My apologies, I heard some kids say that and wanted you to think I was cool.



Would like to use a lifeline? Phone a friend? I'll be your friend and give you a hand with this (I'm not trying to be patronizing, I just have a sense of humor). Truth is singular by nessecisty and like the Highlander, there can only be one. Truth is not relative, it is absolute. Your beliefs or my beliefs do not affect this, it exists wholey apart from anyone's beliefs. Check this out, Christ claimed to be the truth. God logic.



Let's get down. You said:




Do you believe that your beliefs are true? That's a trick question, don't answer it. Of course you believe your belief''s are true, you wouldn't believe in something you believe to be false, unless of course your belief was in the belief of a proposition's negation. So you are doing the same thing you accuse people of doing in regards to their beliefs and then turn around and point the finger at they who are doing the same thing you are doing. Ever hear the expression "don't point a finger at someone because you have three pointing right back at you"? So is it speacial pleading? Maybe not. Hypocritical; you bet.





You want to read my testimony you can go to this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7642129/
If you have any questions than feel free to ask me, but I have no doubt as to the truth that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Wow. In spite of your "humor" you still managed to misread/misunderstand what I said. You seemed like you got it in the second paragraph, but then when you went back to my original statement on the next paragraph, you just went and made the same mistake over again. I'll try breaking down my own words, sentence by sentence, in another attempt to clear things up. Let's have a look...

I'll put my original statement in quotes so we can avoid any more confusion. I said...
"Some people (especially on CF) seem to think that because they believe something, it is true."---You seem to be having some trouble with the very first sentence here, not sure why. I'm not saying that people on CF think their beliefs are true, of course they do, everyone does, who goes around holding beliefs they think are false? Silly right? I'm not saying that. I am saying that some people on CF think that their beliefs actually affect reality in a way that makes that belief true. Another way of putting this would be, Some people on CF seem to think that reality changes based on belief. Yet another way of saying this would be, Some people on CF think that their beliefs affect the truth of reality. Now, wording it those ways seems a bit convoluted to me, so I still prefer the way I out it first, " Some people (especially on CF) seem to think that because they believe something, it is true." Maybe there is one last way to phrase this that you might understand, Some people on CF seem to think that reality is based upon their beliefs instead of their beliefs being based upon reality.

My second sentence is almost an exact repeat of the first, in case you didn't get it. " My point (which you seem to have missed) was that some people think that because they believe something, it Is true." See? It's basically the same thing...repeated since you missed it once (now three times?). Hopefully, if you now understand those first two sentences, you'll understand the rest. I'm not going to take that chance though.

My third and forth sentences, " This is never the case. I believe things because they are true, they aren't true simply because I believe them." Basically, this just sets apart my way of discerning truth in reality from the way I described above. I look at evidence, decide if its proving anything or revealing any truth about reality, then form my beliefs. I don't think that something is true merely because I believe it to be true. It's the exact opposite of the people I described in the first two sentences. They seem to believe that something is true merely because they believe it is true. I don't, they do. Nothing hypocritical about this, its not special pleading, its just a statement about the way some people view absolute truth.

Final sentence, " Also, I never said anyone's beliefs are false, I simply said they aren't true because they are believed."---this was added because you had said something about me thinking I was right and everyone else wrong. I never said that or implied it. Someone can have a completely illogical method for deciding what is true, and still know the truth. I'm merely pointing out the method is illogical, and therefore shouldn't be used to decide what is true and what isn't.

I haven't read your testimony yet, I'm gonna save that for the morning when I'm less sleepy. Hope this cleared some things up for you.

 

[secondtimearound]

I'll put my original statement in quotes so we can avoid any more confusion. I said...
"Some people (especially on CF) seem to think that because they believe something, it is true."---You seem to be having some trouble with the very first sentence here, not sure why. I'm not saying that people on CF think their beliefs are true, of course they do, everyone does, who goes around holding beliefs they think are false? Silly right? I'm not saying that. I am saying that some people on CF think that their beliefs actually affect reality in a way that makes that belief true. Another way of putting this would be, Some people on CF seem to think that reality changes based on belief. Yet another way of saying this would be, Some people on CF think that their beliefs affect the truth of reality. Now, wording it those ways seems a bit convoluted to me, so I still prefer the way I out it first, " Some people (especially on CF) seem to think that because they believe something, it is true." Maybe there is one last way to phrase this that you might understand, Some people on CF seem to think that reality is based upon their beliefs instead of their beliefs being based upon reality.

No one thinks that because they believe it is true, everyone believes their beliefs are based on reality. That is hands down one of the most absurd things I have ever heard uttered on this board.

My second sentence is almost an exact repeat of the first, in case you didn't get it. " My point (which you seem to have missed) was that some people think that because they believe something, it Is true." See? It's basically the same thing...repeated since you missed it once (now three times?). Hopefully, if you now understand those first two sentences, you'll understand the rest. I'm not going to take that chance though.

I guess I'll repeat myself being as how you feel the need to do the same. No one believes reality is based on their beliefs. Everyone believes their beliefs are based on reality. I can't stress enough how ridiculous of a notion this is.

My third and forth sentences, " This is never the case. I believe things because they are true, they aren't true simply because I believe them." Basically, this just sets apart my way of discerning truth in reality from the way I described above. I look at evidence, decide if its proving anything or revealing any truth about reality, then form my beliefs. I don't think that something is true merely because I believe it to be true. It's the exact opposite of the people I described in the first two sentences. They seem to believe that something is true merely because they believe it is true. I don't, they do. Nothing hypocritical about this, its not special pleading, its just a statement about the way some people view absolute truth.

Once again, no one believes reality is based on their beliefs, they believe that their beliefs are based on reality. This is the very nature of beliefs.

Final sentence, " Also, I never said anyone's beliefs are false, I simply said they aren't true because they are believed."---this was added because you had said something about me thinking I was right and everyone else wrong. I never said that or implied it. Someone can have a completely illogical method for deciding what is true, and still know the truth. I'm merely pointing out the method is illogical, and therefore shouldn't be used to decide what is true and what isn't.

I did misunderstand you in that regard, however it doesn't make their beliefs false either does it? The fact is everyone believes their beliefs are based on reality.

 

[elman]

Hello, this may seem like an overly simple question, but I would like to know how Christians determine reality? How do you decide fact from fiction? How do you know truth from opinion or belief? Is the bible your main source for this kind of determination? Something else?

I know this may seem a very vague question, but I am interested. Although the question is addressed to Christians, any faith or religion may answer. Thank you.

I think no one is able to detect all of reality and everyone without exception makes mistakes in their assumptions of reality. We all make assumptions about reality. We have no choice about that because we cannot know our perception of reality is true. The Christian assumes a loving Creator and calls such assumption faith. The Atheist assumes no Creator and too many times assumes his assumption is reality and everyone else is fools. We know our perceptions are flawed and limited. We know the solid objects we observe are in reality not solid, but made up of atoms that have a lot of empty space in them. We know love and evil --the way we treat each other is also part of reality. Physical life and death are observable. Spiritualy life and death have to be assumed on our part or we can assume there is no spiritual reality, but this is also just an assumption, nothing more.

 

[AlexBP]

You're right in saying that we use such documents to believe some ancient figures existed. However we don't look at the documents blindly and just accept everything in them as truth. We have methods for evaluating such evidence called reason and logic. For example, we have many written documents that speak of a rather amazing man named Hercules. Like Jesus, he was also born of a god to a mortal mother and did many amazing things. Even though the stories of him include many people meeting him and witnessing his abilities, probably no one today believes he ever existed. Why is that? Simple, reason and logic tell you that no one could have ever been as strong as he was. It's not a story that fits with reality.

All of what you say here is correct. We use reason and logic to evaluate sources. If we evaluate the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John with reason, we find that they are exceptionally reliable by the standards of the ancient world. First of all, today any book is clearly labeled as fiction or non-fiction, and non-fiction books are clearly labeled as being in well-defined genres such as history, psychology, and so forth. Although they didn't have labeling, they did have genres. Biographies, which is to say non-fiction accounts of the life of real individuals, were one such genre, and it's quite clear that the four Gospels are within that genre. Even skeptical scholars almost all agree on this.

Second is the issue of timing. The four Gospels were written between 60 and 60 A.D., while Jesus was crucified in 33 A.D. This means that the gospels post-date the life of their subject by only about 30 to 60 years. By contrast, most biographies in the ancient world post-date their subjects by at least a century, and often by many centuries.

Third is the quality of the information and writing within the gospels themselves. They have, by ancient standards, very high precision. They give precise dates and times for when many things happen. They give precise locations. They gives the names a great many characters, many of whom we know of from archaeology. The include direct quotes and many physical details. Scholars associate all of these things with high accuracy in ancient historical writing. For example, Wolfgang Schadewaldt, a scholar of classical literature, wrote: "I am particularly concerned here to note that when we read the Synoptic gospels, we cannot be other than captivated by the experiential vividness with which we are confronted ... I know of no other area of history-writing, biography, or poetry where I encounter so great a wealth of such material in such a small space."

 

[Ana the Ist]

I am not Christian. You can see my beliefs in the link in my signature. To answer your question, the only areas where one can determine truth is in formal logic and mathematics. In science, a theory can only be proven false, not true. Accepting inductive logic, we assume that a scientific theory that has been tested extensively and not found to be false should be accepted as true for now. But most real life beliefs don't fall in the realm of science. What most people actually do is to accept certain assumptions that they were brought up with and then base their worldview on that. We now live in a Liberal world where virtually everyone blindly accepts Liberalism, basically on faith, without questioning Liberal assumptions. Serious Christians accept a different set of assumptions which at least they have the decency to recognize as a faith. I am an extreme skeptic who questions all assumptions. I have found Liberalism to be the most false worldview that I have seen. I have found the Old Testament to be amazingly accurate regarding questions of morality. I judge accuracy here by consistency with historical evidence and with scientific theories like the theory of evolution.

Thanks for answering, I hope no one reports you. I think you're right about the way you determine reality, I just don't happen to agree with the conclusions you've drawn. Good answer though.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Has anyone observed a quark?

You tell me. I have heard you say before that you "don't believe in Jesus". I don't really know what you mean, perhaps it is simply that you don't believe He is divine.

How do you know that is truth and not belief?

There is actually evidence to support the belief but they (believers in evolution, not all scientists) dismiss it.

Actually, it is only a belief about the reality we find ourselves in.

Evolution is fundamental to biological science, which is fundamental to modern evolution.

A quark? Did you mean with the naked eye? no, but I do believe their paths have been observed in some of the more advanced supercolliders.

I believe Jesus may have existed, but I'm not certain. If he did exist, I don't believe he was divine or more unique than any other man.

Are you asking how I know " Scientists don't "know" god didn't create the universe to appear old, just as you don't "know" that he did."? As I said, there is no evidence to support this, and since most scientists don't believe fanciful ideas without any evidence, I'm confident that the vast majority of scientists think this way. Of course, I cannot account for every scientist.

Well evidence is evidence, regardless of who believes it or supports it. Maybe you should ask yourself if this "evidence" you speak of actually fits the criteria/definition of evidence or not. Just because someone calls something evidence doesn't make it so. This goes back to another point I was making about some people who seem to think that because they believe something is true, it is. As for me, I've never seen any such evidence, why don't you share It?

Evolution is a biological science. There is really no need to separate the two as you did.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No one thinks that because they believe it is true, everyone believes their beliefs are based on reality. That is hands down one of the most absurd things I have ever heard uttered on this board.



I guess I'll repeat myself being as how you feel the need to do the same. No one believes reality is based on their beliefs. Everyone believes their beliefs are based on reality. I can't stress enough how ridiculous of a notion this is.



Once again, no one believes reality is based on their beliefs, they believe that their beliefs are based on reality. This is the very nature of beliefs.






I did misunderstand you in that regard, however it doesn't make their beliefs false either does it? The fact is everyone believes their beliefs are based on reality.

I'd be more than happy to give you examples of what I'm talking about, so maybe you should at least ask me for one before you go off dismissing the idea altogether.

Before we get to that though, it would be nice if you at least acknowledged you were wrong in calling me a hypocrite, for the patronizing sarcastic remarks you tried to play off as humor. I wouldn't expect an apology for the attitude you've displayed here, but since now at least you understand my statements, admitting you were wrong would be nice. Like I said, I understand you don't agree, but we can move forward from this point if you show you can hold this discussion civilly.

 

[AlexBP]

You're correct, I do not currently have the resources to test for the scientific evidence you pointed out. However, that evidence can be used to create hypotheses which can be verified by other experiments. It makes sense using the guidelines of reason and logic to believe these things. If you ever really doubted them, or believed in different explanations for those hypotheses, you could still dedicate your time and energy into testing those hypotheses.

There are some scientific hypotheses that I can test easily. There are some scientific hypothesis that I could test only if I put extraordinary time and effort into them. There are some scientific hypotheses that I could never test by myself no matter how much time and effort I put into them.

In the last category would be, for instance, information about distant galaxies that can only be observed with the most powerful telescopes, which I have no access to. Or information about sea floor that I need a particular type of submarine to reach, and I have no such submarine. Or results from high-energy particle accelerators, of which I don't have my own personal copy. It is currently impossible for me to access a particle accelerator and many other pieces of scientific equipment. Even if I were to devote my life to earning the credentials needed to work with a particle accelerator, it might turn out that I'm just not bright enough to ever reach that level. Thus there are some scientific findings which it's simply impossible for me to test.

In practice, however, there are a great many scientific findings which I'll never test in my life, vastly more than the number that I will test. For all of those findings, I have a choice. I can accept what the authorities say, or I can not accept it. You have the same choice. So does everyone else.

Everybody accepts certain authorities as reliable, and believes certain things because those authorities say those things. People differ on which authorities they trust, how many authorities they trust, and to what extent they'll trust those authorities. But everybody trusts some authorities. Nobody believes exclusively in things for which he or she has seen evidence.

 

[Ana the Ist]

All of what you say here is correct. We use reason and logic to evaluate sources. If we evaluate the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John with reason, we find that they are exceptionally reliable by the standards of the ancient world. First of all, today any book is clearly labeled as fiction or non-fiction, and non-fiction books are clearly labeled as being in well-defined genres such as history, psychology, and so forth. Although they didn't have labeling, they did have genres. Biographies, which is to say non-fiction accounts of the life of real individuals, were one such genre, and it's quite clear that the four Gospels are within that genre. Even skeptical scholars almost all agree on this.

Second is the issue of timing. The four Gospels were written between 60 and 60 A.D., while Jesus was crucified in 33 A.D. This means that the gospels post-date the life of their subject by only about 30 to 60 years. By contrast, most biographies in the ancient world post-date their subjects by at least a century, and often by many centuries.

Third is the quality of the information and writing within the gospels themselves. They have, by ancient standards, very high precision. They give precise dates and times for when many things happen. They give precise locations. They gives the names a great many characters, many of whom we know of from archaeology. The include direct quotes and many physical details. Scholars associate all of these things with high accuracy in ancient historical writing. For example, Wolfgang Schadewaldt, a scholar of classical literature, wrote: "I am particularly concerned here to note that when we read the Synoptic gospels, we cannot be other than captivated by the experiential vividness with which we are confronted ... I know of no other area of history-writing, biography, or poetry where I encounter so great a wealth of such material in such a small space."

"Even skeptical scholars almost all agree on this". <--do you have any way of backing this statement up?

Your comments about "high precision" in the bible seem to be more opinion that fact. I know of many biblical scholars who deal specifically with inaccurate stories in the bible. For example the accounts of Jesus after the resurrection have him in two places at once. That's just one of many flaws present. Have you read the works of any biblical scholars who study inaccuracies in the bible?

 

[secondtimearound]

I'd be more than happy to give you examples of what I'm talking about, so maybe you should at least ask me for one before you go off dismissing the idea altogether.

Before we get to that though, it would be nice if you at least acknowledged you were wrong in calling me a hypocrite, for the patronizing sarcastic remarks you tried to play off as humor. I wouldn't expect an apology for the attitude you've displayed here, but since now at least you understand my statements, admitting you were wrong would be nice. Like I said, I understand you don't agree, but we can move forward from this point if you show you can hold this discussion civilly.

Regarless of your perception I was joking, so no, you are not getting an apology. I was in one AWESOME mood that night.
You said:

I believe things because they are true, they aren't true simply because I believe them.

Do you not see how hypocritical this is? Well obviously you can't and I doubt I can show you.

You think what you believe to be true is true but you cannot be aware of your own ignorance. It may very well be that your beliefs which you believe to be true are false. So when you say that you simply believe them to be true because they are, well you are doing the EXACT same thing that you are accussing other people of doing. That IS hypocritical and I will NOT apologize.

 

[golgotha61]

Hello Anna,

It has been my experience that the main disagreements between atheists and Christians in the understanding and determination of realities involve the supernatural. I don’t think the processes of determining reality in the natural world differ much between the atheist and Christian although there are exceptions. Determining the realities and truths in the supernatural world is a different story and this is where the dialogue disintegrates between atheists and Christians.

I would be interested in these inconsistencies you speak of. Some more information like the source and examples would be helpful. I myself have looked into some of the higher criticisms and the lower as well.

 

[Daniel25]

Hello, this may seem like an overly simple question, but I would like to know how Christians determine reality? How do you decide fact from fiction? How do you know truth from opinion or belief? Is the bible your main source for this kind of determination? Something else?

I know this may seem a very vague question, but I am interested. Although the question is addressed to Christians, any faith or religion may answer. Thank you.

the core idea is authority. God is the perfect authority; His Church's authority is at one remove; my senses are at two removes-anyone who has been to magic show has reason to doubt his senses from time to time. Three removes is legitimate authorities in their respective field. Four removes is illegitimate authority derived from experience or history. So on so forth.


In general, it is hierarchal and skeptical.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Regarless of your perception I was joking, so no, you are not getting an apology. I was in one AWESOME mood that night.
You said:



Do you not see how hypocritical this is? Well obviously you can't and I doubt I can show you.

You think what you believe to be true is true but you cannot be aware of your own ignorance. It may very well be that your beliefs which you believe to be true are false. So when you say that you simply believe them to be true because they are, well you are doing the EXACT same thing that you are accussing other people of doing. That IS hypocritical and I will NOT apologize.

The statement is not hypocritical and your continued belief that it is only shows your continued misunderstanding. Still, I'll be patient and try to explain it again so maybe you can understand.

Truth is truth regardless of whether I believe it to be or not. Truth is determined by logic, reasoning, and evidence. Since I only use logic, reasoning, and evidence to form my beliefs, I know they are true. That's why I can make statements like, " I believe things because they are true, they aren't true simply because I believe them." This separates the way I form beliefs from the way I see so many others forming theirs.

 

[oi_antz]

A quark? Did you mean with the naked eye? no, but I do believe their paths have been observed in some of the more advanced supercolliders.

Thanks, that is the definition of faith I was using. How different do you think it is from this verse:

John 14:23
New International Version (NIV)
23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.

This has worked for many Christians, who have found that they invested in Jesus and He rewarded them with faith. So it's exactly the same process as a scientist hypothesizing sub-atomic theory and building a supercollider to prove it, and doing so despite the fear of the unknown.

I believe Jesus may have existed, but I'm not certain. If he did exist, I don't believe he was divine or more unique than any other man.

This contradicts the evidence we have of Him. The evidence demonstrates that He thought He was divine and unique, and that those who trusted in Him also found Him divine and unique. I want to set you a challenge, I want you to think about why you feel that the evidence we have of Him is not credible. I want you to think about that because I am not the only one to tell you in this thread that your own sense of reality can provide the answer you are seeking.

Are you asking how I know " Scientists don't "know" god didn't create the universe to appear old, just as you don't "know" that he did."? As I said, there is no evidence to support this, and since most scientists don't believe fanciful ideas without any evidence, I'm confident that the vast majority of scientists think this way. Of course, I cannot account for every scientist.

No I was asking why you thought your statement was true. You said two things, that scientist's can't be sure that God didn't create the universe to appear old, and I can't be sure that He did. I asked you how you can make such a statement and know it to be truth instead of just belief. I happen to believe your statement is true too, but I want to encourage you to think about it because you could well be able to answer your own question.

Well evidence is evidence, regardless of who believes it or supports it. Maybe you should ask yourself if this "evidence" you speak of actually fits the criteria/definition of evidence or not. Just because someone calls something evidence doesn't make it so. This goes back to another point I was making about some people who seem to think that because they believe something is true, it is. As for me, I've never seen any such evidence, why don't you share It?

Which evidence do you need? You might enjoy this presentation:

The REAL STAR of Bethlehem Pt. 3 - YouTube

Evolution is a biological science. There is really no need to separate the two as you did.

Nevertheless, you are welcome

 

[oi_antz]

The statement is not hypocritical and your continued belief that it is only shows your continued misunderstanding. Still, I'll be patient and try to explain it again so maybe you can understand.

Truth is truth regardless of whether I believe it to be or not. Truth is determined by logic, reasoning, and evidence. Since I only use logic, reasoning, and evidence to form my beliefs, I know they are true. That's why I can make statements like, " I believe things because they are true, they aren't true simply because I believe them." This separates the way I form beliefs from the way I see so many others forming theirs.

I have two cents worth while I'm here. The point is that atheist's and Christians have the same access to the same information, yet they choose to honour and dishonour different sets of information and therefore come to different conclusions. Also this applies within the Christian faith, it is called cherry-picking. Faulty explained it quite well in this reply.

What it comes down to is that you don't believe that the bible is true in the claims it makes. The reason for this is your own personal problem, but the impact it has is that you have a warped sense of the history that has contributed to the evolution of modern civilization. You probably even have a warped understanding of what is yet to happen in the future of civilization. Furthermore, we can't actually get that understanding unless we ask God for it. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.