Who Speaks?

[anonymous person]

You are free to believe as you like.

But, if your goal is to convince others based on how you support your positions on this site, i wouldnt give up your day job.

I could say the same thing to you, but I doubt you would be troubled by the fact that I find you unconvincing.

 

[Cearbhall]

Of course you don't see how. You can't. That's what we've been trying to tell you guys all along.

You could say that about anything, though. And it's circular logic. Imagine that I interpret a novel a certain way and say I'm 100% sure of what the author intended or experienced. You say you don't know how I can be 100% sure without outside information, and I say that the reason why you can't see that I'm right is because you can't see that I'm right.

I realize that the person who says it will still hold that opinion, but you must see how it's not very useful to anyone who disagrees.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually its 100%

Well, that's a nice round number.

 

[bhsmte]

I could say the same thing to you, but I doubt you would be troubled by the fact that I find you unconvincing.

No, not troubled at all.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What claim specifically?

You can't be smug and play dumb at the same time. Doesn't work.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I could say the same thing to you, but I doubt you would be troubled by the fact that I find you unconvincing.

I'm more troubled by your lack of intellectual honesty.

 

[Davian]

Of course you don't see how. You can't. That's what we've been trying to tell you guys all along.

I can see how. If a religion is designed by intent as a means for controlling a society, then you do not want any exceptions to the rule. The rules of [this] religion, being the [only] cure for the disease it purports to address, cannot be allowed to be sidestepped by simply not raping and killing your fellow citizens. Even if you haven't heard of [this] religion, by the rules you are still in [hypothetical] trouble.

Holding one responsible for things beyond one's control is morally bankrupt, but there must be control. Carrot and stick, and all that.

 

[The Cadet]

And what of faith?

The Muslim, the Hindu, and the Jew all appeal to the same faith you appeal to. Faith is not a method for converging upon the truth, it is a method for believing whatever you want to believe without a scrap of evidence. I'd assume you disagree with this, so please, tell me. If you hold belief X on faith, and I hold that belief X is wrong on faith, how do we determine which of us is right?

 

[Cearbhall]

And what of faith?

I pray to be found as one whose speech and message is not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

I personally haven't noticed any difference between Christianity and other major religions in these demonstrations.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And what of faith?

As @The Cadet noted, faith can be used to justify whatever one wishes, so it cannot be relied on for knowledge.

I pray to be found as one whose speech and message is not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

How does "demonstration of the Spirit" work and how can it be used to establish which supernatural claims have merit?

 

[Extraneous]

As @The Cadet noted, faith can be used to justify whatever one wishes, so it cannot be relied on for knowledge.

How does "demonstration of the Spirit" work and how can it be used to establish which supernatural claims have merit?

Science cannot explain the beginning of all creation without including God into that equation. Science uses faith as well. It doesn't know what was in the very beginning of all things, before the big bang, and even before that, but it has faith that something was in the vey beginning, and itself had no beginning. They cannot possibly ever conceive a theory to explain how something can exist without a beginning, yet they cant explain how it could possibly have a beginning either. If they say something was first, in the very beginning, then they say it came from nothing. That makes no sense however, and something had to be the origin of all things, and that thing must have always existed. The only question is, what is that thing? Is it nothing or is it something? The only logical answer is that it is God. That's faith, and it explains the origins of life, even though science cannot.

 

[Extraneous]

That question, is one that cannot be answered, without using God.

 

[bhsmte]

Science cannot explain the beginning of all creation without including God into that equation. Science uses faith as well. It doesn't know what was in the very beginning of all things, before the big bang, and even before that, but it has faith that something was in the vey beginning, and itself had no beginning. They cannot possibly ever conceive a theory to explain how something can exist without a beginning, yet they cant explain how it could possibly have a beginning either. If they say something was first, in the very beginning, then they say it came from nothing. That makes no sense however, and something had to be the origin of all things, and that thing must have always existed. The only question is, what is that thing? Is it nothing or is it something? The only logical answer is that it is God. That's faith, and it explains the origins of life, even though science cannot.

Please show us how god shows up in any scientific theory.

 

[The Cadet]

Science cannot explain the beginning of all creation without including God into that equation.

Actually, including God in the equation doesn't help explain the issue either. It's simply a basic god-of-the-gaps fallacy that explains a mystery with an even greater mystery and solves an unresolveable problem by cheating the premises.

It doesn't know what was in the very beginning of all things, before the big bang, and even before that, but it has faith that something was in the vey beginning, and itself had no beginning.

Really? Hang on, let me ask one of my friends who is studying astrophysics.

...

...Yeah, whoever told you this garbage lied to you. Scientists don't know what was "before" the big bang, or even if "before the big bang" is a statement with any meaning whatsoever. But they don't try to insert faith-based ideas into that gap. Rather, they wait until they have statements they can back up with evidence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Science cannot explain the beginning of all creation without including God into that equation.

How does inserting a deity into the equation advance our understanding of the origin of the universe any further than "We don't know"?

Science uses faith as well.

No it doesn't.

It doesn't know what was in the very beginning of all things, before the big bang, and even before that, but it has faith that something was in the vey beginning, and itself had no beginning.

We don't know whether it's even intelligible to talk of a "before" the Big Bang.

They cannot possibly ever conceive a theory to explain how something can exist without a beginning, yet they cant explain how it could possibly have a beginning either. If they say something was first, in the very beginning, then they say it came from nothing. That makes no sense however,

No they don't. See 12:02 onward from this video.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Right Speech is the third of the eight path factors in the Noble Eightfold Path, and belongs to the virtue division of the path.

 

[Locutus]

The only logical answer is that it is God.

The only 'logical' answer (and in fact it isn't an answer at all, because it explains nothing) if you ignore the infinite number of other possibilities. You may obtain some perspective by viewing that amazing short film (easily found on youtube etc) showing via CGI just how puny we are given the size of the universe.