Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I depends on why he doubts it. Does he have some new evidence? Or just a particular interpretation of an ancient holy book?I respect scientists but not on this one. Scientists are pressured to agree with it If a scientist doubt evolution and say it then is laughed by everyone and probably don't get a job so you have that.
An atheist saying that a christian doesn't know anything about theology. You not even believe in God. The most important part of life!
Empiricists?What should we call someone who doesn't even believe in reality?
Belief do not translate to knowledege.
Hence the term "blind faith".Seeing is believing.
It's a popular phrase, but if taken literally, leads to believing that David Copperfield really can fly and illusionists really do saw their assistants in half...Seeing is believing.
Hence the term "blind faith".
It's a popular phrase, but if taken literally, leads to believing that David Copperfield really can fly and illusionists really do saw their assistants in half...
Only for the gullible.Seeing is believing.
That's understandable, faith-based beliefs are vulnerable to doubt; but the fact remains that human perception is unreliable and easily mistaken.I just don't think I want to spend time comparing illusionists to the Almighty Lord.
Only for the gullible.
Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. I don't accept unquestioningly what I think I have seen, so why would I accept the word of others, especially on important matters. I don't doubt the sincerity of many people, dead and alive, who claim to have seen certain things; nor do I doubt the powerful human talent for self-deception.
Rational analysis is only as good as the data used. If one is careless in the acquistion/selection of data, or fails to rationally assess its limitations or rationally identify missing data, then the conclusion may be indistinguishable from one arrived at via a careless, gullible mindset. However, if one maintains a rational approach throughout the full analysis process then gullibility will be absent.That’s certainly rational... do you think there’s no gullibility at all in rationality?
Rational analysis is only as good as the data used. If one is careless in the acquistion/selection of data, or fails to rationally assess its limitations or rationally identify missing data, then the conclusion may be indistinguishable from one arrived at via a careless, gullible mindset. However, if one maintains a rational approach throughout the full analysis process then gullibility will be absent.
If you are asking whether rational approaches can themselves be gullible, then I give you a definitive "NO". The only way that could occur would be by redefining "rational", or "gullible", or both.
Empiricists?
2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.
That's understandable, faith-based beliefs are vulnerable to doubt; but the fact remains that human perception is unreliable and easily mistaken.
Well, from your posts its obvious you dont know theology.
Belief do not translate to knowledege.
For me the clue lies in the use of the word extraordinary. i.e the event was extremely unusual, or implausible, or even seemingly impossible. My immediate reaction would be "what actually happened here? I know what appears to have happened, but that seems very unlikely. What evidence could I now examine in order to determine what really occurred? What evidence would be needed to convince me that what I thought had happened was actually the most plausible explanation?".
I’m not trying to be tricky – just curious. Outside a scientific laboratory and controlled experiment, if you witnessed an extraordinary event of some kind, which do you think you would believe... what you actually saw (or even thought you saw) and interpreted, or what you tried to rationalize it to be (or was told to rationalize it to be)?
But theology is about God and if you don't have any experience with him or have the spirit of God then your knowledge about theology is useless and probably all your opinions about God are wrong.
Seriously? Theology is the study of religious belief.
As god(s) cant be proven (or disproven) they cant be studied.
But theology is about God and if you don't have any experience with him or have the spirit of God then your knowledge about theology is useless and probably all your opinions about God are wrong.
You don't get to redefine the word "theology" to make it mean whatever you want it to. The study of religious belief would be psychology of religion. Theology is something very different, and whether you think it can be appropriately studied or not is irrelevant to its definition.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?