Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 152
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Such as?
    Such as the stories of Adam and Eve; Moses, the Burning Bush and the Ten Commandments; Sodom and Gamorrah; Job; Noah; Jesus, etc...
    I'm back!
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    But that is what you believe, and not what you learned from empirical evidence, right?

    That would be your faith.
    NOT believing into things for which there is NO evidence is not faith. Most people call it common sense outside of the realm of religion.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    NOT believing into things for which there is NO evidence is not faith. Most people call it common sense outside of the realm of religion.
    Being Agnostic means that you believe there is no God or supernatural being. That means you believe you just came to be as a result of nature. That's a belief, not a lack of a belief. You believe something, just not what someone else might believe.

    There is no such thing as a lack of belief.

    If your definition of faith (belief without evidence) is correct, then since you don't believe there is a God, that is your faith. You have no more evidence that there isn't a God than any non-believer has that there is a God.
    I'm back!
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    I will ask you a serious question now, I'm not trying to call you out or anything, so please answer truthfully. How do you believe the universe and all life in it was formed?
    I/we don't know all the details yet, but from what we have found out so far, we can tell that all the universe and life on earth can develop without the helping hand of some supernatural power.

    I am not an astro-physicist, but from my personal experience in the field of biology, I have no problem whatsoever accepting that life on earth started and developped all by itself.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Such as the stories of Adam and Eve; Moses, the Burning Bush and the Ten Commandments; Sodom and Gamorrah; Job; Noah; Jesus, etc...
    As you correctly state: these are stories, not evidence... it's easy to write stories. So far, you did not provide any evidence for thoses stories.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Such as the stories of Adam and Eve; Moses, the Burning Bush and the Ten Commandments; Sodom and Gamorrah; Job; Noah; Jesus, etc...
    People looking for evidence want hard proof...the Ark, the Holy Grail, etc...

    If all we have are stories to base our faith on, in a thousand years, we could be worshipping Harry Potter or The Wizard of Oz
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I/we don't know all the details yet, but from what we have found out so far, we can tell that all the universe and life on earth can develop without the helping hand of some supernatural power.

    I am not an astro-physicist, but from my personal experience in the field of biology, I have no problem whatsoever accepting that life on earth started and developped all by itself.
    I figured this is where you'd go, so this will help demonstrate my point. Before I start, let me add my disclaimer to this. Even though I am taking the side of "faith", I am not convinced that either the "6th day" or "Big Bang" theories are correct. I have reasons to believe and doubt both. I think both are convenient theories, yet both leave lots of unanswered and difficult questions behind. But for the sake of debate, I will continue with the "faith" theory.

    There is little, real empirical evidence in the "Big Bang" theory. This theory is mostly just hypotheses of how something of this magnitude could happen, and for now it somewhat works, even though we are learning more and more about physics and the universe every day. However, it flagrantly violates one of the tenets of physics, which is that matter is neither created nor destroyed. I will agree that it is possible that this proto-matter came together in such a way that it caused the "Big Bang" and spread matter all throughout an ever-expanding universe, and this matter clumped together in such a way as to produce galaxies, stars, and planets. However, here's where it violates physics. Where did all this proto-matter come from? If everything has a beginning and an end, and if all that we know of can be traced back to this "Big Bang", well, something had to create the stuff that created the "Big Bang", right? Astro-physicists have conveniently left that part out of their argument. There's never an explanation of where that came from, just what came out of it. It had to come from somewhere. The other part I have a problem with is the concept that the matter shrank itself down and then exploded to become the "Big Bang", and the universe is constantly expanding. Well, how's it expanding if the universe is already "everything"? If it's expanding, that means it's finite, not infinite. And if it's finite, what's on the other side?

    If everything has a beginning and an end, then something had to create the beginning. However, to show you I'm not inflexible in my arguments, I can easily say that I don't have an answer for how God was created, which is why I say that there are things about both theories that I have a hard time with.
    I'm back!
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    If your definition of faith (belief without evidence) is correct, then since you don't believe there is a God, that is your faith. You have no more evidence that there isn't a God than any non-believer has that there is a God.
    It seems wise to believe only in things for which there is evidence. Because if you start believing in things without evidence, how do you select what you believe and what you don't believe in? Do you believe aliens visit earth on a daily basis and abduct people? Do you believe in telepathy or in Big Foot? There is no solid evidence for any of this, so I don't believe in any of it.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9.    #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    So what's your definition of faith?
    Verbose: http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...ith#post717913

    Concise: http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...ith#post496699
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Technically, this is not my definition. Actually, the writer of the book of Hebrews is the recognized author. Thus this citation.
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    As you correctly state: these are stories, not evidence... it's easy to write stories. So far, you did not provide any evidence for thoses stories.
    So is the story of George Washington and the cherry tree. And Columbus' travels to the New World. And the Ming Dynasty. All of history are stories. Yet you take those as fact. What's the difference? Is the story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree evidence of something? That either GW or cherry trees exist? I think not.

    Did you ever meet GW? Have you ever met anyone that met GW? Just because the stories of the Bible are older than the stories of Columbus doesn't make them any less factual. You can't prove to me that Columbus existed either, there are no photographs of him, no audio or video recordings, and no eye-witness accounts. Yet you see a disconnect between the two, and they are the same.
    I'm back!
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Being Agnostic means that you believe there is no God or supernatural being.
    Actually, being Agnostic means I "believe nothing is KNOWN or can be known about the existence of God." From the Greek ágnostos: not to be known, not knowing.

    An Atheist "believes there is no God. A Godless person."

    I am not arrogant enough to believe there is no possibility of a higher being or some kind of higher power. I just want proof.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    If everything has a beginning and an end, then something had to create the beginning. However, to show you I'm not inflexible in my arguments, I can easily say that I don't have an answer for how God was created, which is why I say that there are things about both theories that I have a hard time with.
    I agree that it is difficult or impossible to understand how matter or energy have always been, or just come into existence. But nobody ever said only those things we can understand exist. Still, if there is no evidence for something, I don't see why I should believe in it. OTOH, since there is very good evidence for matter and energy, I tend to accept their existence, even if I don't understand how they started.

    However, introducing god into the equation does not make this any better: if something as simple as matter and energy cannot "just exist" and "always have been there", why should it be possible that something as complex and complicated as a god "just exists" and "has always been there"?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    It seems wise to believe only in things for which there is evidence.
    So how do you explain Agnostics and/or Athiests? They believe there is no God. But according to them, there is no evidence that there is or isn't a God. They just believe that they didn't need Him to come to be. I don't have a problem with that, but that is a belief and a faith.

    Like I said, there is no such thing as a lack of belief. In this case, you either believe something or do not believe something.
    I'm back!
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Like I said, there is no such thing as a lack of belief. In this case, you either believe something or do not believe something.
    I believe this thread has strayed waaaaaaay off topic!
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130
    Actually, being Agnostic means I "believe nothing is KNOWN or can be known about the existence of God." From the Greek ágnostos: not to be known, not knowing.

    An Atheist "believes there is no God. A Godless person."

    I am not arrogant enough to believe there is no possibility of a higher being or some kind of higher power. I just want proof.
    You're right, that was a poor choice of words. I apologize.

    And like you, I too would like more concrete proof. As I stated in my "Big Bang" counter-theory, I think that I know enough to realize I don't know squat. I see things in both theories that I can believe, and I definitely see things in both theories that I don't believe. And I can also see where they can overlap and peacefully coexist.
    I'm back!
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    I believe this thread has strayed waaaaaaay off topic!
    What was the topic again? Oh yeah, separation of Church and State. That's a bigger myth than "6th day", "Big Bang", or Bigfoot! It's not in the Constitution, nor was it the intention of the Founding Fathers. Quite the opposite, actually, since, like I said earlier, God is all over our nation's historical documents and currency. I honestly believe that was not their intent.
    I'm back!
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    But nobody ever said only those things we can understand exist.
    Excellent point. Holy wars have been started over less, and certainly "heretics" have lost their lives over a lack of knowledge by those in power.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    ...why should it be possible that something as complex and complicated as a god "just exists" and "has always been there"?
    This is part of my problem with the "6th day" theory. Who/what created God?
    I'm back!
  18.    #58  
    Actually the thread was on the curious (to me) decision for the ACLU to seek to have "holy scriptures" defined to include multiple texts, in a day when they seem to more readily clamor for more "separation"
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    So is the story of George Washington and the cherry tree. And Columbus' travels to the New World. And the Ming Dynasty. All of history are stories. Yet you take those as fact. What's the difference? Is the story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree evidence of something? That either GW or cherry trees exist? I think not.

    Did you ever meet GW? Have you ever met anyone that met GW? Just because the stories of the Bible are older than the stories of Columbus doesn't make them any less factual. You can't prove to me that Columbus existed either, there are no photographs of him, no audio or video recordings, and no eye-witness accounts. Yet you see a disconnect between the two, and they are the same.
    You started by claiming there is ample proof for the stories in the bible. I asked you for some examples, and now you seem to insinuate that George Washington, Columbus and the Ming Dynasty may be fictional. Sorry, but there is very good evidence for the existence of George Washington, Columbus, and the Ming dynasty. There are documents written by Columbus and Washington, ample historical and archeological evidence for the Ming dynasty, etc.

    All of this is lacking for the story of Noah and the ark, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, etc. That doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen, it just means that there is no evidence. Certainly nothing remotely as good as the evidence e.g. for George Washington.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20. #60  
    Did I miss the announcement where Insertion was made a mod?
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions