Religion or Science - How do they compare?

Your questions are designed to be open-ended without definite answers apart from subjective ones.Seems if I recall correctly, your subjective conclusion to the question is that the book tells us to be imitators of the character and that in fact is what a living Christ means...that we carry on as imitators of the character in the book.In I CANTS Creation topic, I attempt an analogy of a Creator of all seen and unseen. My very analogy is a human attempt to define the characteristics of such a Being. At best, I can imitate creating a character in a story...GOD the reality can only be described by humans attempting to explain God and His Son.

I've heard it said that if you can visualize/imagine it, you can create it. Time Travel Isn't PossibleOr Is It?

And thus our question hinges on what reality actually is. Is it soley based on evidence or is there another dimension? Subjectively? Perhaps. Rather than dogpile Faith, who is excusing herself from the fray for a time, I would like to bring attention to a link she shared earlier. Perhaps the peanut gallery can throw their shells in that direction. Faith Facts: This apologetics website has many similar views as to how Faith thinks and believes. jar would be better off calling the apologist's liars rather than addressing any of us as such. Perhaps believers can be accused of willful ignorance, but they find it hard to simply throw the concept of God away. For us, reality is God.add by edit: Im off to work. Thank God I have a job or I would be too addicted to EvC also. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Let's take Faith and me. Granted, I know you through what you write better than she does because I take a lot of time to read what you write. Earlier in this thread, you told her to stop lying. Do you not think that she honestly believes what she writes about?
Earlier, you said to her The only real way that she would be lying is if she, in fact, lies to herself knowingly. Also, assuming first that you are correct about the sources...which would be hard to prove...she would also have to willingly quote sources that she subconsciously recognized as lying.The same applies to me. I trust some of what people here present as facts. Theodoric seems to like Richard Carrier. I honestly believe in a spiritual war, and I honestly think Richard Carrier is one of satans agents...I disagree with a lot of what he claims about the Bible. To be honest, I have not read his works nearly as thoroughly as I do your posts, and I think it is either because I don't want to entertain the distant possibility that the content may be factual or that I fear that I am diluting my faith by absorbing such propaganda by spiritual forces of the enemy. I think that Faith feels even stronger than I do concerning this stuff-- the difference being that she does not even read what her opponents (as she perceives them) post---whereas I do. I think if distant memory serves me correctly, that I was told to stop lying...if I find it in the archives I will reread it in context, for I (think) that I know my intentions in anything that I write. Perhaps at times, I write only to win arguments, truth be damned. The issue is whether I willfully lie in order to win an argument. I do not believe that I do. I cannot speak for Faith.

Napoleon tried to crown himself. I could declare that I am a Christian, and prove that the evidence existed that supported my membership. The counter-argument centers around the definitions of reality, evidence, belief, and supportable vs unsupportable assertions.Critics (whom would be hypothetical members of Biblical Christianity) live in an alternate universe from the one that you and many of the critically thinking science minded do. And before I go on, I realize that I cant win this argument.All I am saying is that if a man says that he sees a giant rabbit that lives with him, he can be labeled delusional yet cannot be charged with lying simply because the evidence does not support giant rabbits. The evidence is never conclusive when a spiritual war is being fought. Critics would label you as unchristian because you attack the sacred cow of Christian History, which threatens them. You attack the divinity of Jesus Christ which is sacrilegious to them. You strip away the certainty of faith and even suggest to people that they throw the whole idea of God that they have been taught away.Then, to add insult to injury, you tell them that they are lying, which is not taken lightly when they see themselves as merely a YEC presenting an alternate explanation for how reality played out. Thats all I'm saying.add by edit: Perhaps I lied in this very argument. I can hear you now, telling me to stop misrepresenting what you say! Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

If Tolkien were alive today and knew of me and my house, I could well be written into the story that he imagined. Frodo and i would get along just nifty, but Harvey the white rabbit may get jealous! as for the Enterprise, I see your logic. Only a Creator of all seen and unseen could author a story where natural laws were suspended and things were created ex nihilio. I doubt He would create another enterprise, however....one is too many.

yeah, note my add by edit above.

ive never seen evidence that religious people are slower than any other regarding moral actions. (nor any faster, to be fair)

Of course, if GOD exists, the definition of the true Creator would obviously be the One Who existed before this list was even imagined.Remember GOD, God, and god? The true one is the one with three capital letters.

Of course, we are free to speculate on the possibility of dualism, polytheism, or pantheism. Or even atheism. Assuming that evidence is the standard...but what if evidence is impossible to gather? At the end of the day what we have left is MEism. That each one of us is free to imagine any belief or reality that we want. Critics will argue that true Reality can be measured, quantified and replicated objectively and is thus more of a WEism than a MEism.It is easy to believe with verifiable replicable evidence. There is no way that we can know whether or not there are GODs,GOD, or none of the above.Objectivity and evidence are impossible to provide.Subjectively, we can individually vote on our choice of belief based upon our internal criteria for such acknowledgment.

Science represents a consortium of individuals who have been trained to handle evidence. One could ask what "rightly handling the evidence" means.What are the motives of science in general?Are some scientists biased or are they trained to never be biased?

So if one guy read Genesis and concluded that God lied and the snake told the truth, even if he could show it in the words, it likely would be a cult following that agreed with him, correct?

*Trots out this cartoon yet again*.... This cartoon was meant to be humorous but based on talking with a few of the creationists I know, it actually fits their method. One side trusts evidence and the other side trusts that the bible is Gods Word and thus the origin of knowledge, the conclusion, and the source of facts (by definition, as revealed by God)

Is evidence by definition objective or subjective?

If the God of the Bible is, in fact, GOD, why did He choose the methodology that He did to introduce Himself and His plan to humanity?

Assuming all of this, how does it negate the evidence gathered by secular science so far?

​

Edited by Phat, : spelling

​

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

Of course, we have traveled this road many times before. Your opponents are now going to say that the Bible is a belief and not a source of knowledge or facts. They then will attempt to get you to confront evidence rather than sticking to your guns.We go around this same mountain so many times here at EvC.And my friends tell me that my faith is weak because I don't accept the Bible as the source of reality.My conclusion is that if what you believe is true, reality is not as it appears.Not to say I disagree with your beliefs...I share many of them, but GDR would at this point bring up his ongoing argument regarding Biblianity vs Christianity...And it goes on and on and on

Why don't most Bible teachers mention this?