Why so friggin' confident?

Hi Bertot
Is not the whole point of this thread meant to be an exploration of the principles and foundation of faith. By citing a whole host of sources that you consider to be physical evidence for your particular beliefs are you not kind of missing the point?Do you have faith in Jesus Christ?
Is this not the "Blessed are those that do not see" sort of faith?
Is this not the same sort of faith that a Muslim has in Allah and Hindu has in Vishnu etc. etc?The point of this thread, as I undeerstand it, is the very opposite of of the direction down which you (and Buz) are trying to take it.The point of this thread is exactly NOT "What physical evidence suports the Christian position?"The point of this thread IS (I think) to ask on what basis one can cite faith in ones beliefs (whatever they may be or whatever religion they may pertain to) in the absence of physical evidence. If you think that beliefs cannot be justified or supported without corroborating physical evidence then you and the poster of the OP are essentially in agreement within this debate.If you think that faith is reasonable, valuable and rational in it's own right then maybe you can answer the question in the OP as to why this is so?Edited by Straggler, : Add OP QuoteEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Then superficially you and the author of the OP seem to be in agreement.What do you think Jesus meant when he said "Blessed are those that believe yet have not seen"?Are you blessed? What did you need to see to believe?When you say that you have "faith" what exactly do you mean?
How is it different, if at all, from the "faith" that you have in the fact that the Sun will rise tomorrow?
Or are they the same by your definition of "faith"? No you didn't.
You did not explain anything about faith.
You simply stated (effectively) that evidence leads to "knowledge".
Why does religion (Christinaity specifically if you want) insist so much on the concept of faith if faith in the Lord is no different to the evidence based knowledge that the Sun will rise tomorrow?What does it mean to "Have faith in the Lord"?
Why does Christianity place such emphasis on "faith"?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It seems that you, I and the author of the OP all agree that belief in things for which there is no objective evidence is irrational.How this can be convincingly claimed by somebody who has absolute faith in the existence of non-material, non-detectable entities is somewhat questionable.....? But possibly outside the realm of this thread.........But certainly with regard to this debate it seems that you and the non-theists are at one with regard to the idea that those who proclaim themselves to have religious faith of the more conventional kind are irrational and objectively baseless in their position.No?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I specifically did not use the term faith.Is belief in things for which there is no objective evidence irrational in your view? Or not?If yes then, again, it would seem that you, I and the author of the OP are in agreement regarding this conceptual point even if not the exact terms used to express it. Specific verified prediction.
The gold standard of scientific evidence and that which is notably and woefully absent from any creationist alternative.
There is also the fact that evolutionary theory, like any scientific theory, is necessarily tentative to some degree at least.
If you want to discuss evidence for evolution and the nature of science more generally start a thread (or join and existing one), let me know and I will debate it with you there rather than here where it is completely off topic. So you think all Christians base their "faith" on objective evidence?
Do you think that those Christians who deny the need for objective evidence in God in order to maintain their belief in God are acting irrationally?It really is very simple. Either Christians who do not require objective evidence in order to believe in God are irrational in your view, or they are not.Which is it?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes I do.One is able to be objectively verified and the other is wholly subjective and is thus inherently susceptible to delusion.There is a difference between the two in that regard.The question is do you get it?

I experience gravity willing or otherwise.
Apparently I can only know God exists once I am willing to accept that God exists.One is evident regardless of will. The other is not.
These are quite evidently inherently different forms of "evidence".
Bertot says we need one kind of evidence. You say we need the other kind of "evidence".Which is it?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I don't honour gravity either but it's presence is quite obviously demonstrable. Actually I don't think that you and Bertot do worship the same God. Which suggests that in your view Bertot considers himself to be "his own God".Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You do realise that after extensive searching there has not been a single piece of archaeological evidence for the Israelite presence in Egypt?Modern archaeological techniques are capable of tracing the movements of far more ancient and relatively tiny nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes.600,000 Israelites I beleieve is what the bible suggests escaped encamped in the Sinai for 40 years? Is that correct?Yet not a single piece of corroborating archaeological evidence.But who needs archaeology when you have faith huh........?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.