Faith Science - Logically Indefensible

I'm sorry, you're wrong the way most people are wrong about this. If you believe in the Buddha's existence, or Gandhi's or Napoleon's, you believe the same way I believe in the Flood, with even less justification I'd say, and you would be foolish to consider the Buddha's existence, or Gandhi's or Napoleon's, to be anything less than factual. You speak merely from prejudice, a whole bunch of stuff you've got floating around in your head about "faith" that is simply false.I'm sure if 90% of the world lost their mind and told you that your belief in Gandhi's existence was false you'd be working hard to prove them wrong and "verify" Gandhi's existence, and you wouldn't consider that bad science, simply necessary work.There are plenty of options for you to refute whatever theories creationists come up with about HOW it happened. But nobody in their right mind would say a known fact should be open to refutation.You, like so many others here, are simply wrong about what a fact is, what an interpretation is, what logic is, what a fallacy is, what faith is, what science is.

Of course you can. The only honest Faith would be tentative. Any Absolute Faith though is almost guaranteed to be false. I believe that GOD exists and is the author of the universe, but I also know that I may be wrong.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Here's a photograph of Ghandi:Can you present your photographs of the Flood?

{{{THIS POST IS INTENDED TO BE A PARODY OF A TYPICAL ARGUMENT AGAINST WITNESS EVIDENCE, USUALLY ENCOUNTERED AGAINST THE BIBLE AS EVIDENCE.}}}How do you know who that is? You just got that from some publication. It's probably a fake, or just some guy they decided to call by that name. There is no real Gandhi, he is simply the invention of people who were carried away by idealistic politics in India. You know publications lie, and Gandhi is really just a fantasy. You know perfectly well that all the people who wrote about Gandhi were just deluded believers in his methods, who made it all up, oh not that they intentionally lied, but they were so in love with the idea they had to invent a person to represent it. Yes of course there were millions who believe but they're all idiots you know, just as the millions of Christians over the millennia who believe in all the supernatural events of the Bible are.Photos are SO easily faked, and especially when we KNOW there never was such a person.Oh, and show us a photo of Napoleon or the Buddha. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How so? The evidence to support the justification that Napoleon existed is overwhelming. Several independent sources from various countries can confirm the existence of Napoleon. There is no evidence to support the claim that a global flood drowned our world.

There is a TON of evidence for the Flood, only all the nutty evos deny it, just as people deny the existence of Christ. The witness evidence alone is staggering, but the physical evidence is so obvious it takes some kind of genius to ignore it. It's been covered a zillion times at EvC.

Nevermind, Faith. I've read a "zillion" times your posts to others whom have disagreed with you on a logical basis, and rarely, if ever, have they gained an inch towards some form of mutual understanding with you.Have a good one.

What???? Witness evidence? Testimony evidence? Nobody is still alive who ever talked to Napoleon personally, and you expect us to believe mere witnesses? The mere written word? Don't you know that witnesses are notoriously unreliable? I mean there are TESTS that prove that. Hey, millions upon millions have believed in Jesus Christ but you know there's no way to prove he existed nevertheless. People are easily mistaken, easily led, easily fooled you know, especially anyone born before, oh, 1960. And the ones who wrote about him originally, well they had motives to make up stuff you know. And there's no way to prove any of *them* even existed either, and when they say they actually witnessed these things, well, we just know that's not true. What rubbish. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

---

1Corinthians 1:25-29: Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.
============================
Pray, you Christians, that God would provide the spiritual weapons to pull down this stronghold of evolution that exalts itself above the knowledge of God.

This would be a perfect time for you to define those terms.Please give definitions for the words:1. Fact2. Interpretation3. Logic4. Fallacy5. Faith6. ScienceThank you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I'm sure we can all give an adequate definition and there are plenty of dictionaries if it's a problem. My point was that the concepts are misapplied. They may be properly defined but misapplied. THAT would be a LONG discussion.

because you know.. those people never wrote down anything, or had massive effect on the world due to trying to conquire the world.and you know theres not historians who wrote about those people, that found graves and were they lived, that existed before they died!sorry faith but trying to use our own considerations from why jesus wasn't what the bible said he was, can't be used in reverse, when we have historical evidence from more than one source on a person
theres only one "historical" source for christ.
no one other than the religion wrote about him as a living person, only the people that worshiped him and what they believed incolaberating evidence is more useful than just one source no matter how much you believe

Your evidence for any of these assertions?None, of course, just as "none" is the amount of evidence you have for your flood.What's your evidence that Ghandi couldn't have existed?

Well, start it. I think a fair number of us are sick to death of a year's worth of you telling us how science, facts, reason etc al. are being "misapplied" to somehow unfairly disadvantage your personal brand of religious woowoo, without you ever allowing that claim to be examined.

Those who would like to discuss what constitutes valid evidence or the definition of common words should propose threads for those topics, or should clearly indicate how they are relevant to the topic of this thread.The topic of this thread, as nearly as I can make out from the opening post, is how faith-based beliefs can be reconciled with evidence that contradicts them.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

It is relevant because Faith is giving us his/her exposition of "faith science", which is the topic of the thread. Part of this exposition includes telling us that we don't know the meaning of either "faith" or "science". Until these definitions are supplied, how are we to know what Faith is talking about?