Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Probability of the existence of God
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 76 of 219 (464714)
04-28-2008 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by New Cat's Eye
04-28-2008 4:00 PM


Re: The problem is a lack of faith!
Catholic Scientist writes:
If by convinced you mean know 100%, then you are contradicting yourself.
Faith is for things that you don't know for sure.
Although disagreeing with Wumpini that a Christian must necessarily have his level of conviction, I do agree that you are using a dictionary definition of faith whereas he is applying the biblical definition (which, whilst permitting 100% conviction, doesn't demand it in order that it be faith).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-28-2008 4:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-28-2008 4:28 PM iano has replied

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 77 of 219 (464715)
04-28-2008 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by iano
04-28-2008 3:05 PM


Thanks for the welcome
Hi iano,
Thank you for your welcome to EvC.
You say:
Given that a Christian can doubt, it follows that there will be different degrees of conviction between individual Christians.
I agree completely that a Christian can doubt, and that there will be different degrees of conviction between individual Christians. A Christian's faith should grow stronger as they mature in Christ. In a couple of instances in the Bible, it talks about weak faith.
I am wondering though whether these instances are related more to a persons reliance upon God, rather than his belief in the existence of God. In other words, if I beieve in God (I have faith) but if I am not willing to depend upon God (I have weak faith). I am just thinking this through in my head so I would appreciate your comments.
there isn't enough faith (= evidence) in the universe to put the Humpty Dumpy of evolution back together again for me.
This is really why I came to this forum. Not to engage in philosophical debates about what constitutes faith, but to gain a better understanding of why people refuse to believe in the existence of the supernatural. I want to gain a better understanding of the scientific view of origins and evolution.
After only a few days on this forum, I question whether this is the best place to accomplish that task. It seems that I am constantly under attack, and it has caused me to be overly defensive.
I truly appreciate your civil and gentle manner.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by iano, posted 04-28-2008 3:05 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by PaulK, posted 04-28-2008 4:28 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 80 by Rahvin, posted 04-28-2008 5:00 PM Wumpini has replied
 Message 81 by iano, posted 04-28-2008 5:38 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 04-29-2008 3:39 PM Wumpini has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 78 of 219 (464716)
04-28-2008 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Wumpini
04-28-2008 4:14 PM


No valid probability
The reason why people don't believe in the supernatural is that the evidence is just not good enough. We've seen that from the earlier discussion here. The probability arguments relied on highly subjective assessments which could easily point the other way. Despite that they are still used because those who want to argue that there is evidence for God don't have anything better.
It really is that obvious. And if - as you claim - the Bible says otherwise then the Bible is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Wumpini, posted 04-28-2008 4:14 PM Wumpini has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 219 (464717)
04-28-2008 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by iano
04-28-2008 4:13 PM


Re: The problem is a lack of faith!
I do agree that you are using a dictionary definition of faith whereas he is applying the biblical definition
The Hebrews 11 defintion?
That's Old Testament. I follow Jesus' teachings.
whilst permitting 100% conviction, doesn't demand it in order that it be faith
Jesus said that the blessed are those who believe and who have not seen.
Saying that you KNOW means that you have seen and that is why you believe. I believe whilst not KNOWING, as Jesus commanded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by iano, posted 04-28-2008 4:13 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by iano, posted 04-28-2008 5:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 80 of 219 (464718)
04-28-2008 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Wumpini
04-28-2008 4:14 PM


Re: Thanks for the welcome
This is really why I came to this forum. Not to engage in philosophical debates about what constitutes faith, but to gain a better understanding of why people refuse to believe in the existence of the supernatural. I want to gain a better understanding of the scientific view of origins and evolution.
After only a few days on this forum, I question whether this is the best place to accomplish that task. It seems that I am constantly under attack, and it has caused me to be overly defensive.
You are "attacked" becasue your statements have a tendency to be logically inconsistent and demonstrate intellectual dishonesty. You have not demonstrated an actual intent to debate.
If you would like to learn about the positions of science, by all means ask. You won't be attacked for asking an honest question, just as you were not attacked for your OP here - that didn't happen until you decided to claim 100% certainty, which is an impossible position.
You may be surprised to learn that science does not deny the existence of the supernatural. There is no scientific theory that states "there is no god." You seem to be confusing "not talking about the supernatural because we have no objective basis from which to form a model," with "positively affirming that the supernatural does not exist."
Science deals with the observable Universe and the objective evidence we gather through observation. From a certain point of view, it certainly is "anti-religion" in that it proposes naturalistic mechanisms for phenomenon like lightning rather than continuing to attribute such occurences to "god" or "Zeus." But that's not the point - the point is to make predictive models of the observable Universe with the highest degree of accuracy possible. In this way, our current understanding of lightning (an electrical discharge between the ground and atmosphere due to compeltely natural static charge differentials) is extremely accurate, and so has replaced the intellectual dead-end of "well, Zeus must have thrown it there. No, I don't know why. Who knows the mind of the gods?"
The opposition to science displayed by many religious people is curious, becasue they do not deny that the scientific method makes sense, and they accept many scientific theories such as electromagnetism. They only oppose the scientific method when it is applied to a "sacred cow," the stories of their particular religion. Scientific investigation, observation, experimental verification, all of these are solid enough to allow religious people to say, board a plane and know they will not likely plummet from the sky. But for some reason this is all dismissed with evolution or cosmological origin models, becasue it "takes god out of the equasion."
"God," if he exists, has removed himself from the equasion by not giving us objective evidence of his existence. If we do not need "goddidit" to explain the movement of planets, then how is "god" relevant to planetary motion? Even if he exists, even if he is responsible, neither of those things would tell us what determines a planet's orbit - and this means that discussing "god" is simply not relevant when modeling the motion of planets, even if he does exist and is responsible.
It's exactly the same with evolution. The Theory of Evolution models all of the objective evidence we have accumulated to date. It makes predictions based on that evidence that have been verified through futher observation to have an incredibly high degree of accuracy. As a model for learning how and why populations of living organisms change over generations, it is a very successful theory. The fact that we can tell all of this without mentioning "god" does not mean his existence is impossible, or that he is not responsible. There may not be any objective reason to think so, but there's no positive evidence of his nonexistence, either. It simply means that discussing "god" is not necessary when speaking about the origin of species, becasue we already have a model that works very well. Even if "god" exists and is responsible for all life, it does not change the fact that the Theory of Evolution has proven to be a highy accurate model of the way populations of living organisms change over time.
So nowhere in science is it said that "god doesn't exist," or "the supernatural is impossible." As an Atheist, even I don't say that. I say "I have no objective reason to beleive they do exist." Science is even more circumspect - it doesn't say anything at all on such subjects becasue science can only model that which we can objectively observe.
Feel free to ask questions. You won't be attacked. This is a debate site, so we pick apart and criticize arguments that are flawed or inconsistent or not based on evidence. But if all you want is a better understanding of why science doesn't make statements regarding the supernatural, or what scientific theories like evolution actually say rather than what you've seen on TV (because I guarantee you it's wrong), then you're in the right place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Wumpini, posted 04-28-2008 4:14 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Wumpini, posted 04-28-2008 6:25 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 81 of 219 (464721)
04-28-2008 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Wumpini
04-28-2008 4:14 PM


Re: Thanks for the welcome
Wumpini writes:
I am wondering though whether these instances are related more to a persons reliance upon God, rather than his belief in the existence of God. In other words, if I believe in God (I have faith) but if I am not willing to depend upon God (I have weak faith). I am just thinking this through in my head so I would appreciate your comments.
The way I see it, my faith operates on (at least) two axes which are connected at a common, zero, origin. The X-axis deals with my reliance on and trust in my God. On a given day I can be full of the joy of the Lord and my faith can 'move mountains'. On others it strikes a lesser note. Trusting and thankful? Thankfully. Joyless and deflated? You'd better believe it!
The Y-axis has to do with belief in Gods existance and the truths of the gospel. Generally speaking, I operate at the top of the scale - irrespective of what's happening on the X-axis. I'm 100% convinced of his existance, my salvation, holiness awaiting, etc. Occasionally however, I find myself down near the bottom of this scale. The characteristic of that place should not be seen as downcastedness or depression or "a bad thing" (which are the characteristics of my occupying a similar position on the X-axis). Rather, it's my wondering if I'm dreaming this all up - so fantastic in so many ways is this God-on-offer.
The question asked at that point ("do you really believe all this?") seems to act as a prompt to consider why I believe what I believe. To cast my mind around to see how well all fits. And fitting I (increasingly) find it. And so back up the Y-axis I go. Back to 100%
-
This is really why I came to this forum. Not to engage in philosophical debates about what constitutes faith, but to gain a better understanding of why people refuse to believe in the existence of the supernatural. I want to gain a better understanding of the scientific view of origins and evolution
After only a few days on this forum, I question whether this is the best place to accomplish that task. It seems that I am constantly under attack, and it has caused me to be overly defensive.
If it's intelligently delivered exposure to the predominant scientific view of origins and evolution then you probably couldn't have come to a better place. There are folk here who can articulate the central ideas pitched at just about any level you wish to enter the discussion at. And they are generally more than willing to oblige the genuine seeker. You'd want to partake in discussions in the appropriate fora however - "Faith and Belief" is not that place.
The general reason why people don't believe in the existance in the supernatural (if they don't believe in it's existance) is the same reason I (who do believe in the supernatural) don't believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Simply put, there is no evidence of the IPU in order that I could believe in it.
They may be lost sinners Wumpini - but they're not stupid!
-
I truly appreciate your civil and gentle manner.
5047 posts does that to a man

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Wumpini, posted 04-28-2008 4:14 PM Wumpini has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 82 of 219 (464722)
04-28-2008 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by New Cat's Eye
04-28-2008 4:28 PM


Re: The problem is a lack of faith!
CS writes:
The Hebrews 11 defintion? That's Old Testament. I follow Jesus' teachings.
Er...Hebrews is in the New Testament CS
Jesus said that the blessed are those who believe and who have not seen.
..which is remarkably like the Hebrews definition of belief. Faith is conviction (belief) in things not seen. Blessed indeed are those that have such a faith. They belong to a most privileged category of people called "the sons on God"
-
Saying that you KNOW means that you have seen and that is why you believe. I believe whilst not KNOWING, as Jesus commanded.
The KJV has an interesting way of putting the Hebrews 11:1 verse.
quote:
"Faith the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".
Sight is one way for a thing to be evidenced. So too smell, touch, taste, hearing. Faith is another way for a thing to be evidenced - according to that verse. Call it a sixth sense if you like. As effective a way to demonstrate God to a person as is sight and touch a way to evidence that computer screen on front of you right this minute. The biblical sense of faith is anything but blind...
Although it might be your first reaction, rather that respond with the dictionary definition of faith you might want to consider how the Bible utilises the word. And re-examine what Jesus is saying in the light of that. People know God exists by virtue of evidence only. By non-dictionary defined faith...
They are indeed blessed - those who don't know God exists by sight but who know God exists by this other way. For to know of Gods existance by means of this specific way is to be saved.
What could be a greater blessing than that?
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-28-2008 4:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2008 10:11 AM iano has replied

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 83 of 219 (464724)
04-28-2008 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Rahvin
04-28-2008 5:00 PM


Intellecutal Dishonesty
... demonstrate intellectual dishonesty.
I had to look up on google what the term intellectual dishonesty meant. It is the advocacy of a position that the advocate knows or believes to be false. I have not knowingly committed such an offense.
I have admitted many posts back that it is not possible to calculate a probability for the existence of God based upon objective evidence.
I said in post 27:
My question has been answered. Scientists do not have the ability to assign a probability to the existence of God! It seems that science is limited to those things that can be observed with the senses ...
The probability of 100% that I have placed upon the existence of God is based upon my subjective faith which has developed based upon my analysis of objective evidence. I am as convinced that God exists as I am that I exist. I believe that I can place a probability of 100% on my own existence without committing intellectual dishonesty either.
So if someone feels I have been advocating a position that I do not believe in, I assure you that this was not my intent.
You have not demonstrated an actual intent to debate.
Have you considered the possibility that I do not know how to debate? As far as I know, I have never engaged in a formal debate in my life. Maybe with time I will learn to develop more logical arguments.
It simply means that discussing "god" is not necessary when speaking about the origin of species, becasue we already have a model that works very well.
This is something that I would be interested in learning more about. It seems that evolution is a model of changes rather than origins. I get the same impression from cosmological origins. That the Big Bang Theory is a model of changes in the universe rather than origins. I think I will search out threads that are dealing more with the questions that I am attempting to answer.
My faith or belief in the existence of God is not one of those questions.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Rahvin, posted 04-28-2008 5:00 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by iano, posted 04-28-2008 7:06 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 86 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2008 10:23 AM Wumpini has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 84 of 219 (464729)
04-28-2008 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Wumpini
04-28-2008 6:25 PM


Re: Intellecutal Dishonesty
Have you considered the possibility that I do not know how to debate? As far as I know, I have never engaged in a formal debate in my life. Maybe with time I will learn to develop more logical arguments.
The likelyhood is that this has not been considered. Your not having engaged in debate before I mean. You write/think well so it shouldn't be a problem picking up the few things that need to be picked up upon.
Cast out the word "faith" and you'll find yourself embroiled in a discussion about "faith" - although your meaning might have been to head in a different direction.
So long as you're prepared to follow the bites wherever they lead...
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Wumpini, posted 04-28-2008 6:25 PM Wumpini has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 219 (464784)
04-29-2008 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by iano
04-28-2008 5:48 PM


Re: The problem is a lack of faith!
CS writes:
The Hebrews 11 defintion? That's Old Testament. I follow Jesus' teachings.
Er...Hebrews is in the New Testament CS
Duh-huh
Jesus said that the blessed are those who believe and who have not seen.
..which is remarkably like the Hebrews definition of belief. Faith is conviction (belief) in things not seen. Blessed indeed are those that have such a faith. They belong to a most privileged category of people called "the sons on God"
-
Saying that you KNOW means that you have seen and that is why you believe. I believe whilst not KNOWING, as Jesus commanded.
The KJV has an interesting way of putting the Hebrews 11:1 verse.
quote:
"Faith the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".
Sight is one way for a thing to be evidenced. So too smell, touch, taste, hearing. Faith is another way for a thing to be evidenced - according to that verse. Call it a sixth sense if you like. As effective a way to demonstrate God to a person as is sight and touch a way to evidence that computer screen on front of you right this minute. The biblical sense of faith is anything but blind...
I'm familiar with your position on faith, but..... it doesn't seem to add up....
Jesus says that the blessed are those who believe in him without evidence (unless he just meant that the blessed are the people who have not received the evidence throught their eyeballs (seen)... but I doubt that). If faith is the evidence that allows you to believe then you wouldn't be blessed in the way Jesus described.
Also, if faith is the evidence for a belief, and you have faith because you believe, then the evidence is circular.
Although it might be your first reaction, rather that respond with the dictionary definition of faith you might want to consider how the Bible utilises the word. And re-examine what Jesus is saying in the light of that. People know God exists by virtue of evidence only. By non-dictionary defined faith...
I don't believe in a god who picks and chooses which people believe in him and which one don't. Especially if he is going to punish the people that he chose to not believe in him.
They are indeed blessed - those who don't know God exists by sight but who know God exists by this other way. For to know of Gods existance by means of this specific way is to be saved.
Oh, so you do think Jesus was talking about the blessed being people who have received the evidence in some way other than through their eyeballs!? It wasnt about just that because Thomas put his finger in Jesus' side as well. I think Jesus is talking about evidence, in general, not just seeing
Here's the passage from KJV John 20:24-28 :
quote:
24But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
26And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
27Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.
Thomas was faithless before he touhed and saw Jesus. Thomas did not get his faith magically from God and then believe in Jesus because of the evidence that was his faith.
No, Thomas got his faith when he saw that it really was Jesus and when he touched him. He got his faith from evidence, and then he believed. His faith couldn't be the evidence because he didn't have faith until he had evidence. The evidence is what gave him faith, not visa versa.
If you believe in god because of evidence that you have witnessed (one example being this magic faith that God gives to the chosen) then you are like Thomas, and unlike the blessed.
What could be a greater blessing than that?
A god that gives all his people the ability to believe in him and doesn't pick and choose his "sons".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by iano, posted 04-28-2008 5:48 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by iano, posted 04-29-2008 1:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 91 by ICANT, posted 04-29-2008 1:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 100 by iano, posted 04-29-2008 5:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 219 (464786)
04-29-2008 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Wumpini
04-28-2008 6:25 PM


Re: Intellecutal Dishonesty
I had to look up on google what the term intellectual dishonesty meant. It is the advocacy of a position that the advocate knows or believes to be false. I have not knowingly committed such an offense.
It can be used in another way too. That is to refer to when people decide to not be honest with themselves and believe what they want to believe despite.... whatever.
The probability of 100% that I have placed upon the existence of God is based upon my subjective faith which has developed based upon my analysis of objective evidence. I am as convinced that God exists as I am that I exist. I believe that I can place a probability of 100% on my own existence without committing intellectual dishonesty either.
But as has been explained, 100% is not actually attainable. Even in considering the possibility of your own existence, you can't get to 100%. To continue to believe this is what some refer to as intellectual dishonesty.
Have you considered the possibility that I do not know how to debate? As far as I know, I have never engaged in a formal debate in my life. Maybe with time I will learn to develop more logical arguments.
This is a great place to learn how to debate. Surely, someone will point out almost every mistake you make. Also, you can reveiw your peers' positions in the debates and how they are advanced and defended. Which arguments will work and which ones are PRATT (Points Refuted A Thousand Times).
Also, depending on your profession, honing these skill can be helpful in real life.
This is something that I would be interested in learning more about. It seems that evolution is a model of changes rather than origins. I get the same impression from cosmological origins. That the Big Bang Theory is a model of changes in the universe rather than origins. I think I will search out threads that are dealing more with the questions that I am attempting to answer.
This is a great site (my favorite), for learning about those things. I'll see you on the battlefield
My faith or belief in the existence of God is not one of those questions.
Get more comfortable with the setting and how anonymous strangers are going to be treating you before you open yourself up wide and let them have at it.
In time, you can find that we can have constructive debates on these issues and learn a lot from each other.
Welcome to EvC. You'll see me around.

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"
He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Wumpini, posted 04-28-2008 6:25 PM Wumpini has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 87 of 219 (464799)
04-29-2008 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by New Cat's Eye
04-27-2008 1:03 PM


Re: It can't be 100%
Hi CS,
Catholic Scientist writes:
but it can never be 100%.
When the experiment is over and each one of us stand before God the Son to be judged and we receive our just rewards for what we have done in the flesh there will be no doubt left in anyone's mind, as to the existence of God.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-27-2008 1:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by teen4christ, posted 04-29-2008 1:08 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 89 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2008 1:25 PM ICANT has not replied

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5799 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 88 of 219 (464800)
04-29-2008 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ICANT
04-29-2008 1:00 PM


Re: It can't be 100%
ICANT writes
quote:
When the experiment is over and each one of us stand before God the Son to be judged and we receive our just rewards for what we have done in the flesh there will be no doubt left in anyone's mind, as to the existence of God.
That's a pretty negative attitude towards life. I suspect that this same attitude was what sustained the dark ages and kept it going for 800-900 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ICANT, posted 04-29-2008 1:00 PM ICANT has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 219 (464804)
04-29-2008 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ICANT
04-29-2008 1:00 PM


Re: It can't be 100%
Catholic Scientist writes:
but it can never be 100%.
When the experiment is over and each one of us stand before God the Son to be judged and we receive our just rewards for what we have done in the flesh there will be no doubt left in anyone's mind, as to the existence of God.
Such pedantry!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ICANT, posted 04-29-2008 1:00 PM ICANT has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 90 of 219 (464805)
04-29-2008 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by New Cat's Eye
04-29-2008 10:11 AM


Re: The problem is a lack of faith!
Catholic Scientist writes:
I'm familiar with your position on faith, but..... it doesn't seem to add up....
Let's have a look...
Jesus says that the blessed are those who believe in him without evidence (unless he just meant that the blessed are the people who have not received the evidence throught their eyeballs (seen)... but I doubt that).
If faith is the evidence that allows you to believe then you wouldn't be blessed in the way Jesus described.
Firstly, Jesus doesn't say the blessed, he merely says blessed.
quote:
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
Secondly, Jesus uses the word 'not seen' in the context someone believing through physical seeing. We have no basis for supposing he meant 'without evidence' instead of 'not seen' when the context indicates not having physically seen.
Thirdly, Jesus doesn't say anything about how those who don't see yet believe come to believe so you cannot dismiss their coming to belief via unseen evidence out of hand. Certainly not in the light of Hebrews 11:1 which tells us that faith is evidence of things unseen. Evidence of Christ unseen? Why not?
Also, if faith is the evidence for a belief, and you have faith because you believe, then the evidence is circular.
Faith = the cause. Belief = the effect..in this context.
That is not to say that the word faith is not interchangeable with belief in another context. It's like the word death. Death is used in one context to mean spiritual separation from God. In another context it's used to mean physical dying. Sleep is used in one context to mean Zzzz. In another it refers to Christians who have died.
Although it might be your first reaction, rather that respond with the dictionary definition of faith you might want to consider how the Bible utilises the word. And re-examine what Jesus is saying in the light of that. People know God exists by virtue of evidence only. By non-dictionary defined faith...
I don't believe in a god who picks and chooses which people believe in him and which one don't. Especially if he is going to punish the people that he chose to not believe in him.
I'm not saying God picks and chooses which people believe in him and which don't. I'm just saying that the reason people believe anything is because of their having evidence for it. That God provides evidence to the one and not ther other need not be because of Gods picking and choosing. I would hold that man has a part to play in his own eternal destination.
Oops...that the time. L8r
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2008 10:11 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2008 2:32 PM iano has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024