For the last few months, I've read (with mild amusement) the posts of the folks here who dwell on a scriptural line, scientific theory or breakthrough, proudly displaying them here in these forums as rock - solid evidence that there is no God, and that one's faith in an omnipresent, supreme being is misplaced. I'm sorry to rain on your parade's here, but things just don't work that way. Faith transcends the disciplines of physics, mathematics or any of the arts and sciences we commonly accept today. In addition, the bible we know today was written by multiple authors over a period of several centuries, taken from 1st and 2nd hand accounts as well as songs passed down through many generations. Differences in syntax, verse, and metre are to be expected. The bottom line here folks, is that if you're looking for a logical, rational, verifiable tool to prove or disprove the existence of God you're not going to find it. it needs to be said again and again:
Faith transcends logic.
Faith is a gift from God, some of you have this gift, some may acquire it later in your lives, and some may never have it, but please don't waste your time and efforts trying to find a rational, logical explanation to prove or disprove the existence of God - you'd be better off grabbing an Informant and playing through some G.M. games.
@mchill saidI don't think faith transcends logic. Nor do I really think that logic transcends faith. Based on my expertiential knowledge of faith and my knowledge of what it's like to lose faith and not to have faith, I'd say that there's something a bit contrived about framing them as being in competition with each other.
For the last few months, I've read (with mild amusement) the posts of the folks here who dwell on a scriptural line, scientific theory or breakthrough, proudly displaying them here in these forums as rock - solid evidence that there is no God, and that one's faith in an omnipresent, supreme being is misplaced. I'm sorry to rain on your parade's here, but things just don't work ...[text shortened]... he existence of God - you'd be better off grabbing an Informant and playing through some G.M. games.
309d
@mchill saidI don't believe faith transcends logic, that would be a blind faith, I have reasons for what I think is true. The days of a god of the gaps have been replaced by evolution of the gaps, there are more reasons now to believe in a transcendent God than ever before and much less to believe in a mindlessly generated universe and life.
For the last few months, I've read (with mild amusement) the posts of the folks here who dwell on a scriptural line, scientific theory or breakthrough, proudly displaying them here in these forums as rock - solid evidence that there is no God, and that one's faith in an omnipresent, supreme being is misplaced. I'm sorry to rain on your parade's here, but things just don't work ...[text shortened]... he existence of God - you'd be better off grabbing an Informant and playing through some G.M. games.
@mchill saidAs with a lot of your posting, I find your post here to be a rather supercilious attempt to sidestep the authentic debates which go on in this forum. Trying as you are to place yourself above the fray with this “faith transcends science” jazz-handedness just puts you outside of the real issues being discussed around fundamental morality, spiritual consciousness, biblical literalism and all it’s consequences for faith and morality, the nature of a god or gods, rational thinking, supernatural experiences and phenomena and all manner of topics related to the outcomes of a person’s or groups belief structure.
For the last few months, I've read (with mild amusement) the posts of the folks here who dwell on a scriptural line, scientific theory or breakthrough, proudly displaying them here in these forums as rock - solid evidence that there is no God, and that one's faith in an omnipresent, supreme being is misplaced. I'm sorry to rain on your parade's here, but things just don't work ...[text shortened]... he existence of God - you'd be better off grabbing an Informant and playing through some G.M. games.
309d
@mchill saidI'll grant you straight off the bat that neither science nor logic proves or disproves the existence of a Supreme Being. That's not the issue. The issue is this: when a religion makes claims about the biological history of the human race, such as that it is descended from only two original specimens, this is a claim which is subject to scientific investigation and logical analysis. When a religion makes a claim that all the life forms we see on the planet today appeared simultaneously in a short period of time (hours or days), this too is a claim which is subject to scientific investigation and logical analysis. When religionists make the claim that their particular sacred literature is the inerrant Word of God, this is a claim subject to historical investigation (how did this particular book come about, who wrote it, when was it composed, what was chain of custody for the oldest extant MSS? What was the original language? Is that language dead or still actively spoken by some community? How accurate are the translations? etc. etc.) and logical analysis (is it coherent?). These issues are not matters of faith, but of clear-headed thinking and open discussion.
For the last few months, I've read (with mild amusement) the posts of the folks here who dwell on a scriptural line, scientific theory or breakthrough, proudly displaying them here in these forums as rock - solid evidence that there is no God, and that one's faith in an omnipresent, supreme being is misplaced. I'm sorry to rain on your parade's here, but things just don't work ...[text shortened]... he existence of God - you'd be better off grabbing an Informant and playing through some G.M. games.
Anyone who assumes at the outset that his sacred literature is above clear-headed thinking and open discussion is welcome to retire to Iran, where people who attempt clear-headed thinking and open discussion about sacred literature are executed.
309d
@KellyJay
I have reasons for what I think is true.
No one denies this. We just don't all agree that a) your putative reasons stand up to scrutiny, OR b) they were the actually psychologically operative factors in your coming to hold the beliefs you happen to hold (whether or not they are true). You may perhaps recall a very instructive thread some time ago in which we established that truth is not causative of belief. People do not believe things because they are true, and the proof of this is that people believe all manner of things which are false.
309d
@moonbus saidYes or when people who disagree with God claim life started from non-life, that all of the instructions guiding the processes through mindless processes put it all together.
I'll grant you straight off the bat that neither science nor logic proves or disproves the existence of a Supreme Being. That's not the issue. The issue is this: when a religion makes claims about the biological history of the human race, such as that it is descended from only two original specimens, this is a claim which is subject to scientific investigation and logical ana ...[text shortened]... e people who attempt clear-headed thinking and open discussion about sacred literature are executed.
309d
@moonbus saidBottomline that truth isn't dependent upon people it is what it is regardless of what people think about it. It doesn't change, it doesn't contradict itself either so when we accept things that we claim are true and they contradict one another we know something we are holding as true isn't.
@KellyJay
I have reasons for what I think is true.
No one denies this. We just don't all agree that a) your putative reasons stand up to scrutiny, OR b) they were the actually psychologically operative factors in your coming to hold the beliefs you happen to hold (whether or not they are true). You may perhaps recall a very instructive thread some time ago in w ...[text shortened]... i] they are true, and the proof of this is that people believe all manner of things which are false.
@kellyjay saidYour statements about truth being what it is are trivial. None of what you say there establishes that what you believe is true. We come to know truth by analyzing such statements as appear in religious texts and comparing them with what we otherwise know about nature. And when we find that some statements which appear in religious texts are clearly incompatible with what we otherwise know about nature, there are several options. …
Bottomline that truth isn't dependent upon people it is what it is regardless of what people think about it. It doesn't change, it doesn't contradict itself either so when we accept things that we claim are true and they contradict one another we know something we are holding as true isn't.
309d
@kellyjay saidThis post by you is a class 1 example of circular reasoning.
Bottomline that truth isn't dependent upon people it is what it is regardless of what people think about it. It doesn't change, it doesn't contradict itself either so when we accept things that we claim are true and they contradict one another we know something we are holding as true isn't.
@divegeester saidIt’s a platitude, for example, that truth doesn’t contradict itself.
This post by you is a class 1 example of circular reasoning.
A = A.
DUH!
@mchill saidFaith in a non existent deity transcends very little, and certainly not logic.
For the last few months, I've read (with mild amusement) the posts of the folks here who dwell on a scriptural line, scientific theory or breakthrough, proudly displaying them here in these forums as rock - solid evidence that there is no God, and that one's faith in an omnipresent, supreme being is misplaced. I'm sorry to rain on your parade's here, but things just don't work ...[text shortened]... he existence of God - you'd be better off grabbing an Informant and playing through some G.M. games.
@moonbus saidThere is a limited number of things we have proof positive for, which means that for you and me we live by our faith, we put together our worldviews by what we accept as true. As it is we act and judge things by what we profess and believe to be true, this is how all of us act, with some information, and not always proof positive.
Your statements about truth being what it is are trivial. None of what you say there establishes that what you believe is true. We come to know truth by analyzing such statements as appear in religious texts and comparing them with what we otherwise know about nature. And when we find that some statements which appear in religious texts are clearly incompatible with what we otherwise know about nature, there are several options. …
Trouble comes when we are wrong we will continue to do so ignoring contradictions.
You act as if analyzing anything always must be taken only in terms of a purely materialistic universe, even when you look at acts of God you box Him into only materialistic natural limitations, going only with what you deem a natural cause, even when a materialistic natural cause falls short. You still insist upon using that as the lone driving force in analysis you hang on it to regardless. What we know in nature doesn't allow for a great many things which you accept, blindly.
We should analysis as far as natural causes can take us, but when they fail, something else is going on.