The Faith & Religion mega Thread

You don't agree with assertion #3? fine. If you're happy with 1 & 2, that will do.

As for the simple/complicated Biblical things: some things are clear and evident; Using that knowledge, other things can be deduced; Using that knowledge, … etc. Hence the value of meditation on Scripture. I am going on previous experience here.

If I asserted untrue or nonsensical scientific things here, I would be put in my place in very short order, and in no uncertain terms either. How come people object when I perform the same service for scriptural subjects? This is a "Faith & Religion" thread, not a scientific one.

As for judging - that is not our place, I would agree. Our judgements don't really matter, but God's judgement is a matter of life & death. Judgement in humans is also a way of excusing our poor and dehumanizing treatment of "Lesser races". It's a world wide problem, and excuses terrible treatment or genocide. Rather than examples, I will mention the Bible's view.

The word, "simple," as used here, can have a negative or insulting connotation – as in "simpleton."

This is especially true when the words that you are "speaking" are, in fact, written. As they necessarily are here.

You do not intend it to be taken in that way, but, "here it is."

Well, simple ≠ simpleton, but also American ≠ The Queen's English, or the Irish version thereof. I'm sure we'll muddle through.

I'm simply cautioning as to how certain words can be taken ... whether or not you ever intended (you didn't) for them to be taken that way. No one wants to feel that he is even-possibly being seen as ["simple" | "a simpleton"]. And he might never bother to inform you that he took your words that way – even though he did.

A great deal of any conversation, but especially raw text communucation, is clarifying what one actually meant. This, in my mind, is a fundamental issue with ALL communication and a powerful argument for never assuming folklore is literal.

I would not argue with any of that. Whereas I am in the habit of only quoting one (correctly applied) Scripture, the Bible guards against misinterpretation by restating points in different times and ways. We also guard against it by seeking to resolve apparent differences where they occur, although not many exist. And we are dealing with translations, and that has to be factored in also.

You guys put up a good case for believing nothing old. But some of God's communications are likely to be as old as mankind, as we are not pre-programmed, so haven't you guys reasoned yourselves out of listening to what God said?

Business_kid, surely you realize your last question is a "poisoned well" in that it assumes the conclusion in the premise.... entirely illogical. To be perfectly clear there is exactly ZERO evidence that God exists let alone wrote the Christian Bible. It is entirely a matter of Blind Faith with the book serving as it's only evidence - ie Proving the book by the book, unwise in the best of circumstances.

I assume as a Believer you believe whatever mental faculties you have are a gift from God, so I have to ask "Why do you deny God's gift and accept as fact that which has zero objective, repeatable, testable evidence?"

I assume as a Believer you believe whatever mental faculties you have are a gift from God, so I have to ask "Why do you deny God's gift and accept as fact that which has zero objective, repeatable, testable evidence?"

I think you're the one guilty of errors of logic there, but let's not pursue it. I don't prove the book by the book. The plain fact is, we both have faith, whether you like it or not. You probably don't, but that doesn't alter the fact.

I have a faith in God, and on scrutiny, Creation and the Bible. Following on those, there are other matters of faith, but they are the foundation.

You have faith in the scientific articles of faith concerning events in your alternative story of the beginnings of the universe and life which have 'zero objective, repeatable, testable evidence.' I have enumerated examples before for you. There are many other examples.

You feel I have no hard scientific evidence for my faith so it is illogical.

I feel that as you're the believer in hard evidence, you should by your own rules you set yourself reject anything lacking hard evidence; not only that, but anything dependent on a tenet which has 'zero objective, repeatable, testable evidence' should also fall. But then the whole scientific house of cards comes down, so a fudge is necessary; but you hate it when people call that fudge 'faith' .

And, I for one remember what Charlie Daniels (RIP) said about someone goin' down to Georgia: "there are some things in this world you just can't explain."

I have certainly seen that a few times myself: when I could immediately sense that I was confronted with more than I could see or otherwise detect. I had no "rational explanation" at the time and I still don't. Still, I do not discount those strange events, and I also do not discuss them much. (Nor will I do so now.)

Here's what we do know: that, since the dawn of humanity, people constantly embrace religion. Maybe not the same one, but I think that it is an urge that is instinctive and innate to all of us. Even if we are "scientists," I don't really think that there is any such thing as an "atheist." That something else, ephemeral yet undeniable, is always out there.

So – I think that the best and safest thing to be done is to accept this and move along.

I think that we have one way of gathering knowledge that is based on empirical observation ... and at the same time we also have another one(s) that isn't. The latter one is the world of intuition, "hunches," feeling, wonder, and maybe "still, small voices." I don't think that we should try to shut either of these avenues down. Both are legitimate. Both are real. Both are an intrinsic part of what it is to be human. You don't have to "give answer" to anyone nor anything.

The only thing that we can truly say about our senses, our time-frame relative to the things that we want to know about, and even our intellect is that these things are limited. Very limited indeed. So, we use our other human powers to explore beyond them. This is normal, and this is good.

Originally Posted by business_kid I think you're the one guilty of errors of logic there, but let's not pursue it. I don't prove the book by the book. The plain fact is, we both have faith, whether you like it or not. You probably don't, but that doesn't alter the fact. I have a faith in God, and on scrutiny, Creation and the Bible. Following on those, there are other matters of faith, but they are the foundation. You have faith in the scientific articles of faith concerning events in your alternative story of the beginnings of the universe and life which have 'zero objective, repeatable, testable evidence.'

Since you consider your take on the Christian Bible as the only correct take, I have to admit your view is a bit complicated by some predisposition, but nevertheless it appears the only "evidence" you trust is that Bible - illogically circular ie - by the book.

I truly am mystified as to why you assume my views on the beginnings of our Universe is faith-based when Science has an actual photograph of the early Universe back to millionths of a second after Big Bang and a pantheon of the past going back in a gradient back to billions of years in the past. Additionally those actual observations are tested in may ways including Mathematics and Computer Modeling. I refuse to speculate past the singularity of the Big Bang exactly because there is no evidence after roughly a trillionth of a second after Big Bang. It's unlikely we will ever get any data from before that time.

To recap, I don't speculate on events with zero evidence and what I have varying degrees of confidence in all has repeatable, objective, testable data. So how do you interpret that as faith? I don't require certainty (that's more rare than frog hair) but I do require evidence and peer review. That's not Faith.

Originally Posted by business_kid I feel that as you're the believer in hard evidence, you should by your own rules you set yourself reject anything lacking hard evidence; not only that, but anything dependent on a tenet which has 'zero objective, repeatable, testable evidence' should also fall. But then the whole scientific house of cards comes down, so a fudge is necessary; but you hate it when people call that fudge 'faith' .

Please do enumerate and identify "the fudge".

To the best of my memory there is only one area that you challenge hard Science on and that is Evolution and that only because the exact first cell beginning is still unconfirmed... BUT... it is simply Scientific Theory based on consistent, unbroken patterns in evolution for billions of years. You defy the logical progression and deduce that if the first organisms predating Stromatolites has yet to be found, then "God must have done it" despite that Genesis flip-flops (animals first vs/ humans first) and there is zero evidence that humans were among the first.... quite the opposite.

Carl Sagan did a great job of giving us a human perspective on Deep Time with his Cosmic Calendar. If we represent the ~14,000,000,000 year history of the Universe as 1 year, which means a billion years would be represented by about 23 days, humans appear on about 10:30 PM of December 31st, the alphabet is invented at 11:59:51, The Bronze Age begins around 11:59:53 (7 seconds before "New Years Day") so on that scale ALL of recorded human history takes place in the last seconds of the last minute on that calendar. Not only were humans NOT created first, but behind by billions of years.

I know you would prefer that everyone has Faith, a Binary view of existence, but some of us do not.

What's your scientific, testable peer reviewed evidence for

• The perpetual existence or the origin of a singularity in the universe?
• The cause of the Big Bang?
• The origin of the first self replicating cell?

I'd need papers. You can't produce them, but you believe in all of them with zero evidence. Oh you have a story afterwards, but there is at least one other credible story. It's called faith enorbet, whether you like it or not.

When you are looking back in time for answers you don't have, one way or the other what you are left with is "faith."

You're all pursuing the same Eternal Questions, just from a different premise.

And, that's why I think that we all need to remember to "just cut each other a little slack." None of us are ever going to know what that elephant really looks like.

Blind man #1 adopts premise #1 and works from it. Blind man #2, #2. Both are still blind. None of us possess any objective grounds for "certainty," even if we are quick to proclaim that we do. So, let's just all make the best of it, and see just how far we can go. To that end, embracing(!) more than one perspective is probably a very good idea. As I've heard it said, "adopt whatever belief system you like, but don't make love to it."

Originally Posted by business_kid What's your scientific, testable peer reviewed evidence for The perpetual existence or the origin of a singularity in the universe? The cause of the Big Bang? The origin of the first self replicating cell? I'd need papers. You can't produce them, but you believe in all of them with zero evidence. Oh you have a story afterwards, but there is at least one other credible story. It's called faith enorbet, whether you like it or not.

Business_kid I already mentioned those and explained. If I see a mathematical progression of a countdown, 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-....It's reasonable to assume with some confidence the next number will be "1". If I look at my 96 year old Mother, and have seen photos of her much younger, and have witness my own Son grow from a baby to a Man, it's pretty solid to assume my Mother was once a baby, and before that, a fetus, and before that the "fire" in her parents' "hearts and dreams".

By definition a Singularity is when our rules of existence break down. We keep pushing that time and understanding into progress, but some lack of comprehension still remains and may always remain. We cannot know it all, but just like the mathematical progression we can generally guess with some accuracy the next in line. The same is true for any singularity including the very first self-replicating cell. It matters less which is the first or how it came about when we can see the chemistry all around us. It does not require a divine intervention now, and most likely never did. It's just how this Universe works. That is not blind faith. That is logical deduction and the proof that works is also all around us.

Almost everything that supports, improves and even diminishes your life is a result of a progression of understanding through logical deduction,,, through Science and Mathematics. Religion did help some along the way but progress came from understanding. You, nor I, would not likely last for more than a few days alone in the wild wide open without logical deduction. We aren't born with "tooth and claw" but we are born with brains.

Originally Posted by enorbet Business_kid I already mentioned those and explained. If I see a mathematical progression of a countdown, 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-....It's reasonable to assume with some confidence the next number will be "1".

Not so. When contemplating the beginning, you're not counting down, you're counting up! To start at 10 commits the same logical fallacy as Descarte, who presumed his own existence. When you contemplate the beginning, you are at zero, and you cannot presume 2-10 occurred in any certain way. In fact, if the beginning of 1 can't be independently reasoned through, logically the existence of 2-10 also fall, and logically we can't exist. Getting from 0 to 1 in a way that accords with what we have today is the problem. I have faith in a loving God and much evidence of his intervention at certain times in human affairs. You have faith in the gap-filled tale told by science.

You've bought into the scientific nonsense and I haven't. And we both have faith.

Originally Posted by Jesuits Unless there was something with no beginning, nothing could ever begin.

That's about the only thing I took from the Jesuits religiously, but it is logical. The scientific 'thing with no beginning' is the singularity. But that's been stable for an infinity of time, so why should it ever explode? It's not logical or reasonable, let alone scientific. It screams of outside interference, but there was nobody outside, according to you. Ditto for inflation. Ditto for Origin of self replicating cells.

I'll choose this moment to correct your presumption mentioned some posts back that I'm "proving the book by the book." First came my belief in God. 2nd, the Bible as his words to us. I think you're confusing me with young earthers.

Whew! You really can't see the difference apparently business_kid <facepalm>

Originally Posted by wikipedia (and numerous educated sources ) "God of the gaps" is a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.[1][2]