Evidence for God from Science

Lunalle wrote:The word "faith" was being used with the second definition in the oxford dictionary, and then you came along and switched to the first definition.

I also remember Lunalle stating that he didn't want to quibble over definitions, semantics or linguistics, it all seems a little hypocritical to me. Jac wanted to define terms such as atheism and was told by Lunalle the he wasn't interested in defining words or playing semantic games or linguistics.

I think Lunelle is here to show us how bad faith is, according to him. He is not here to learn apologetics or what we think of it. I think he thinks he knows enough to nail it and he is going to show us that.

I say this to clear up the confusion. He is not interested in why you have faith, his target is faith alone and he'll do all he can to drive his point home, he wants to show us why its wrong according to him...am I right lunelle?

Paul, this is a clear fallacy of equivocation. The word "faith" was being used with the second definition in the oxford dictionary, and then you came along and switched to the first definition. Yet another example of the dishonesty of apologists.

It was fine till the "...to the first definition" after that it is plain rude and condescending.
There was no dishonesty in paul's post. I already told you that you can not hold everyone to a single definition of anything...are you not listening?

Christian faith is NOT MONOLITHIC, period. Take your time, digest this and then proceed.

My problem is here.
neo-x wrote:
My faith...

You will have to show me the problem first.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:
I believe that Jesus is God because of the things he had to say, everything he said is exactly what I would expect from a loving Father and all powerful creator. It was so counter culture that they killed him, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, love your neighbour in the way you love yourself, turn the other cheek etc....
Everything he had to say rings true in my heart and that is why I believe in him and want to live like him.


I guess my expectations of God are higher than yours. What Jesus said (according to most English translations of the Bible) is not what I'd expect a God to say. If you look at what the apostles say, it is very different from what I'd expect an apostle of God (with personal interaction) would say. It is what I expect radically progressive people, living in that time and society to say.

I don't have unrealistic expectations.

neo-x wrote:
... which progress has stopped because of love your enemies as yourself?

Before I can fairly answer that question, we have to come to an agreement on what progress is, what love is, what enemies are, and what my love for myself is. I'll try to give an example though. If you love an abusive controlling spouse, your life will not make much progress, because the abusive controlling spouse will hinder your progress. Does that make sense?

Of Course it does, but loving him does not equal staying with him to be abused also, does that make sense? I love people I had to let go.

neo-x wrote:I think Lunelle is here to show us how bad faith is, according to him. He is not here to learn apologetics or what we think of it. I think he thinks he knows enough to nail it and he is going to show us that.

I say this to clear up the confusion. He is not interested in why you have faith, his target is faith alone and he'll do all he can to drive his point home, he wants to show us why its wrong according to him...am I right lunelle?

The funny thing is he has just as much faith in his worldview as what we do, making him just as "dangerous" as us.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

neo-x wrote:I think Lunelle is here to show us how bad faith is, according to him. He is not here to learn apologetics or what we think of it. I think he thinks he knows enough to nail it and he is going to show us that.

I say this to clear up the confusion. He is not interested in why you have faith, his target is faith alone and he'll do all he can to drive his point home, he wants to show us why its wrong according to him...am I right lunelle?

The funny thing is he has just as much faith in his worldview as what we do, making him just as "dangerous" as us.

I doubt he'll agree, the same way we don't think our faith is dangerous he thinks he's right...and I have yet to see how science has destroyed faith?

Science has destroyed false ideas but a geocentric model of the solar system is not faith to begin with, it's a false position taken up by church.

I doubt he would agree either, but that in no way invalidates the truth or validates his opinion.

Lunalle wrote:Paul, this is a clear fallacy of equivocation. The word "faith" was being used with the second definition in the oxford dictionary, and then you came along and switched to the first definition. Yet another example of the dishonesty of apologists.

We don't all have faith (second definition). I used to have a lot of faith (second def.) and when I increased my critical thinking skills, and knowledge, they killed off my faith (second def) completely. Of course everyone (myself included) has at least a very small amount of faith (first def.)

Let me tell you a story to illustrate. Well, no need, we all know the story. Its the one about the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:16-17). There's a lot of discussion over this, and disagreement of what it means metaphorically. To me, it is very clear. If you have enough knowledge, you have no need for faith (second def), and you're better off that way.

Ref: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... th?q=faith

You are quite incorrect.
WE choose how WE define our faith, no one does that for us.
My faith is not blind and has never been blind and is based on personal experiences that lead me to have faith.
That is just how it is for me.

FlawedIntellect wrote:

Lunalle wrote:Paul, this is a clear fallacy of equivocation. The word "faith" was being used with the second definition in the oxford dictionary, and then you came along and switched to the first definition. Yet another example of the dishonesty of apologists.

We don't all have faith (second definition). I used to have a lot of faith (second def.) and when I increased my critical thinking skills, and knowledge, they killed off my faith (second def) completely. Of course everyone (myself included) has at least a very small amount of faith (first def.)

Let me tell you a story to illustrate. Well, no need, we all know the story. Its the one about the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:16-17). There's a lot of discussion over this, and disagreement of what it means metaphorically. To me, it is very clear. If you have enough knowledge, you have no need for faith (second def), and you're better off that way.

Ref: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... th?q=faith

You're joking, right?

The second definition is just the first definition reworded and applied more specifically to religion.
Definition two invokes definition one.

Heck, look at the second "count noun" under definition two. Doesn't it just restate definition one?

People don't get to dictate to others what they thing faith means based on an order of definition in a dictionary.
The individual decides how they define their own faith, no one does that for them.
Dictionary definition as there to show us the multiple ( if applicable) ways a word CAN be viewed/used, they are NOT their to dictate to us WHICH one we use.

I'd like to address the charges brought against me here.

1) I have just as much faith in my worldview as you, making me equally dangerous.
I have faith that my morality is helpful. I build my world view on my morality. I'm willing to change my world view if you show that the morals it is based on, is not helpful.

2) My target is faith, and I'll do all I can to drive my point home.
My point is that it is best to have a certain amount of faith. Too little faith has demonstrably bad results, and too much faith has demonstrably bad results as well.

3) I doubt he would agree either, but that in no way invalidates the truth or validates his opinion.
Absolutely correct!

4) We choose how we define faith, no one does that for us.
This is a matter of literate honesty, and clear communication. I demand both of them. If you hold some personal definition of faith, and don't communicate it, then no one else is going to know what you're talking about. If you want to use the word "faith" outside of the agreed upon definitions in the dictionary, go right ahead, but explain it in detail first, so we're all on the same page.

5) Faith is based on personal experiences that lead me to have faith.
Personal experience is not a scientifically justifiable reason for a claim. It doesn't work for me either, and I hope it doesn't work for anyone else.

6) Heck, look at the second "count noun" under definition two. Doesn't it just restate definition one?
Nope, they're similar, but independent.

7) I am not here to learn apologetics.
Well, I know quite a bit about apologetics. However I don't know everything. I am here for two reasons 1) To learn more about apologetics. 2) To encourage apologists to develop better habits.


Now, back to the point:

neo-x wrote:Of Course it does, but loving him does not equal staying with him to be abused also, does that make sense? I love people I had to let go.

So, here we are again, not agreeing on a concept. Yet again, I push for literate honesty, and I claim that loving them does equate to staying with them (according to 1 Corinthians 13:4-7), and its fine for you not to do either.

Cheers!

Now, back to the point:

neo-x wrote:Of Course it does, but loving him does not equal staying with him to be abused also, does that make sense? I love people I had to let go.

So, here we are again, not agreeing on a concept. Yet again, I push for literate honesty, and I claim that loving them does equate to staying with them (according to 1 Corinthians 13:4-7), and its fine for you not to do either.

Don't claim, prove!

neo-x wrote:Don't claim, prove!

Okay, sure.

1 Corinthians 13:7 starts with "Love bears all things..." So you have no justification to claim you are both loving (bearing all things the abusive controlling things the spouse does), and leaving (not bearing all things the abusive controlling things the spouse does).

Now, I expect we are going to disagree on the word "bear" ... am I right?

5) Faith is based on personal experiences that lead me to have faith.
Personal experience is not a scientifically justifiable reason for a claim. It doesn't work for me either, and I hope it doesn't work for anyone else.

Sure, but not everything can be quantifiable and ALL science is based on OUR perception of reality and understanding of it at any given time.
Lets not forget that personal experience is what leads scientists to go out and PROVE things.
You seem to be imply that unless one has a SCIENTIFIC basis for a claim, it isn't a justifiable one, are you implying this?

Lunalle wrote:

neo-x wrote:Don't claim, prove!

Okay, sure.

1 Corinthians 13:7 starts with "Love bears all things..." So you have no justification to claim you are both loving (bearing all things the abusive controlling things the spouse does), and leaving (not bearing all things the abusive controlling things the spouse does).

Now, I expect we are going to disagree on the word "bear" ... am I right?

Actually, love does bear all things, including leaving an abusive spouse.
You can't decide for YOURSELF what something means to YOU and then decide that must mean the same thing for everyone.
To bear all things means to deal with all that life hands you with love, not hate, not anger, not anything but love.

Well, I thought I was clear, but let me rephrase.

I do not credit my experience as a reliable method of determining objective truth, and I hope no one else does either.

PaulSacramento wrote:Actually, love does bear all things, including leaving an abusive spouse.
You can't decide for YOURSELF what something means to YOU and then decide that must mean the same thing for everyone.
To bear all things means to deal with all that life hands you with love, not hate, not anger, not anything but love.

Right, I can't do that, and neither can you. However, there is a governing body that does do that, for the reason of efficient communication. So I completely reject you deciding for YOURSELF what love means to YOU and deciding it applies to me.