"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
it's what you realize must come right after this ...RickD wrote:
Biblical faith is based on reasonable justification.
accomplished by that perfect omniscient Deity, and not by rules of chance.
Absolutely, ES!EssentialSacrifice wrote:it's what you realize must come right after this ...RickD wrote:
Biblical faith is based on reasonable justification.accomplished by that perfect omniscient Deity, and not by rules of chance.
RickD wrote:Kenny wrote:Kurieuo wrote:Kenny wrote:EssentialSacrifice wrote:the inflation model in only micro seconds (plank time of about 10 to the minus 36 seconds) is proof the material traveled faster than the speed of light because of the inflation of space created from the material existing within the "singularity". The questions are still, where did the material for the inflation come from, why did the inflation (big bang) occur, what made time and space inflate at all and why and how to such an absolutely perfectly balanced and finely tuned control of "explosive inflation"
Now if you can provide an answer that does not require faith in order to believe, you would have something. Otherwise I think it's best to admit; we don't know
Ken
But, every belief requires faith Kenny.
I don't know how you are defining "faith" but I do not define faith as a belief that is backed up by scientific theory, empirical evidence, and established facts; that's what I call "reasonable justification".
Ken
Kenny,
Biblical faith is based on reasonable justification.
Religious belief requires no theories or empirical evidence.Ken wrote:
Is biblical faith backed up by scientific theory and empirical evidence? If not, then it may be what you (subjectively) call reasonable justification; but not I. If it is, then my point still stands because scientific theory and empirical evidence is not required for belief.
Kenny wrote:Kurieuo wrote:Kenny wrote:EssentialSacrifice wrote:the inflation model in only micro seconds (plank time of about 10 to the minus 36 seconds) is proof the material traveled faster than the speed of light because of the inflation of space created from the material existing within the "singularity". The questions are still, where did the material for the inflation come from, why did the inflation (big bang) occur, what made time and space inflate at all and why and how to such an absolutely perfectly balanced and finely tuned control of "explosive inflation"
Now if you can provide an answer that does not require faith in order to believe, you would have something. Otherwise I think it's best to admit; we don't know
Ken
But, every belief requires faith Kenny.
I don't know how you are defining "faith" but I do not define faith as a belief that is backed up by scientific theory, empirical evidence, and established facts; that's what I call "reasonable justification".
Ken
Kurieuo wrote:Kenny wrote:Kurieuo wrote:Kenny wrote:EssentialSacrifice wrote:the inflation model in only micro seconds (plank time of about 10 to the minus 36 seconds) is proof the material traveled faster than the speed of light because of the inflation of space created from the material existing within the "singularity". The questions are still, where did the material for the inflation come from, why did the inflation (big bang) occur, what made time and space inflate at all and why and how to such an absolutely perfectly balanced and finely tuned control of "explosive inflation"
Now if you can provide an answer that does not require faith in order to believe, you would have something. Otherwise I think it's best to admit; we don't know
Ken
But, every belief requires faith Kenny.
I don't know how you are defining "faith" but I do not define faith as a belief that is backed up by scientific theory, empirical evidence, and established facts; that's what I call "reasonable justification".
Ken
Then you have faith in your physical senses only then.
Sorry Ken, but I don't believe you're thinking deep enough.Kenny wrote:The trust I have in my physical senses is not what I would call faith.Kurieuo wrote:Then you have faith in your physical senses only then.Kenny wrote:I don't know how you are defining "faith" but I do not define faith as a belief that is backed up by scientific theory, empirical evidence, and established facts; that's what I call "reasonable justification".
Ken
My 5 senses are reinforced by each other. When I taste something, my sense of smell reinforces whatI am eating. When I hear someone speak, my sense of sight reinforces my hearing as I see their lips move; etc. not to mention the fact that they are reinforced by everyone else's 5 senses.Kurieuo wrote:Sorry Ken, but I don't believe you're thinking deep enough.Kenny wrote:The trust I have in my physical senses is not what I would call faith.Kurieuo wrote:Then you have faith in your physical senses only then.Kenny wrote:I don't know how you are defining "faith" but I do not define faith as a belief that is backed up by scientific theory, empirical evidence, and established facts; that's what I call "reasonable justification".
Ken
How do you know your senses are properly functioning so as to provide you with warranted beliefs?
Please provide empirical evidence that provides you with your "reasonable justification" -- since empirical evidence is your stated criteria.
If you can't, and yet you still accept them, then what else enables you to reasonably accept your sense perception?
Maybe you're right. It's not faith, but rather blind acceptance and adherence.
Why does that matter? (serious question)Kenny wrote:My 5 senses are reinforced by each other. When I taste something, my sense of smell reinforces whatI am eating. When I hear someone speak, my sense of sight reinforces my hearing as I see their lips move; etc. not to mention the fact that they are reinforced by everyone else's 5 senses.Kurieuo wrote:Sorry Ken, but I don't believe you're thinking deep enough.Kenny wrote:The trust I have in my physical senses is not what I would call faith.Kurieuo wrote:Then you have faith in your physical senses only then.Kenny wrote:I don't know how you are defining "faith" but I do not define faith as a belief that is backed up by scientific theory, empirical evidence, and established facts; that's what I call "reasonable justification".
Ken
How do you know your senses are properly functioning so as to provide you with warranted beliefs?
Please provide empirical evidence that provides you with your "reasonable justification" -- since empirical evidence is your stated criteria.
If you can't, and yet you still accept them, then what else enables you to reasonably accept your sense perception?
Maybe you're right. It's not faith, but rather blind acceptance and adherence.
But what are you left with if your nose is plugged and your sense of smell no longer enhances your sense of taste. Relying on our senses is a natural thing but non nonsensical if impaired in any way, and cannot be relied up to be reliable, albeit non justifiable reason from unreliable senses... or resources of information.Ken wrote:
When I taste something, my sense of smell reinforces whatI am eating.
So If I understand you correctly; because you cannot see how things could have possibly turned out the way they did, you assume God and you assume God did it.EssentialSacrifice wrote:Religious belief requires no theories or empirical evidence.Ken wrote:
Is biblical faith backed up by scientific theory and empirical evidence? If not, then it may be what you (subjectively) call reasonable justification; but not I. If it is, then my point still stands because scientific theory and empirical evidence is not required for belief.
But if it's the mass cause of empirical evidence you require, that is very attainable. if you take all the sequential steps it was necessary to take for the final physical formation of our world from the beginning of time, the (big bang), including but not even closely limited to the following... add one grain of sand to the original material in the Bang and our universe never even got the kick start it needed to survive, it would have collapsed in on itself, the inflation rate either any faster, created an envelope of gas that never could have coalesced, any slower and it clumped in to matter that could not have inflated continually as is does to this day, too hot and it would always be a gas, too cold it would have been matter only, coalescence of matter of our galaxy in just he right proportion to allow for the orbital effects of all the galaxy on just our solar system, which is in just the right place within the plane of the galaxy so as to allow just the right amount of nucleic radiation so as not too much to burn everything out of existence or too little to cool the entire system so our star, a fourth generation star would never have seen the light of day because no further star formation would have occurred after the first generation. Thea never collides with the earth in just the right orbital plane so as not to destroy both planets, in fact just right so as to create the materiel and eventual coalescence of the moon. No moon no tidal effect, no 24 hour day, nor consistent earthly rotation. Neptune and Uranus switch planetary orbit around the sun, allowing for the gigantic mass gravity of Jupiter (within it's current orbit because of the switch) as our greatest protector against asteroids, comets and rougue planetary killers. 4 ice ages, 4 or 5 mass extinctions, ... this list of natural potential for falling down is literally endless ...
and we haven't even gone in to the actual manufacture of man, who has his own distinct DNA grouping, although close (95%) to a chimpanzee... (were there chimpanzee's around when man was and if so why haven't they evolved in to men as some think we evolved from them)... question after question after question that, as it turns out equals an equivalency odds rate of (for the creation of our earth and ourselves) of 10 to the minus 120th. Consider Ken, most lottery winners beat the odds (miraculously at that) of 10 to the minus 7th...
and this isn't just a one shot willie like the lottery, these odds were continued and stretched out over 14 billion years of creational odds smacking accuracy for us to be here.
and no matter what you call Him, because the "odds" of self or natural creation are so remote that, the, He who is the prime Mover who created everything, has just cause for His creation is more a matter of justifiable belief than not, and can be supported for and from over 5000 years of data gathering from reliable resources as the Old Testament, New Testament, Talmud, Koran, personal and public revelation and a plethora of further knowledge compounded by literally billions of faithful followers of God...
He who was, Is and Always will be isn't just a choice of admirable faith, based on reasonable justification, it's a compendium of choice beyond reasonable justification. It's the non belief in a Prime Mover who's finger is on creation, who presumes and prefers the possibilities of 10 to the minus 120th odds for the existence of our world today via natural processes alone, and the lives we live herein.
Why does what matter?Kurieuo wrote:Why does that matter? (serious question)Kenny wrote: My 5 senses are reinforced by each other. When I taste something, my sense of smell reinforces whatI am eating. When I hear someone speak, my sense of sight reinforces my hearing as I see their lips move; etc. not to mention the fact that they are reinforced by everyone else's 5 senses.
If I am sick and my senses are not working correctly, I go by their “track record” of how they preformed when I was wellEssentialSacrifice wrote:But what are you left with if your nose is plugged and your sense of smell no longer enhances your sense of taste.Ken wrote:
When I taste something, my sense of smell reinforces whatI am eating.
It may not be perfect, but it’s the best I’ve got.EssentialSacrifice wrote: Relying on our senses is a natural thing but non nonsensical if impaired in any way, and cannot be relied up to be reliable, albeit non justifiable reason from unreliable senses... or resources of information.
That’s where we differ; I don’t rely on my “interior self” for explanations. I prefer to go as far as I can, continue to look, but until I find; I admit to not having an answer yet.EssentialSacrifice wrote: Empirical evidence can only go so far. After that, there is still a world out there that needs explaining and at some point you have to rely on your interior self for those explanations.
Yeah! I've noticed.EssentialSacrifice wrote: This is when I find, in all circumstance when required, that my belief in God is of paramount importance and beyond reasonable justification.
Ok Ken if you want to go down this road, explain it to me, how did it, did ? Explain how the odds of natural processes, 10 to the minus 120th did it without tripping up once over the span of 14 billion years did it. One trip up over any of the process I took the time to show you = no earth as we know it. Pretend I'm from Missouri, show me, and I'll pretend any answer you come up with other than some variation of "cause I said so" or because " I think it" is rational enough to explain away everything that had to happen sequentially for our existence.So If I understand you correctly; because you cannot see how things could have possibly turned out the way they did, you assume God and you assume God did it.
But what are you left with if your nose is plugged and your sense of smell no longer enhances your sense of taste.EssentialSacrifice wrote:
Ken wrote:
When I taste something, my sense of smell reinforces whatI am eating.
It may not be perfect, but it’s the best I’ve got.EssentialSacrifice wrote:
Relying on our senses is a natural thing but non nonsensical if impaired in any way, and cannot be relied up to be reliable, albeit non justifiable reason from unreliable senses... or resources of information.
That’s where we differ; I don’t rely on my “interior self” for explanations. I prefer to go as far as I can, continue to look, but until I find; I admit to not having an answer yet.EssentialSacrifice wrote:
Empirical evidence can only go so far. After that, there is still a world out there that needs explaining and at some point you have to rely on your interior self for those explanations.
Yeah! I've noticedEssentialSacrifice wrote:
This is when I find, in all circumstance when required, that my belief in God is of paramount importance and beyond reasonable justification.