![]() |
| Welcome to Religious Forums |
| Welcome Guest to ReligiousForums.com . You are currently not registered. When you become registered you will be able to interact with our large base of already registered users discussing topics. Some annoying Ads will also disappear when you register. Registering doesn't cost a thing and only takes a few seconds. We provide areas to chat and debate all World Religions. Please go to our register page! |
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does it take more faith to believe that life comes from non-life than it does to believe in an intelligent designer of life?
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
What's "faith" got to do with it?
|
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
More interesting, perhaps, is the claim hidden in the rhetorical question posed by the thread, that being the claim that the proposition requiring 'more faith' is therefore 'less true'. It would be interesting to see such a claim openly argued.
__________________
if G-d ( G-d is not 'X' for all 'X' )
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
I would think so. Some modern day textbooks devote a chapter to the work of Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur, and their success in disproving Spontaneous Generation. Then, a few chapters later, school kids are taught that Spontaneous Generation is the Origin of Life. They just use a different terminology. Silly, silly evolutionism.
__________________
"The thing formed says that nothing formed it; and that which is made is, while that which made it is not! The folly is infinite."...Jeremy Taylor |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
If you have evidence that something is true, do you still call it faith to believe in it? For instance, do you have faith that the sun will rise in the morning? Or is faith a belief in things you have no evidence for?
__________________
All things change in a dynamic environment. Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you. ~ Project 2501 |
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Wow! Do you have evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow?
__________________
if G-d ( G-d is not 'X' for all 'X' )
|
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I understand that at some point there had to be an uncaused first cause...right? |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Who made up that rule?
__________________
if G-d ( G-d is not 'X' for all 'X' )
|
|
#10
|
||
|