Is Faith Certainty?

[blü 2]

Thank you for your reply.

you can most likely see that it claims to do what you cannot verify?!

And therefore can claim anything as long as it's not verifiable. (One major error of creationism is that it makes falsifiable statements, for example.)

Just in that fact, we have a definition of faith that isn't the blind-faith definition that atheists like to claim it is.

If it can't be verified, it will serve just as well for accurate as inaccurate statements, well-placed faith as well as blind, surely.

Once we weigh the teachings of creation, BB, evolution versus Goddidit, we run into the fact that much in the atheistic universe is blind faith

When science has only an hypothesis, it gets called an hypothesis (though M-theory is not a theory but an hypothesis, but I can't think of any other examples). 'Dark matter' and 'dark energy' are names of problems, not of things, and are so recognized.

There's also the problem that science seeks explanations, whereas 'Goddidit' explains nothing if we're not told how God did it.

much is not falsifiable.

Can you give me an example of a proposition which science claims is a fact but is not falsifiable?

Just because the universe does exist - does not [...] prove that its existence came to be as is claimed. For example, my BB would have to be caused by God

At this point science would. very properly, ask you for a useful definition of God and the characteristics by which God may be identified if found, and what sort of being God is, exactly, and the manner in which God exists, and the source of your information. But there's no such information, and that's not science's fault.

it would have to be guided by God so that the matter anti-matter cancellation didn't come about, and so forth. Its progress, inflation, would have to be guided by God to cause an orderly universe to form, and so forth.

Or it happened purely by the processes of nature, humans evolved because it was possible on one particular planet out of maybe 10^23 or more planets in the universe, they could, and then, having gaps in their knowledge, some of them tried to fill those gaps with their ideas of gods.

In regard to the DNA programming that needs a DNA program to read the program that is running in the cell, the atheist cause is just natural chemical reactions - which sounds insane once the programs complexity is examined, etc.

This is becoming something of a staple claim. I guess we'll just have to wait until science can describe a possible pathway from chemistry to active biochemistry. Since I think all the evidence points to life as biochemistry, my money's on science; and if I'm wrong I'll say, Goodness, I certainly wasn't expecting that! and adjust to our new knowledge. If I had a religious faith, I wouldn't bet my church on science not coming through.

]E]xodus tells us that at the mountain in Arabia the people became impatient with Moses being on the mountain a long time; they began to erect altars to cow worship. Also, the Israelis were told that were their sandals walked, this would be their land. In Arabia, these altars have been found with many stones in which footprints were carved.

Briefly, archaelogy has found nothing to support an Egyptian captivity or an Exodus, but has found evidence of the earliest known examples of the name Yahweh among tribes that lived in what is now southern Israel and over the border. It's possible, but not shown, that some leader of theirs is the peg on which the Moses stories are hung.

So many times, the Biblical narrative has been cast in doubt, the existence of King David, etc. Yet, time after time, the naysayers have been shown up to be wrong. Just recently, there was an article about the Tabernacle and its early location where they now are finding incredible amounts of animal bones according to what was said was sacrificed there. Thus, the Tabernacle is now seen to have existed, the place of sacrifice found to be there as said, and so forth. Things are indeed containing 'examinable evidence.'

But other parts of the bible are not factual, beyond a doubt. The Genesis creation is done by magic. There is no place, nor was there, where the Euphrates, Tigris, Gihon and Pishon have a common source. If Yahweh is the god of the Tanakh, he's a psychopath, ordering aggressive invasions, massacres, mass rapes, human sacrifices, arbitrary killings, on and on. He's also guilty of the sin of religious intolerance in spades.

 

[blü 2]

Actually, you don't have to be an insider to see the difference if you have studied their principles. Many corporations use the "insider principles" because they work whether you are an insider or not.

However. if the difference is a reasonable basis for that faith (eg my faith in paper and electronic money) or the lack of such a reasonable basis (eg any belief for which there is very strong examinable evidence to the contrary, like Noah's flood) then that test doesn't appear very useful to religion.

 

[Kenny]

However. if the difference is a reasonable basis for that faith (eg my faith in paper and electronic money) or the lack of such a reasonable basis (eg any belief for which there is very strong examinable evidence to the contrary, like Noah's flood) then that test doesn't appear very useful to religion.

It seems like you have a narrow scope of the usefulness of faith (which in reality, it is used by all people).

Noah's flood is not a matter of faith but rather a matter of interpretation of what is seen. (not a faith matter)

 

[Grandliseur]

The Genesis creation is done by magic.

There was no magic. I had a file explaining part of Genesis chapter one. Did you see it?

There is no place, nor was there, where the Euphrates, Tigris, Gihon and Pishon have a common source

If you are referring to the location of the Garden of Eden, I quite agree. The problem with its location is somewhat simple. The GoE was a pre-deluge location. The names given do not, and I believe do not, have anything to do with their antediluvian location. There are actually some indications to me that the GoE might have been located in the eastern part of Congo (Kinshasa Congo). This fits better than anything else I have seen. I would, however, be very surprised if you are interested in my musing about the GoE since that is all it can be with the antediluvian world having been destroyed. The Bible tells us clearly that it was destroyed. If there is nothing left to identify - musings about its location do not contribute much to anything at all.

 

[blü 2]

It seems like you have a narrow scope of the usefulness of faith (which in reality, it is used by all people).

I like to examine the things I take on faith so I'm aware of them. Money is one. That a world exists external to me, that my senses are capable of informing me of it, that reason is a valid tool, are three more.

Noah's flood is not a matter of faith but rather a matter of interpretation of what is seen. (not a faith matter)

If that's a way of saying that Noah's flood happened in history, well, a large heap of facts say it didn't, and no facts say it did. I'd call any faith in contradiction of that, ill-founded.

 

[blü 2]

There was no magic. I had a file explaining part of Genesis chapter one. Did you see it?

No, but if you think Genesis creation then you're contradicted by the overwhelming evidence of nature, and supported by none of it.

Since you think God created the universe, think of nature as the book he wrote himself, and the bible as a human document. Which would a reasonable believer prefer?

The GoE was a pre-deluge location.

There was no Flood. Once again, you as a believer will find that God's own book contradicts your all too human one. That is, if you care to look at nature with unbiased eyes.

 

[Grandliseur]

No, but if you think Genesis creation then you're contradicted by the overwhelming evidence of nature, and supported by none of it.

Since you think God created the universe, think of nature as the book he wrote himself, and the bible as a human document. Which would a reasonable believer prefer?
There was no Flood. Once again, you as a believer will find that God's own book contradicts your all too human one. That is, if you care to look at nature with unbiased eyes.

In case you should want to take a look at what I did say about Genesis chapter one:
link: Genesis 1 ligth

 

[Jeremiahcp]

You do not give any examples of what is absurd.

Your post is too general to give any intelligent answer to. Your attitude is that of the general unbeliever. That is about it.
As most unbelievers, you are most likely ignorant as to the definition of faith as it comes through to us over ca 2000 years. Your definition is probably as defined by atheists.

That is nothing but an ad hominem argument.

 

[Grandliseur]

That is nothing but an ad hominem argument.

When I stated: "You do not give any examples of what is absurd. Your post is too general to give any intelligent answer to." - this is not an attack on you but on the lack of things to address in your question, in your attack.

That I speculate that you most likely is ignorant about our definition of faith - that assumption has not been invalidated yet. You did not provide me with the definition of faith as we know it. So, do you know our definition or not? Don't try to avoid the issues by saying, "That is nothing but an ad hominem argument."

But, if you have nothing constructive to add to your post other than that, stopping right here is not a bad idea.

 

[blü 2]

In case you should want to take a look at what I did say about Genesis chapter one:
link: Genesis 1 ligth

Thank you.

And >this link< will tell you my own understanding of the Garden story.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

When I stated: "You do not give any examples of what is absurd. Your post is too general to give any intelligent answer to." - this is not an attack on you but on the lack of things to address in your question, in your attack.

That I speculate that you most likely is ignorant about our definition of faith - that assumption has not been invalidated yet. You did not provide me with the definition of faith as we know it. So, do you know our definition or not? Don't try to avoid the issues by saying, "That is nothing but an ad hominem argument."

But, if you have nothing constructive to add to your post other than that, stopping right here is not a bad idea.

My understanding of faith primarily comes form talking to theists extensively on the subject and philosophical reading, mostly Søren Kierkegaard. You do know who Søren Kierkegaard is, right? Believe it or not, but non-believers don't typically sit around talking to each over in depth over the philosophical nature of religious faith, and I am more incline to believe that you view my post as "too general" because you lack the intellectual penetration.

 

[Grandliseur]

Thank you.

And >this link< will tell you my own understanding of the Garden story.

I don't know which page to answer from; but, this one contains the link. In case you use the other page more than once, this should stay within this thread.

On a Website I wrote some years ago, Biblical in nature, I wrote one of the precepts governing my study. I call it Harmony of Scripture. Within this HoS, I include the entire OT and NT.
If I didn't use this method, I would end up as conflicting in dogma as the Trinitarian churches with their Hell Fire dogma, and what not.

If I permitted myself to accept your claims in your link without including Jesus, Paul, and whomever else affect this particular belief, the HoS could not exist. Faith in God with the ransom provided by Christ, and the reason for the ransom (as seen also in Isaiah chapter 53) could not exist.

I cannot impress my beliefs on others; each has to determine what they think is true. The only thing one can accomplish is to exchange information and let the other side run with it as they like. Similarly, their information submitted to me is for me to judge within my belief system and understanding. None can impress upon me what I shall believe if I deny them this right.

So, while I found the information you provided well put together, it fails my HoS test. Similarly, my information fails to move you from your position - which I actually do not mind.

 

[Grandliseur]

My understanding of faith primarily comes form talking to theists extensively on the subject and philosophical reading, mostly Søren Kierkegaard. You do know who Søren Kierkegaard is, right? Believe it or not, but non-believers don't typically sit around talking to each over in depth over the philosophical nature of religious faith, and I am more incline to believe that you view my post as "too general" because you lack the intellectual penetration.

I still don't see any actual subject to which I may respond. For your knowledge, I speak English, French, Danish, read Norwegian (used to carry a Norwegian Bible with me because it was so compact), some Swedish, quite a bit of German, and speak Japanese. In general, I find many Danes stuck up, but if you have something of Søren's you want me to read, even in the original language, I don't mind as long as it is brief enough. I do not promise to be impressed, only to read it.

Instead of speaking about my lack of intellectual penetration, why don't you raise a subject for discussion! I must admit that discussing a subject is what this is about, not insults.
I have been run around the bushes by the best French Catholic philosopher priests in the Congo. Such ones can transform a fly into a dragon in just a few words. I would rather drink day-old Palm wine than repeat that experience. However, I don't mind getting another run around the bushes, if you have it in you, but please refrain from insults. If you cannot, let's call it quits.

I have also been rescued by a French Catholic missionary, but that I didn't mind. He was very kind, very hospitable. I hope he still lives.

 

[Windwalker]

You do not give any examples of what is absurd.

That's almost too easy. Just listen to the things Ken Hamm claims. Children riding on Velociraptors? A 6000 year old earth? That modern science is wrong and he is right? How about Pat Robertson thinking hurricanes are created by tolerating homosexuals? The absurdity list is almost endless!

BTW, none of that is faith. It's just ignorance, often times willful ignorance and dishonesty calling itself "faith" to give it some air of respectability when it deserves none.

As most unbelievers, you are most likely ignorant as to the definition of faith as it comes through to us over ca 2000 years. Your definition is probably as defined by atheists.

Actually, you should read Christians like Paul Tillich, or James Fowler in Stages of Faith. They as Christians goes into very clear definitions of what faith really is operating at the religious level, or the "ultimate environment" as Fowler explains. He also cited Soren Kierkegaard, who also was Christian. So, this BS that it came from atheists, is a very misguided, and factually wrong claim you make in order to try to discredit their thoughts. As they say, "Think again...."

And BTW, who are you to say someone is an "unbeliever" just because they challenge your ideas about what Christian faith is, that you were taught by your local preachers? That's very telling to me. I actually prefer those who deep dive into it, versus Yahoo Bob and his church of holy snakehandlers and KJV only beliefs. (Add that guy to your list of absurdities too).

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I still don't see any actual subject to which I may respond. For your knowledge, I speak English, French, Danish, read Norwegian (used to carry a Norwegian Bible with me because it was so compact), some Swedish, quite a bit of German, and speak Japanese. In general, I find many Danes stuck up, but if you have something of Søren's you want me to read, even in the original language, I don't mind as long as it is brief enough. I do not promise to be impressed, only to read it.

Instead of speaking about my lack of intellectual penetration, why don't you raise a subject for discussion! I must admit that discussing a subject is what this is about, not insults.
I have been run around the bushes by the best French Catholic philosopher priests in the Congo. Such ones can transform a fly into a dragon in just a few words. I would rather drink day-old Palm wine than repeat that experience. However, I don't mind getting another run around the bushes, if you have it in you, but please refrain from insults. If you cannot, let's call it quits.

I have also been rescued by a French Catholic missionary, but that I didn't mind. He was very kind, very hospitable. I hope he still lives.

Are you applying for a job? Sorry, but I am not hiring.

 

[Ponder This]

I'm not sure I understand the OP... but my take on faith vs certainty goes something like this:

A person can have faith without knowledge of the outcome of events.
For example, having faith that everything is going to work itself out and be okay even though there is no evidence that it will and despite not knowing in what way things will work out. More specifically, a person could have faith that he will find employment without having figured out how he will become employed or what his employment will be. He can't be certain of these things in that if you ask him why he believes it, he can simply say that he has faith that his future will be taken care of by a higher power. He can have this faith without having at certainty about what future events may transpire, without having certainty knowledge that these events are guaranteed phenomena, and without even knowing what sort of employment he will actually end up doing. Acting on that faith, he might perform various actions that others may argue constitute a basis to expect employment, but his faith in the employment came before his actions to find employment. And this is crucial to understanding how faith operates. If his faith came afterwards, then it would be an expectation of things to based on past events.

You can say that if a person is certain in an outcome despite there being no evidence for it, then it means he has faith. The problem with arguments that 'faith' doesn't make sense is actually a problem with 'certainty' not making sense. For example, when people argue that faith in science differs from faith in religion because the certainty in science is different from the certainty in religion, they make the mistake of abusing the sense of certainty as it pertains to faith. The faith in science came before the certainty in science (not afterwards). The difference between science and religion are the expectations based upon past events and the not the faith that comes prior to events.

This is a very subtle thing for people to understand, who do not understand what faith is. They think that you can only trust someone after he has proven himself to be trustworthy. They don't understand that a person can be trusted before he proves himself worthy of trust. And this is why they see religion as the Great Con. People often place their trust in a religion before a religion proves that it is worthy of trust, and because the religion failed to meet their expectations, it must be a deception. Hence, the Great Con. In a very real sense, they aren't wrong. If you claim to faith in something, is it not worth examining what you have chosen to place your trust in?

 

[MonkeyFire]

Faith leads to certainty, but isn't the same.

 

[Kenny]

I like to examine the things I take on faith so I'm aware of them. Money is one. That a world exists external to me, that my senses are capable of informing me of it, that reason is a valid tool, are three more.

At this point, you have just expressed faith by the senses. In the different levels of faith, I would have to say it is the lowest level.

Having a job and expecting a valid check is a greater faith than a sense faith.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That only works for insiders.
And all religions say it.
And I can't tell the difference. I suspect there isn't one. Can you suggest a test to distinguish faith from blind faith?

I would think all religions say it because why else would a person belong to a religion unless they believed it was the right religion.

To me credulity (blind faith) has No scriptural basis for its reasons. - See Matthew 15:9.
The tests that Jesus went through was because of his logical reasoning on the old Hebrew Scriptures.
For Jesus it was distinguishing and showing the difference between Scripture and teachings outside of Scripture.
Th religious leaders of his day had drifted so far from Scripture and were teachings their traditions, their customs, as being Scripture but were Not found in Scripture. Christendom of today often does the same thing.
That is why Matthew chapter 7 brings to our attention that MANY would come in Jesus' name but prove false.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

During my study in the UK,

I think, in the west, people found that many biblical teachings were against reason, and consequently religion was defeated and the clerics stopped debating the non-believers and stopped claiming that their views are supported by reason...

When I was in the UK I found people even hostile to Scripture.
The basis one person used was church history.
And the point I would like to make: There often is a BIG difference between church teachings and Scripture.
Church history is out of line (out of reason) with the 1st-century teachings of Christ as found in Scripture.

People in the West have found their church teachings (church customs/ church traditions) are against logic and reason. They think what they have been taught in their churches is from Scripture, so they conclude Scripture is wrong when it is false clergy teachings that they have been fed is what is really wrong or unreasonable.
None of which makes Scripture as wrong, but makes the wrong teachings as wrong.
That is why judgement will start with that House of God according to 1 Peter 4:17 because Christendom claims to follow the God of the Bible but her actions show otherwise.