The same can be said for unicorns and leprechauns.
Absence of evidence =/= Evidence of absence
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Faith in God
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
- Status
The same can be said for unicorns and leprechauns.
Absence of evidence =/= Evidence of absence
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Why? I'm disallowed from proselytizing here. I should overwhelm you with evidence until you fall at the feet of Jesus Christ, shouting aloud your need for salvation, just so you could miss Hell for Heaven, so I can also be barred from RF? I think not!
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I have a dollar that says you CAN wait, since there's so much evidence out there, you should, by fiat, be a born again already!
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Is that your idea of a non-skeptical response?!
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
False-- if it WERE ACTUALLY TRUE? There would be no atheists/skeptics on Earth-- anywhere.
The fact that there are? PROVES to 100%, that your god is:
1) grossly inept, a bungler, incapable of basic God Tasks
- or -
2) Deliberately evil. .
Victim blaming. Nice try-- but it doesn't wash. I'd love to believe in a god--
--- it's just that none of them are convincing.
The worst examples of "god"? Always seem to use Special Favorites, with the consequence that everyone else is damned in some way....
PURE EVIL-- Special Favorites, that is. Immoral, grossly Un-Fair, etc.
UNGODLY.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
It is a direct observation of the sum of all of your posts I have read so far...
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
No, I'm not-- you are and continue to be, disingenuous about others. You project a Straw Man onto others with your claims.
And then you have the nerve to object when others reject your Straw Man.
all i've asked is for you to show me the post. i've also explained that the modern interpretation of god is not necessarily the ancient understanding of what god is, or what gods are.
case in point the asuras and devas in hinduism. some are evil and some are good. what is it that makes something good? something benevolent? something beneficial?
for example; if the bible implies that faith without works is dead, then obviously this god thing isn't working, or present. its neglectful, or absent in self.
James 2:17
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
so then what might god be? it obviously isn't just having faith in something else but self doing something, something godly.
i can have positive/negative faith in someone but if they act in a certain manner, i can usually determine their faith by how they behave.
a neglectful/abusive person is not considered godly.
Last edited:
You're either very confused or being dishonest because there is no way you could logically come to that conclusion from anything I wrote.
The definition of the Greek "Pisteuo" can be objectively determined with a reasonable degree of accuracy by contextual study of ancient sources. That's how linguistic sciences work. It is not something that people get to define however they want based on their own arbitrary or subjective "sensibilities". Ancient context hems in the range of possible conclusions you can logically draw about what the word was meant to communicate when it was written in the Bible.
Likewise, nobody has the ability to make up whatever definition they want for Biblical faith and have it stand up to scrutiny. The meaning of the word can be objectively and logically outlined b a contextual study of it's usage.
Case in point: I disproved your definition of faith by pointing to examples in James that contradict your definition. Objectively and logically we can conclude your definition of faith cannot be true and also be consistent with what the Bible says faith is.
Your comment is logically irrelevant to anything you or I posted.
Do you understand that when we are talking about Biblical Pisteuo we are talking about a word whose meaning and contextual usage was determined in the 1st century?
Do you realize how illogical it is for you to think a modern dictionary definition of "faith" should be extrapolated backwards in time to define what John or James meant when they talked about Pisteuo?
That's not how linguistics or history works.
The meaning of their usage of that word can only be rightly determined by a linguistic analysis of ancient Greek sources, a contextual analysis of how they use that word in the Bible itself, and aided by historical context. If you do that you come to objective conclusions that stand up to scrutiny.
When you understand that, you will realize why a modern dictionary is utterly irrelevant to that equation.
Last edited:
It is the only logical conclusion, you reject the accepted definition in favour of a bronze age definition.
I have provided the definition by which we live. Now its your turn.
Without all accusation of lying and ad hominem please
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Man up.....It is All your choice, only the weak blame God.
You get to choose to be just in your search for God, or not. Many choose not to, because what you call a 'favorite' is actually a true and loyal servant. They give all their heart and soul to service to all humanity in preference to self and all that the world can offer. As such God knows the sincerity of our hearts. One can hide nothing. A true servant is as rare as the philosophers stone.
In fact in this age Baha'u'llah has said the secrets hidden in mens hearts, what they have done in the dark of the night will be laid bare for all to see. It is an age where Justice will have its day. All we have done is recorded and one can not excape.
"Think not the deeds ye have committed have been blotted from My sight. By My beauty! All your doings hath My Pen graven with open characters upon tablets of chrysolite." – The Hidden Words, p. 44.
Forensic science has come a long way.
Regards Tony
ecco
Veteran Member
So, you cannot show one single fulfilled Biblical prophecy. Not one! I really didn't think you could.
ecco
Veteran Member
What a nonsensical post. Is this really the best you can do to support your religious beliefs?
There has been zero scientific proof that Bigfoot and the supernatural do not and cannot exist.
There has been zero scientific proof that Psychic Snowflakes and the supernatural do not and cannot exist.
There has been zero scientific proof that Atlas and Athena and the supernatural do not and cannot exist.
There has been zero scientific proof the universe was not created Last Thursday.
There has been zero scientific proof ... blah blah blah
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Victim blaming: Who has Infinite Power? Who has Infinite Knowledge? Who is supposedly All Good?
Not me, not me and? Not me.
YOUR GOD IS THE ONE AT FAULT-- NOT I. Since you seem to ignore my writing? Perhaps a meme will help you see why it is not ME who is at fault, here.
A spoilt and rebellious child will always blame the parent. Maturity is a big step.
One has to sit back and see the problem was of their own making.
Regards Tony
Spartan
Well-Known Member
There's been zero evidence your distorted opinions have any merit.
ecco
Veteran Member
How are my statements any different in substance than yours? Do you believe "There has been zero scientific proof the universe was not created Last Thursday" is wrong? If you do, then you are admitting that perhaps, the universe was created Last Thursday. Is that what you are trying to communicate.
On the other hand, in your mind your comment: "There has been zero scientific proof that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist" is a profound statement worthy of ... what?
I already wrote quite a bit in detail giving you logical reasons that exposed why the premise behind your claim was fallacious and erroneous logic (the premise that a modern dictionary's definition of faith is an authoritative source for understanding what God's definition of faith as it is talked about in the Bible).
The onus is therefore now on you to demonstrate why you think my reasons aren't valid or provide new reasoned argumentation to bolster your position, in order to defend why the premise behind your claim is not invalidated.
Merely repeating your original claim, whilst ignoring the part of my post that undermines the premise of your claim, is itself a logical fallacy of argumentation. You don't defend your original claim as true by merely repeating it and ignoring that which already undermined it.
Since you have presented no new argumentation or counter arguments for me to deal with (You're merely repeating that which I already dealt with), there would be no reason for me to continue providing new argumentation that further bolsters my case. You haven't first dealt with what I already posted. I can simply repost what you ignored and ask you to first deal with that if you want to continue having a real discussion about what is the true definition of faith.
-----------------------
(The previous information you haven't dealt with yet)
Quite the opposite - That's what caused you confusion in the first place. I will give you several reasons why that definition is wrong and why you are committing logical errors by trying to rely on it.
Logical errors and bad presumptions:
1. Believing that modern word definitions are accurate representations of the original Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew words that were used 2000 years ago.
2. Believing that the modern definition of the the word "faith" has always been what it currently is, never changing.
3. Believing that you (as a modern English speaker deciding what the modern definition of a word is) get to tell God what the definition of "faith" (Pisteuo in Greek) is, rather than His word in the Bible telling you what your definition of "faith" needs to be. Especially when your modern definition contradicts what the Bible says about what "faith" is.
1. It should not require further expounding, but should be self evident to anyone who has opened a Biblical lexicon, that the English words used to translate the Bible rarely reflect perfect translations of the original languages. The reason is because there don't exist in English words that act as perfect translations that carry all the same connotations and range of meanings as the original words. That is why any serious Bible study involves knowing the original languages or at the very least relying on Lexicons and concordances.
2. Eytmologically the english word "faith" originally use to have a meaning that is more in line with what the Bible says "faith" is. Our modern definition of faith has been distorted over several hundred years so that it no longer accurately reflects the Biblical concept of "faith".
The Etymology Of Belief. | Faith | Thou
faith | Origin and meaning of faith by Online Etymology Dictionary
3. I already gave you some direct examples from the Bible of why your modern definition of "faith" is inconsistent with what the Bible says faith is. Logically, if the Bible introduces a concept to us, then the Bible gets to define for us what that means by it's context and definitions. If you want to insist that your modern definition of faith is the correct one that must be adhered to then you must first logically establish why your definition of faith is consistent with what the Scripture says faith is. You must be able to explain why your definition is not already contradicted by what the Scripture says faith is. I've started off by giving you several examples that disprove your claim that your definition of faith is consistent with the Biblical definition. You don't address those contradictions by merely appealing to a modern dictionary as authoritative because you're actually guilty of using circular reasoning at that point - all you're doing is saying; "the modern definition of faith is the correct one because it's the modern definition of faith". You must first establish that the modern definition of faith is actually consistent with what the Bible says faith is before you can appeal to that modern definition as an authority. I already gave you some starting examples as to why it's not consistent with that the Bible says.
You appear to have a definition of faith that is not consistent with the meaning and implications of the word as used in the Bible.
The definition of the Greek "Pisteuo" can be objectively determined with a reasonable degree of accuracy by contextual study of ancient sources. That's how linguistic sciences work. It is not something that people get to define however they want based on their own arbitrary or subjective "sensibilities". Ancient context hems in the range of possible conclusions you can logically draw about what the word was meant to communicate when it was written in the Bible.
Likewise, nobody has the ability to make up whatever definition they want for Biblical faith and have it stand up to scrutiny. The meaning of the word can be objectively and logically outlined b a contextual study of it's usage.
Case in point: I disproved your definition of faith by pointing to examples in James that contradict your definition. Objectively and logically we can conclude your definition of faith cannot be true and also be consistent with what the Bible says faith is.
Your comment is logically irrelevant to anything you or I posted.
Do you understand that when we are talking about Biblical Pisteuo we are talking about a word whose meaning and contextual usage was determined in the 1st century?
Do you realize how illogical it is for you to think a modern dictionary definition of "faith" should be extrapolated backwards in time to define what John or James meant when they talked about Pisteuo?
That's not how linguistics or history works.
The meaning of their usage of that word can only be rightly determined by a linguistic analysis of ancient Greek sources, a contextual analysis of how they use that word in the Bible itself, and aided by historical context. If you do that you come to objective conclusions that stand up to scrutiny.
When you understand that, you will realize why a modern dictionary is utterly irrelevant to that equation.
- Status