Well....... I'm not sure I'm still trying to figure out what I believe.Hope you don't mind me just jumping in to ask one question. I'm just curious. Do you agree with those people who say that not having evidence is the substance of faith?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Well....... I'm not sure I'm still trying to figure out what I believe.Hope you don't mind me just jumping in to ask one question. I'm just curious. Do you agree with those people who say that not having evidence is the substance of faith?
By that standard, any science that deals with events that aren't directly observed (e.g., archaeology, genetics, forensics, cosmology, geology) is "outside of science". Of course no scientist is beholden to your made-up, arbitrary standards.Macroevolutionary hypotheses can be tested by using them to generate predictions then asking whether observations from the biological world match those predictions [philosophical - outside of science
Oh. Okay. So not anchored. Threading the waters.Well....... I'm not sure I'm still trying to figure out what I believe.
The problem with faith is that it is not a pathway to the truth. Hindus have faith, Muslims have faith. Are their gods the right gods?Yes I am following you so far, some people would say that not having evidence is the substance of faith?
The problem is how does one test the Bible to see if it is reliable? We know that it got that much of it is wrong, though that does not mean that the underlying story is wrong. After all even you can't believe the Noah's Ark myth. That over 5 vertical miles of water came and left the Earth magically without leaving a mark. And that is just the beginning.Oh. Okay. So not anchored. Threading the waters.
These are dangerous waters, but I suspect if the material is good quality, eventually when you decide to drop anchor, it should hold in the right place.
If you are interested, you can explore this thread - Faith and Facts. It's only five pages, so you shouldn't get lost.
Jesus spoke well of John the Baptist regarding his faith, and being anchored.
(Luke 7:24) When the messengers of John had gone away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed being tossed by the wind?
Wind can toss about a reed. We know what strong winds do to ships, so I hope you get your anchor down in the right place. (Ephesians 4:14)
Enjoy.
I would say that if the Noah's ark account is a myth it is no more harder to believe than an ice age? Or dinosaurs, or I am the long descendant of a monkey?.The problem is how does one test the Bible to see if it is reliable? We know that it got that much of it is wrong, though that does not mean that the underlying story is wrong. After all even you can't believe the Noah's Ark myth. That over 5 vertical miles of water came and left the Earth magically without leaving a mark. And that is just the beginning.
Much of that thread that you linked consists of believers demonstrating that they do not understand either facts or evidence.
I would say that if the Noah's ark account is a myth it is no more harder to believe than an ice age? Or dinosaurs, or I am the long descendant of a monkey?.
I would say that if the Noah's ark account is a myth it is no more harder to believe than an ice age? Or dinosaurs, or I am the long descendant of a monkey?.
You forgot to address the long descendants of monkeys, not only that what is the proof of the ice age or the dinosaurs for that matter, just because somebody made some bones and put them together in a museum so that they can make a lot of money off people coming and seeing them makes it true?, I never said the Noah's ark account was true I just said it was no harder to believe than any of the others?The difference is that both evolution and ice ages have a ridiculous amount of objective independently verifiable evidence going for them.
And last but not least, neither requires the violation of any natural laws.
While the noah story has no evidence at all (it's just a legend story in an ancient book) and requires the violation of natural laws from top to bottom. Literally ALL key aspects of this story are physically impossible.
Worse still, the evidence we DO have, doesn't match up with this story at all.
So the real question is.... what is more important to you?
Actual evidence, or just the comfort of clinging to some bronze age folk tale...
If you care about actually being rationally justified in your beliefs, then you'll choose the path of evidence any day of the week.
If on the other hand you want to hold on to some religious beliefs simply because you like them, then I guess evidence doesn't matter.
But off course, the latter option doesn't make the evidence go away.
All you'll accomplish, is holding beliefs that can't rationally be justified and which actually require the irrational position of ignoring the actual evidence that contradicts the beliefs....
So....
Do you care about being rationally justified in your beliefs?
Is it important to you that the things that you believe, are actually accurate?
Do you want your beliefs about the world to match the evidence of reality?
I am not talking about physical traits. That is why science is in the dark about what man really is, they only have the ability to see a small part of the picture.Any animal species is unlike other animal species. It's what makes them seperate species.
Solomon was wise and he never ignored animal traits. He noted for example the hard working ants. He would not have been so foolish as to look at ant legs or eyes, and try to conceive that as some similarity based on relatives!!!!Neither should we ignore them.
Genetics of this present nature is limited to this nature. If Noah lived in a time when a different nature existed, then current genetics cannot be traced back that far. So all you could try and claim was that 'since the time of Noah, in this present nature, I believe that the similarity in genetics in animals mean that they are all related'As demonstrated by genetics, yes.
All life is ultimately related.
Honesty is not defined by or limited to handicapping ourselves intellectually and dealing with a small fraction of the facts! Of course germs cause disease. But science can't tell us if evil spirits could sometimes influence how man comes across germs! It can't tell us how God could protect us from them, or heal us if we were diseased!I have no such contentions.
This is true for every scientific idea.
Germ theory also doesn't claim that germs are exclusively responsible for the deseases associated with germs. For the simple reason that there is no way to test that.
All we can say, is that the available evidence is consistent with the model.
It's called intellectual honesty. You should try it some time...
False. Limited evolution, (the evolving we actually have observed) is fine! It is when you use your belief set to try to attribute that and that alone as the reason we are all here that you must be corrected.We're talking about evolution. The scientific model of evolution exists and you have to deny it because it conflicts with your religious beliefs.
The parts of science that are included as science that are really just belief based nonsense with no evidence, observation, testing or proof are not real science. You can call rice pudding science if you like, it is still just what it is.Yes. All of science.
By that standard, any science that deals with events that aren't directly observed (e.g., archaeology, genetics, forensics, cosmology, geology) is "outside of science". Of course no scientist is beholden to your made-up, arbitrary standards.
So what? Maybe they adapted (some of them) to land and then maybe back to water again!? Who knows? We certainly cannot take some fossil of a whale and jump to the sort of wild heathen conclusions you would like us to.The first whale ancestor that was found was Pakicetus. It was a more than reasonable conclusion that whale ancestors had to be land living mammals since whales are mammals and mammals evolved on the land. .
The way man has to know that spirits exists is Scripture. If you wave that away you have almost nothing to inform you. So, you are expressing disbelief...based on nothing. Whooopee doo.Again, you're telling me what these entities think and how they behave without ever demonstrating to anybody that they actually exist in the first place. If you can't demonstrate the existence of some thinking entity, how on earth are you determining what said entities are thinking or feeling?
No more than saying a baby can't nurse and grow till after it is born.And you seem to be telling me that the Bible can only be understood once a person is already a believer? Sorry, but that's an asinine and illogical way of thinking.
YesWhether there is a God or not that still remains to be seen, however wouldn't a God be someone who could defy the nature and laws that he created?
Categorically, and even logically, false. "Religion" posits deities and supernatural events, both of which are not found or are acceptable within science without objective evidence.
Give us the most ancient example of this? Got any for say, 70 million (science) years ago?You really don't know what you're talking about. Ever hear of "forensic evidence", for example?
In your dreams. Show us usable DNA from dinos?And what the dna testing is confirming is that the fossil record on the evolution of life that we have millions of evidence of, rather clearly show links to current life form even though there will always be some gaps. Just because you don't understand nor believe the evidence doesn't negate what we well know.
Don't do church.It's truly unfortunate that you church/denomination is lying to you on this, much like my fundamentalist Protestant church did to me decades ago prior to me leaving it.
You forgot to address the long descendants of monkeys, not only that what is the proof of the ice age or the dinosaurs for that matter, just because somebody made some bones and put them together in a museum so that they can make a lot of money off people coming and seeing them makes it true?, I never said the Noah's ark account was true I just said it was no harder to believe than any of the others?
So accepting the fact of evolution is not a religion by your own definition. Thank you.Definition of religion
1a : the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religion
b(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Read it and weep.
Give us the most ancient example of this? Got any for say, 70 million (science) years ago?
In your dreams. Show us usable DNA from dinos?
Don't do church.
Sure, but would he purposefully make it look as if there was a natural cause for those observations that contradicted what happened? That would be planting false evidence. A form of lying. I thought that we had agreed that God does not lie.Whether there is a God or not that still remains to be seen, however wouldn't a God be someone who could defy the nature and laws that he created?