RikoduoSennin:


You said it, THEIR BELIEF is blind Faith and you believe them, then believe me when I tell you THAT MY FAITH/BELIEF IS NOT BASED ON BLIND FAITH.






You mean MANY SUPPOSED Examples of blind faith.




Some men did not see the resurrected Jesus in person but belief, is that what you called blind faith?

Do they have reasons to believe Jesus resurrection, YES!

1) More than 500 persons saw Jesus after he resurrected.

2) The 120 christians would not have received the Holy spirit without Jesus being resurrected.

3) The soldiers guiding Jesus' tomb could not explain what happen to his body. (Saying his disciples took him without confrontation is plain bull, since that was the main reason they were there).

4) Everybody in that room, who saw Jesus could not all have been liars like Thomas thought.

5) The disciples would not have preached with so much zeal that the message was spread to the entire inhabited Earth if Jesus did not rise up from the grave and they saw him.

So even if person's like the Gentiles did not see Jesus in person, they believed the Apostles on account of the Miraculous things (Evidence) they did in Jesus name.

This Fool just believes everything in the Bible without external evidence. Yet he'll claim that he doesn't have a blind faith! He doesn't worth arguing with!

RikoduoSennin:


I quoted your comment, highlighted/bold a section of your previous post.

The section that said "When you cannot prove he exist" is wrong.

We can prove the existed of God that's why we have faith. Can you put you faith in a man whom you don't know if he exist?

Your faith creates his existence. When you can prove God then faith is no longer required. Faith only comes in when you have no evidence to support a claim.

Moreover, proving God exists will make Him part of nature and not SUPERnatural.

Pr0ton:


Your faith creates his existence. When you can prove God then faith is no longer required. Faith only comes in when you have no evidence to support a claim.

Moreover, proving God exists will make Him part of nature and not SUPERnatural.

...............
Pr0ton you didn't answer my question.

theunusualmoon:

...............
Pr0ton you didn't answer my question.

Sends me cool text, calls me, cooks for me, asks me out, gives me warm hug and whatnot

Pr0ton:
The same thing applies here. Scientific observations are general with no different interpretation. And that's what separates science from belief.

Then your analysis is based on a patent falsehood. There are plenty of differing interpretations in science.

Pr0ton:


There isn't any credit to give to that since the observable and testable evidence are not general/universal when coming to a conclusion.

The one that's creditable is the one that comes to a general/universal conclusion, not the one that differs and causes confusion.

In science, you have some PREVAILING ideas and theories, and a huge number of DISPUTES which are the subject of ongoing research. Why are you not calling that situation a state of CONFUSION, too? Biased labels don't prove anything.

It is the same with any religion. In any "denomination", you have prevailing ideas and disputes.

In either case, the reason an idea prevails is because you have some system of PEER REVIEW and adjudication, whether it is a by a science journal or Synod, etc. A relatively small number of people assess the idea and rubber stamp or reject it. Everyone else in the field is then pressured to follow suit.

You have not explained a difference. You have only slapped labels on science and religion (using different terms for the same thing, and demonstrated nothing).

I think I know what you may be trying to say, but nobody so far has been able to articulate a difference which is not merely arbitrary choice of words.

sinequanon:


Then your analysis is based on a patent falsehood. There are plenty of differing interpretations in science.



In science, you have some PREVAILING ideas and theories, and a huge number of DISPUTES which are the subject of ongoing research. Why are you not calling that situation a state of CONFUSION, too? Biased labels don't prove anything.

It is the same with any religion. In any "denomination", you have prevailing ideas and disputes.

In either case, the reason an idea prevails is because you have some system of PEER REVIEW and adjudication, whether it is a by a science journal or Synod, etc. A relatively small number of people assess the idea and rubber stamp or reject it. Everyone else in the field is then pressured to follow suit.

You have not explained a difference. You have only slapped labels on science and religion (using different terms for the same thing, and demonstrated nothing).

I think I know what you may be trying to say, but nobody so far has been able to articulate a difference which is not merely arbitrary choice of words.

Not Different? You didn't get what I meant there. You said, "if you pray, you'll succeed in life." Now let's pick a scientific theory that says "add acid and base, you'll get salt and water". Let's bring both under observation and test. What you'll get is that the theory of "pray and you'll succeed" doesn't work everytime, while the theory of "neutralization" does. With that, we can infer that the theory of "pray and you'll succeed" isn't substantiately valid and should be done away with. The theory of "neutralization" proves right experimentally and, therefore, continues to be a theory, unlike the fallacy of "pray and you'll succeed".


Apart from the fact that the dispute in science can't be compared with that of the so-called "divine" religion, what prevailing ideas are there in denomintaion? You call it "prevailing ideas" they call it the "work of the devil" because it opposes their beliefs and doctrines, and they will never settle for anything "outside" their denomination to be "prevailing ideas".

Pr0ton:


Not Different? You didn't get what I meant there. You said, "if you pray, you'll succeed in life." Now let's pick a scientific theory that says "add acid and base, you'll get salt and water". Let's bring both under observation and test. What you'll get is that the theory of "pray and you'll succeed" doesn't work everytime, while the theory of "neutralization" does. With that, we can infer that the theory of "pray and you'll succeed" isn't substantiately valid and should be done away with. The theory of "neutralization" proves right experimentally and, therefore, continues to be a theory, unlike the fallacy of "pray and you'll succeed".

Both are very complicated and subject to interpretation.

There is no single "general" and "universal" definition of an acid or base.

We have the different Arrhenius, Lewis, and The Bronsted-Lowry definitions.

Also...

HCl + NH3 --> NH4Cl doesn't produce any water, for example.

And a salt is BY DEFINITION a compound that results from the reaction of an acid and a base. WHATEVER you get from the reaction is going to be called a salt, so this hardly qualifies as an "observation". It would be like "observing" that all female dogs are bitches.

There are exceptions and workarounds for everything. Science is not an exception.

Pr0ton:
Apart from the fact that the dispute in science can't be compared with that of the so-called "divine" religion...

Restating your opinion with no explanation, does not make it a fact.

Pr0ton:
what prevailing ideas are there in denomintaion? You call it "prevailing ideas" they call it the "work of the devil" because it opposes their beliefs and doctrines, and they will never settle for anything "outside" their denomination to be "prevailing ideas".

Do you know the meaning of "prevailing"?

I have already given you a prevailing idea -- "God exists".

Here are some more...

"God created man and the earth"

"God sent down his only son to die for man's sins"

"The meek blah blah blah will inherit the earth"

You might not like them, but they are prevailing ideas in various religious denominations.

Pr0ton:


Sends me cool text, calls me, cooks for me, asks me out, gives me warm hug and whatnot

................
Other women would do that and much more for you so how is that a proof? Or could it be that you can see and touch love?
The point I am trying to make for you here is that just because you cannot see love does not mean you are not aware your spouse feels this for you.just because you cannot see love does not mean it does not exist......So why then would you.confidently.say GOD does not exist because you cannot see GOD?

theunusualmoon:

................
Other women would do that and much more for you so how is that a proof?

That is his standard of proof.

Why don't you finish your point instead of leaving it hanging in the air with a rhetorical question? Are you trying to say that only one woman can love you?

sinequanon:


That is his standard of proof.

Why don't you finish your point instead of leaving it hanging in the air with a rhetorical question? Are you trying to say that only one woman can love you?

.........

Pr0ton:


Sends me cool text, calls me, cooks for me, asks me out, gives me warm hug and whatnot

................
Other women would do that and much more for you so how is that a proof? Or could it be that you can see and touch love?
The point I am trying to make for you here is that just because you cannot see love does not mean you are not aware your spouse feels this for you.just because you cannot see love does not mean it does not exist......So why then would you.confidently.say GOD does not exist because you cannot see GOD?
..........sinequanon ! Just incase you didnt read the entire thing.I have here the ones you left out.

theunusualmoon:


...........

................
Other women would do that and much more for you so how is that a proof? Or could it be that you can see and touch love?
The point I am trying to make for you here is that just because you cannot see love does not mean you are not aware your spouse feels this for you.just because you cannot see love does not mean it does not exist......So why then would you.confidently.say GOD does not exist because you cannot see GOD?
..........Just incase you didnt read the entire thing.I have here the ones you left out.

I've already seen the posts you think I have "left out".

It doesn't change anything. I asked you to phrase your post as a logical argument, instead of some vague rhetorical point.

theunusualmoon:
Other women would do that and much more for you so how is that a proof? Or could it be that you can see and touch love?

What is the relevance of the first phrase. Are you assuming that only one woman can love you? The sentence/rhetorical question is not logical on its own. So I am asking you to fill in the logic.

sinequanon:


I've already seen the posts you think I have "left out".

It doesn't change anything. I asked you to phrase your post as a logical argument, instead of some vague rhetorical point.



What is the relevance of the first phrase. Are you assuming that only one woman can love you? The sentence/rhetorical question is not logical on its own. So I am asking you to fill in the logic.

.............
There's nothing vague or rhetorical about it.Take your mind out of the gutter.

theunusualmoon:

.............
There's nothing vague or rhetorical about it.Take your mind out of the gutter.

That is how easy it is for your mind to go to the gutter? You must be enjoying life. Next..

sinequanon:


That is how easy it is for your mind to go to the gutter? You must be enjoying life. Next..

.............
I really don't know why you're trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill..it is not my fault that you are not enjoying life....next

theunusualmoon:


.........

................
Other women would do that and much more for you so how is that a proof? Or could it be that you can see and touch love?
The point I am trying to make for you here is that just because you cannot see love does not mean you are not aware your spouse feels this for you.just because you cannot see love does not mean it does not exist......So why then would you.confidently.say GOD does not exist because you cannot see GOD?
..........sinequanon ! Just incase you didnt read the entire thing.I have here the ones you left out.

Not just seeing. I don't feel anything from Him as I'd from my spouse. If that's the criterion you follow to accept the existence of God why don't you believe super man, Santa Clause, aliens, etc exist?

You got it wrong there. I don't confidently say there's no God because of my inability to see him. The reason is because since religion is what brought the idea of God and when (the religion) it's critically examined proved to contain flaws and earthly I prudently infer that the idea of God is manmade.

Pr0ton:


Not just seeing. I don't feel anything from Him as I'd from my spouse. If that's the criterion you follow to accept the existence of God why don't you believe super man, Santa Clause, aliens, etc exist?

You got it wrong there. I don't confidently say there's no God because of my inability to see him. The reason is because since religion is what brought the idea of God and when (the religion) it's critically examined proved to contain flaws and earthly I prudently infer that the idea of God is manmade.

................
I am sorry to have jumped to the conclusion that you're of the opinion that there's no GOD because you cannot see him.I guess i towed that path because it's what most atheists are fond of saying.
Talking about religion......Religion did not bring the idea of GOD men needed a definition and hence named the way of life of the old prophets and Jesus' as religion but Jesus did not come to preach religion.He came to teach us to love unconditionally and always choose peace over war.

theunusualmoon:

................
I am sorry to have jumped to the conclusion that you're of the opinion that there's no GOD because you cannot see him.I guess i towed that path because it's what most atheists are fond of saying.
Talking about religion......Religion did not bring the idea of GOD men needed a definition and hence named the way of life of the old prophets and Jesus' as religion but Jesus did not come to preach religion.He came to teach us to love unconditionally and always choose peace over war.

He didn't preach religion? What did He mean then when He preached "believe" in God and His Son.

Pr0ton:


He didn't preach religion? What did He mean then when He preached "believe" in God and His Son.

............
Back then he was seen as an ordinary man and he wanted to tell them about GOD because the jews never believed and still don't believe he is the son of GOD

theunusualmoon:

............
Back then he was seen as an ordinary man and he wanted to tell them about GOD because the jews never believed and still don't believe he is the son of GOD

And what's religion by definition?

RikoduoSennin:


I quoted your comment, highlighted/bold a section of your previous post.

The section that said "When you cannot prove he exist" is wrong.

We can prove the existed of God that's why we have faith. Can you put you faith in a man whom you don't know if he exist?

RikoduoSennin,
I see now the part of my post that you bolded.

Having faith - believing in God without a doubt when you cannot prove He exists, is proof that faith is God given.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

That is not saying it cannot be proved that God exists, which is debateable.
It is saying exactly as quoted. That a person who cannot prove that God exists but believes anyway, is proof that his faith comes from God.

No I cannot put faith in a man whom I don't know if he exists, but I can have faith in a man who I cannot prove exists.



Many didn't see Jesus and His miracles etc as the disciples did, yet we believe through faith, God given faith.

Faith is knowing even without being able to prove it.

Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the reality of what we hope for, the proof of what we don't see.


We have to believe but we don't have to prove, you could never prove it to some, and to those with faith you don't have to prove it.

The bible and Creation is proof that God exist, only ignorant once do not see the proof. But they have no excuse.

Am I ignorant? I believe the bible and in the creation, I know that God exists, my faith is the proof.

Perhaps you should read posts through two or three times until you understand what is said.
.

Pr0ton:


This Fool just believes everything in the Bible without external evidence. Yet he'll claim that he doesn't have a blind faith! He doesn't worth arguing with!

I have seen external evidences to support my beliefs on the bible.

You haven't so you say things like the above.

Pr0ton:


Your faith creates his existence. When you can prove God then faith is no longer required. Faith only comes in when you have no evidence to support a claim.

Moreover, proving God exists will make Him part of nature and not SUPERnatural.

You still don't get it. You are just using you own twisted knowledge/Thinking to describe what you don't understand.

Christians don't only put faith in the person of God but what his word/ he says too. How can putting faith in someone's word meanings lacking evidence to proof the person made those promise or that they can fulfil what they promise?

Everything about the title "God" is supernatural!

johnw74:


RikoduoSennin,
I see now the part of my post that you bolded.



That is not saying it cannot be proved that God exists, which is debateable.
It is saying exactly as quoted. That a person who cannot prove that God exists but believes anyway, is proof that his faith comes from God.

No I cannot put faith in a man whom I don't know if he exists, but I can have faith in a man who I cannot prove exists.



Many didn't see Jesus and His miracles etc as the disciples did, yet we believe through faith, God given faith.

Faith is knowing even without being able to prove it.

Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the reality of what we hope for, the proof of what we don't see.


We have to believe but we don't have to prove, you could never prove it to some, and to those with faith you don't have to prove it.




Am I ignorant? I believe the bible and in the creation, I know that God exists, my faith is the proof.

Perhaps you should read posts through two or three times until you understand what is said.
.

Do you have Faith in God?

Do you have Faith in Jesus?

Do you have Faith in Jesus' words?

Do you have Faith in God's word?

Do you believe we are in the last days?

Do you believe they are wicked spiritual forces in existence?

CAN'T YOU PROVE THEIR EXISTENCE?

IS THEIR ANY "REASONS" WHY YOU HAVE FAITH/ BELIEVE IN SOMETHING/ANYTHING?

Depending on what your "Reasons" is, it may be the evidence that builds/strengthens your faith.

Pr0ton:


Now I don't argue when biased fairytales are introduced.



Good. And what you do next is start worshipping the maker of the watch, right?

Did the maker of Rolex declare himself to be a God? Did he/she meet the require of being a God? Then, how can I worship him when he himself is a creation?

Pr0ton:

You have your reasons for believing the maker of your watch exists. Why? Because you already have the knowledge that wrist watch are createable. They can't just come by chance. You accept it as fact that there must indeed be a maker of that watch, as such is the normal thing in our world.

@ bolded, not necessary that I knew that watches are created: but more about complex gears and wheels working together in precision can't come by chance.

Pr0ton:

You haven't heard that anyone has created the earth before. It's not createable. We all met it here. We accept it to be natural. There is no reason to believe it was created, as such never happen in our world. We only make up the idea of a Creator on the ground of no evidence in the sense that such kind of creation has never been observed. The Creator doesn't tell you he/she/it created it. The creation doesn't have any label of manufacturer whatsoever, unlike your Rolex watch that has a trade mark. All these are called nature. Believing the opposite is based on childish blind faith!

@ bolded, you are wrong there is reason to believe it was created because from your previous bolded comment above, THEY CAN'T COME BY CHANCE- No human has lived long enough to see a planet formed.

The earth is more complex and precise that Rolex time piece, so it can't come about by chance.

You have heard that God is the creator of earth you choose to ignore that. Human's are limited to what we can perceive

RikoduoSennin:


Do you have Faith in God?

Do you have Faith in Jesus?

Do you have Faith in Jesus' words?

Do you have Faith in God's word?

Do you believe we are in the last days?

Do you believe they are wicked spiritual forces in existence?

CAN'T YOU PROVE THEIR EXISTENCE?

IS THEIR ANY "REASONS" WHY YOU HAVE FAITH/ BELIEVE IN SOMETHING/ANYTHING?

Depending on what your "Reasons" is, it may be the evidence that builds/strengthens your faith.

Me think you just want to say things,
if you read and understood what I have said, you would not ask those questions which I have already made known.
.

johnw74:


Me think you just want to say things,
if you read and understood what I have said, you would not ask those questions which I have already made known.
.

I am sorry if I come across as someone who "likes to say things- express himself often" as it were.

Why I asked those questions, was to help you reason on a simple truth: Faith is stems from evidence, Unseen things can be proven. Plus I don't understand how a christian would say his/her faith is blind faith?

We don't see the wind, but we can calculate its speed (measure it), feel it and make projections on it.

Hebrew 11:1 defines by faith;

Hebrew 11:6 gives us what it means to have Faith;

Hebrew 11:4-40 Show us examples of persons who displayed Faith and how they displayed Faith---- From their examples we really understood what Bible Faith is.

Eg. Abraham:

Q: How did he display Faith? A: He as good as offered up his only son as sacrifice. (Hebrew 11:17)

Q: Why did he do that? A: He believe/ have "Faith" that God was able to raise him up from death. (Hebrew 11:19a)

Q: Has Abraham seen anybody being resurrected from the dead before? A: No, He hasn't.

Q: Why did he believe that God was able to raise his son from the dead?

A: (1) Because He received Isaac in a "Figurative way" from the "dead" also- At the age of 100 years when his reproductive organ and that of his wife was already considered "dead", He has a miraculous Son: If God can do that why can't he raise him from the "dead" also (Hebrew 11:19b).

(2) Because God fulfilled the first part of his promise of a Son from his wife Sarah, the Second part of that promise is that through Isaac and no one else, Abraham's seed will bless the earth- So if God did not fulfilled the first part why can't he fulfil also the second part by resurrecting Isaac after he was sacrificed (seeing as that is the only way for Isaac to live and have children)

So Abraham believe in God because "he has seen evidence" in his is life that God was with him and that God can do anything he pleases- Abraham even though he was old defeated 5 kings with few men while 4 kings and their army could not. Same with men like Elijah, Elisha, Rehab and the apostles of Jesus. We need to believe in God based on Facts, that way how faith is strong and unshaken even when we suffer tribulation and ridicule from others.

RikoduoSennin:


Did the maker of Rolex declare himself to be a God? Did he/she meet the require of being a God? Then, how can I worship him when he himself is a creation?





@ bolded, not necessary that I knew that watches are created: but more about complex gears and wheels working together in precision can't come by chance.



@ bolded, you are wrong there is reason to believe it was created because from your previous bolded comment above, THEY CAN'T COME BY CHANCE- No human has lived long enough to see a planet formed.

The earth is more complex and precise that Rolex time piece, so it can't come about by chance.

You have heard that God is the creator of earth you choose to ignore that. Human's are limited to what we can perceive

If your senses alone can deceive you,how is faith a better alternative?

RikoduoSennin:



A: (1) Because He received Isaac in a "Figurative way" from the "dead" also- At the age of 100 years when his reproductive organ and that of his wife was already considered "dead", He has a miraculous Son: If God can do that why can't he raise him from the "dead" also (Hebrew 11:19b).

Dude, if human beings live to be 1000 years old, having babies around 100 is not a miracle. What's wrong with you? If you knew anything about human physiology, you would know that a human being who lives to be 1000 years old MUST have a COMPLETELY different body than we do.

So quit saying that Abraham had seen a miracle before. Only a foolish person will believe that a human being can live to be 1000 years old but is only fertile for 40 or 60 of those years (like NORMAL human beings who don't live to be 1000 years old). That's brain disease stupidity. What the authors are doing is taking some aspects of normal human life, like the biological childbearing clock, and applying the EXACT same clock to the 1000 year old humanoid things like Abraham and Sarah. Nonsense.

If you're 1000 years old, you're NOT a human being. There is no miracle!! It's normal for humanoids with a 1000 yr life span to give birth at 100 yrs. What's so abnormal about that birth to you?

herald9:



Unarguably true.
But do you also doubt the existence of a Creator?
That's the reason I can't still come in terms with atheist.
As a deist,I don't believe in the gods invented by man...But I believe in a Creator who doesn't interfere in the activities of it's creation.

One question I can't always answer is why someone will build a house and abandon it. Why Did he build it in the first place when he had no intention of using it...

For this same question, I went from being a deist to an atheist. I just couldn't accept "someone", who is so wise that "he" could create a universe and life, then abandon it for predetermined randomness to control. I don't see wisdom in that, I doubt a creator, who could abandon a universe could create it in the first place.

I found that this predetermined randomness is limited randomness as explained by the theory of evolution, it doesn't need a determiner. It is limited by the laws of nature, which are nothing but laws of connection between matter in the universe. Those laws do not need a giver. The laws do not exist independently of matter. Hence my atheism.

ooman2:


For this same question, I went from being a deist to an atheist. I just couldn't accept "someone", who is so wise that "he" could create a universe and life, then abandon it for predetermined randomness to control. I don't see wisdom in that, I doubt a creator, who could abandon a universe could create it in the first place.

I found that this predetermined randomness is limited randomness as explained by the theory of evolution, it doesn't need a determiner. It is limited by the laws of nature, which are nothing but laws of connection between matter in the universe. Those laws do not need a giver. The laws do not exist independently of matter. Hence my atheism.

Unfortunately sir, Newton's first law of motion supports creation...

"An object will continue to be at rest until it is acted upon by an external force "

This clearly shows that atoms didn't just start rolling and bumping into each other to form a perfect entity like the universe...Something must have 'acted on it' .

Pr0ton:


And what's religion by definition?

................
By definition,religion means the belief in the existence of a GOD or gods.

herald9:


Unfortunately sir, Newton's first law of motion supports creation...

"An object will continue to be at rest until it is acted upon by an external force "

This clearly shows that atoms didn't just start rolling and bumping into each other to form a perfect entity like the universe ...Something must have 'acted on it' .

lol ....therefore hydrogen atoms in the sun don't fuse to form helium right?!
This is the underlying problem with people like benalvino2 and you....you extend the use of a principle to what it isn't used for and then declare a profound discovery...