Judybash93:


Thanks for the answer but i didn't say that faith is belief in something without evidence. I said faith is belief "without enough evidence". I know that people can believe in something based on personal experience or experience of others such as what you said and that can serve as evidence up to a point but is it enough?

Also, you stated that "The only reason people have faith is because they believe some people, either in the past or presently, have benefited from their faith in that deity- which essentially forms the corpus of evidence, either written down or passed orally, that religious people hold on to."
In terms of the written version, do we have access to the real copies of the original, if oral, is there a possibility that original message must have been altered considering time and space as we've observed in the game called 'telephone'? Moreover, they have benefited from the deity in what way? Can we rule out natural causality in terms of the so called benefits?

michlins:
one thing about astronomy is that you can't learn about it and still believe the story of creation

Venerable612:


For clarity, I will oblige you this rejoinder.

1. "Enough" is a subjective word. At what point is evidence enough and by whose standard? I would rather stick with evidence or lack of evidence for completeness.

It's therefore irrelevant to argue if the experience on which people base their belief is negligible or significant. What is important is that people genuinely build their faith on these experience.

2. Whether we have access to original copies of the Bible cannot be verified. The same applies to oral accounts. The bible is passed down from ages - and yes, the present versions may not entirely be on all fours with the original versions.

But then again, what's important is that we continue to witness the experience narrated in the bible. These serves as evidence that the contents of the Bible are true today as they were ages ago. Even if the stories have been altered, we know God is able to those things and many more, because we ourselves continue to bear witness to these things in our lives.

3. Benefit is subjective. If I told you God blessed me with perfect health last year and I never took any medication throughout the year, this is a personal experience. You cannot fault it, because that is essentially my own personal reality.

In the same vein, the principle of causality CAN never explain spiritual benefits. Causality is based on empirical association - so that an event occurs because it is caused by another pre-existing, independent event. By its nature causality must be explainable in physical terms otherwhise it seizes to be causation.

P benefits are not explicable in terms of physical events. Something entirely incorporeal brings about physical effects - so that a Pastor may pray in Jesus name for a man to receive his sight and does so instantly without him touching the blind man. In this instance, causality cannot be used in explaining spiritual benefits.

You only talk of causation in terms of scientific corporeal explanations.

Judybash93:


In relation to enough evidence, I'll set the standard on what one can test and rank in relation to reality. For example, a claim that a person came back to life and ascended into the skies defies any known explanation. This sought of claim might have a number of anecdotal or hearsay evidence but cannot be tested to prove its reliability in relation to reality.

AGAIN, human logic can't comprehend spiritual realities - it's spiritual and that's why It cannot be tested with physical apparatus. It is also illogical to say something did not occur because it cannot be tested. Your argument commits an Argumentum ad logicam. Even all scientific statements about the past cannot be verified (including, the Bing Bang Theory). Nothing really explains why only Earth is habitable or why the planets hang in space without falling for the last centuries.

Essentially, I do not need to test Jesus' resurrection to believe it occured. It is a Christian fact - and it will be understandable if you can't comprehend this given your human limitations.


In addition, can those who believe have those experiences without the faith they claim to have?

If Christ did not arise, the faith of Billions of people would have been in vein. We experience his power through answered prayers because he ressurected and is alive. Again - I experience this everyday!

In relation to the statement "Even if the stories have been altered, we know God is able to those things and many more, because we ourselves continue to bear witness to these things in our lives." How can one come to the conclusion that the god in the book is the one behind the experiences?

By Faith.

Moreover, if you say the book has been altered, how is it still the truth?

Truth is a subjective term. What was received is believed to be the truth by Christian standards whether or not altered. They are true because we continue to experience those words today, as they were reported in the holy bible.

Yeah, sure, benefit is subjective and i can also claim that i had perfect health throughout last year because i didn't smoke, drink and was on a diet throughout the better part of the year. I don't think that can be faulted either.

Sure.

"so that a Pastor may pray in Jesus name for a man to receive his sight and does so instantly without him touching the blind man. In this instance, causality cannot be used in explaining spiritual benefits" i will like to see this in action or let's make it even better, I'll like to see a confirmed amputated limb grow.

Venerable612:


Yes, you should find some to visit TB Joshua's church.

Judybash93:


"If Christ did not arise, the faith of Billions of people would have been in vein. We experience his power through answered prayers because he ressurected and is alive. Again - I experience this everyday!"
In relation to this, the fact that a lot of people believe in something or have faith in something doesn't necessarily prove it's authenticity. It only proves that they believe. Also, people have literally bombed others because they believe they will meet 72 virgins somewhere. Their belief doesn't make it worthwhile or true.




Even all scientific statements about the past cannot be verified (including, the Bing Bang Theory). We have what we can observe to bring up hypothetical situations that can be further researched and that's why we have other scientists who bring up other models to explain the origin of the universe. Btw, science doesn't make claims of the truth.

"Nothing really explains why only Earth is habitable or why the planets hang in space without falling for the last centuries." The reason why the earth harbours life is because we lie in a habitable zone and in the future we might come across planets that share such characteristics with our planet. The size of universe is still in dispute as our current scientific knowledge and understanding of the way the universe works is still at it's youth. So, the earth is the only planet we know that harbours life isn't a proof that there's no other lifeform out there but it's proof that it's the one we know of. it'll be safe to say, i don't know if any lifeform exist elsewhere but there's a probability that some might exist somewhere in this gargantuan universe. The planets hang in space because of gravity. That's the force that literally keeps them in motion in relation to other bodies. This is a fact. You can read more on this.

"They are true because we continue to experience those words today, as they were reported in the holy bible." Which experiences sir?

"Essentially, I do not need to test Jesus' resurrection to believe it occured. It is a Christian fact - and it will be understandable if you can't comprehend this given your human limitations."
A fact is defined as an objective consensus on a fundamental reality that has been agreed upon by a substantial number of experts. Gravity is a fact. That the earth is not flat is a fact. How did the resurrection of Jesus become a fact? I think i have the answer to this already.. faith

Venerable612:


Bro, I studied philosophy in my first degree, and I was the best grad student in my set and as such I am quite familiar with renegade thoughts like yours. I can easily mention 10 logical fallacies inherent in ur arguments.

I will start from the rare. Fact is not objective. Facts are situational. Something may be a fact today and tomorrow it isnt. By the very nature of the word fact, nothing can be a fact if it is subject to change. Nothing can be a fact today and not be tomorrow.

By way of example - it used to be a fact that the Earth was thought to be flat, now it is not. Gravity could seize t exist tomorrow, God forbid the world ends and the earth crashes. Religious facts operate in the same manner. Observable today and tomorrow not observable to the five senses.

I won't take you to kant's concept of Truths but you could read further on this.

The planets hang in space because of gravity. That's the force that literally keeps them in motion in relation to other bodies.

Gravity is a human nomenclature. What exactly is gravity? Can man recreate gravity? How does it hold the planets? Of what form? Character is it? How does it hold all the planets and objects in the galaxies? What formed gravity? Why are the planets just 12? Why are humans only on earth? Why do we have the moon? Science can't explain all of these. At best it can only raise conjectures.

We have what we can observe to bring up hypothetical situations that can be further researched and that's why we have other scientists who bring up other models to explain the origin of the universe. Btw, science doesn't make claims of the truth.

The whole of scientific enquiry is a pursue of truth. Read Karl Popper for more information.

n relation to this, the fact that a lot of people believe in something or have faith in something doesn't necessarily prove it's authenticity. It only proves that they believe. Also, people have literally bombed others because they believe they will meet 72 virgins somewhere. Their belief doesn't make it worthwhile or true.

True. Belief is subjective and it doesn't make itself worthwhile. But that's the whole point of belief.... And this applies as well to cultural norms. In fact authencity is never acheiveable in a world as complex and relative as ours. And that's why we have the Law. Any moral or religious practices that goes against the common good is criminalised.

Venerable612:

Btw, I'll still like to know what convinced you that Christianity is the truth out of more than 3000 religions in the world today? I'm very much interested.

Venerable612:


Bro, I studied philosophy in my first degree, and I was the best grad student in my set and as such I am quite familiar with renegade thoughts like yours. I can easily mention 10 logical fallacies inherent in ur arguments.

I will start from the rare. Fact is not objective. Facts are situational. Something may be a fact today and tomorrow it isnt. By the very nature of the word fact, nothing can be a fact if it is subject to change. Nothing can be a fact today and not be tomorrow.

By way of example - it used to be a fact that the Earth was thought to be flat, now it is not. Gravity could seize t exist tomorrow, God forbid the world ends and the earth crashes. Religious facts operate in the same manner. Observable today and tomorrow not observable to the five senses.

I won't take you to kant's concept of Truths but you could read further on this.

The planets hang in space because of gravity. That's the force that literally keeps them in motion in relation to other bodies.

Gravity is a human nomenclature. What exactly is gravity? Can man recreate gravity? How does it hold the planets? Of what form? Character is it? How does it hold all the planets and objects in the galaxies? What formed gravity? Why are the planets just 12? Why are humans only on earth? Why do we have the moon? Science can't explain all of these. At best it can only raise conjectures.

We have what we can observe to bring up hypothetical situations that can be further researched and that's why we have other scientists who bring up other models to explain the origin of the universe. Btw, science doesn't make claims of the truth.

The whole of scientific enquiry is a pursue of truth. Read Karl Popper for more information.

n relation to this, the fact that a lot of people believe in something or have faith in something doesn't necessarily prove it's authenticity. It only proves that they believe. Also, people have literally bombed others because they believe they will meet 72 virgins somewhere. Their belief doesn't make it worthwhile or true.

True. Belief is subjective and it doesn't make itself worthwhile. But that's the whole point of belief.... And this applies as well to cultural norms. In fact authencity is never acheiveable in a world as complex and relative as ours. And that's why we have the Law. Any moral or religious practices that goes against the common good is criminalised.

Judybash93:

Kindledlight:
Someone once told me after you’ve passed the sun, You will see God. I don’t know how true is this?

It might be true because nobody can ever survive the intensity of the sun, Even some part of the earth far off is usually very very hot.