God Doesnt Exist

Originally posted by spamandham
Lack of evidence is evidence of absence when there is a reasonable expectation that evidence should be present. It isn't proof, but it is compelling circumstantial evidence, which is the best we can hope for.

I think the point I was trying to make was that if you close your mind to the possibility, you will not never see the possibility.

Faith is not something He forces on anyone. If He wished to do so, He would not have given us the freedom to choose. He will answer prayers to prepare one for faith, but faith is left to the individual choose or not to choose.

You think your prayer wasn't answered. But I would say that the first step in having an unshakable faith is becoming emotionally strong. True unconditional love is the ultimate expression of faith. When love is unconditional, one does not have a psychological dependancy on the object of the affection.

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
I think the point I was trying to make was that if you close your mind to the possibility, you will not never see the possibility.

Having an open mind does not mean accepting every absurd claim that comes along, it means being willing to consider all evidence no matter what conclusion it leads to. It is not closed minded to reject that which is both outrageous and has no evidence in support of it.

Is it closed minded to reject fairies and leprechauns? For a nonbeliever, the idea of god has no more credibility than those. However, if compelling evidence were presented that fairies and leprechauns were real, I would have to consider it. The same for god.

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
But I would say that the first step in having an unshakable faith is becoming emotionally strong.

I would argue just the opposite. Faith stems from emotional immaturity. It's a security blanket for those who can't deal with the finality of death, and who feel the need for there to be a purpose for existence.

Originally posted by spamandham
Faith stems from emotional immaturity.

Emotional maturity stems from emotional immaturity. Faith can lead one to emotional maturity. But, emotional immaturity is not prerequisite for faith.

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

Emotional maturity stems from emotional immaturity. Faith can lead one to emotional maturity. But, emotional immaturity is not prerequisite for faith.

I doubt that I can convince you. But, as an exercise, why not explain what faith is?

neither nature nor reality can be natural or real without being observed.

if it isn't observed, you can't prove it.

if consciousness itself is interchangeable with a word like "truth"

how can truth be seperated from truth?

can you hold a truth thing in your left hand and hold a true thing in your right hand and when you add them together they then make something that is not true?

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

Emotional maturity stems from emotional immaturity. Faith can lead one to emotional maturity. But, emotional immaturity is not prerequisite for faith.

I doubt that I can convince you. But, as an exercise, why not explain what faith is?

faith is knowing everyone is right. faith is what gives people the courage to face their fear and show people they are right. faith is more empowering than the truth it leads you to.

faith is many things to many people.

faith is knowing you are right for the simple reason that you know you are right.

faith is knowing everyone is right, because all the information integrated into thier brain comes from the same source as all the information you have integrated into your brain.

then again, maybe faith is just a made up word, like every other word.

Originally posted by spamandham
I doubt that I can convince you. But, as an exercise, why not explain what faith is?

I suppose you could use this definition:

Hbr 11:1 (RSV)
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

I do not see how faith stems from emotional immaturity? So then are you saying that to believe in something without proof you are immature emotionally? I would then propose to you, if you are in love with someone, how do you prove that? How do you really know there is such a thing as love?

I have always wondered why persons that do not believe in God are so intent of trying to convince those that do that they shouldn't or that there is something not right in their thinking. Why is it you cannot just accept the fact that there people that have a belief that you may not. I understand if someone is trying to push there beliefs on you and you explaining why and rebutting as I have my faith but I am not going to shove it down anyones throat.

My position is that I know what I believe and how I feel and I don't need any justification for it nor am I going to preach that you have to believe or else. We all have free will and we all can choose what we want to believe or not, whether it be in God or aliens. An opinion is just that, an opinion and beliefs can be personal and everyone has their right to them. Good luck on your quest and being happy in whatever you believe is always the most important thing.

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

Originally posted by spamandham
I doubt that I can convince you. But, as an exercise, why not explain what faith is?

I suppose you could use this definition:

Hbr 11:1 (RSV)
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Excellent. Faith is belief in that which is hoped for.

But what is maturity? Is it not the ability the act rationally independently of your desires? If you believe something simply because you hope it's true, isn't that a failure to maintain that independence?

Believing in something because your are motivated to believe it, rather than because there is compelling evidence, is a failure to reach maturity.

i think the only statement that we could conclude with, that's not being ignorant is..
Absolute certainity does not exist in a discussions like this, as long as our primitive conceptual framework doesn't change any time soon, i wouldn't see the question being answered with absolute certainity in any of our lifetimes.

[edit on 12/17/2004 by cheeser]

Originally posted by spamandham
But what is maturity? Is it not the ability the act rationally independently of your desires?

I would say maturity is the growth beyond our initial knowledge and selfish desires. Just my definiton though. Acting rationally independently is free will, which is clearly given to us. Acting according to our own desires is slavery, acting towards the betterment of each other is freedom. Sounds backwards at first, but once you habitually do it, it makes sense. That to me is growth and maturity.

Originally posted by spamandham
Believing in something because your are motivated to believe it, rather than because there is compelling evidence, is a failure to reach maturity.

I disagree (surprise, surprise) where finding these days the reverse is true. If I have to see it to believe, then I've failed to trust. Without trust, there's no love, faith, or hope. Rather than a mature individual who understands the need for these things, I become a hard-hearted skeptic who denies even proofs laid before me in fear of alternate motivation, a hidden evil, and only temporary facts. In doing so, denying truth becomes the consequence. These words all tie together and interrelate. Pick a side -

1.) Trust, love, faith, hope, truth

or

2.) Hard-hearted, skeptical, alternate motivations, hidden evil, temporary facts, truth denial

It's really not as hard as we humans like to make it out to be. Candidly, the reason why we don't chose #1 right now is that somewhere in our past, we accepted #1 and were hurt by it. Instead of understanding that getting hurt is part of the growth process, we reject it all together. I've yet to hear someone deny #1 because of any other reason, but welcome to hear more if there's information otherwise. If I had a big eraser, I'd take it and wipe out that experience that caused the hurt, then it'd be easy to be back to the first option again, but I cannot and am told I should not, for only by accepting these hardships can we be "mature and complete, lacking nothing" (James 1:2 falls right in line with this whole discussion).

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
I think the point I was trying to make was that if you close your mind to the possibility, you will not never see the possibility.

Having an open mind does not mean accepting every absurd claim that comes along, it means being willing to consider all evidence no matter what conclusion it leads to. It is not closed minded to reject that which is both outrageous and has no evidence in support of it.

Then I look forward to an explanation of the evidence which compels people to live by an irrational conformity to societal values -- the position of just about every atheist online.

Since people who hold this sort of religious position often bang on verbosely about 'evidence' -- as if they could even state their own religious position, never mind justify it -- I think we are entitled to see the colour of their money.

Faith stems from emotional immaturity. It's a security blanket for those who can't deal with the finality of death, and who feel the need for there to be a purpose for existence.

One reason I could never be an atheist is the untroubled assertion of things which the slightest investigation would reveal to be untrue.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally posted by saint4God
Acting rationally independently is free will, which is clearly given to us. Acting according to our own desires is slavery, acting towards the betterment of each other is freedom. Sounds backwards at first, but once you habitually do it, it makes sense.

Well, it doesn't sound backwards, it sounds like nonsense. Acting on your desires does not negate "free will", and I have no idea what you mean by acting toward the betterment of both rationality and desire.

Emotional maturity is the ability to act in ways you reason to be right, even if it opposes your desires. That's what I'm talking about when I say that faith is an emotionally immature position. Words have meaning. If you try to redefine your way into a better position, you are guilty of equivocation.

Originally posted by saint4God
If I have to see it to believe, then I've failed to trust.

True, but what is it you're failing to trust? You're failing to trust the con-men who tell you outlandish things on nothing other than their word and ancient hearsay. That's a noble form of distrust known as skepticism.

You have failed to trust in the existence of leprechauns. Because you don't trust, you have no knowledge of love, or truth. See how silly that is?

Originally posted by saint4God
These words all tie together and interrelate. Pick a side -

1.) Trust, love, faith, hope, truth

or

2.) Hard-hearted, skeptical, alternate motivations, hidden evil, temporary facts, truth denial

What you've presented a false dichotomy. I don't have to pick a side, because these are not the only possibilities. I can be open minded, skeptical, and truth seeking while also having love, and not being a sociopath. Skepticism is one of the tools of truth seeking.

Originally posted by saint4God
It's really not as hard as we humans like to make it out to be. Candidly, the reason why we don't chose #1 right now is that somewhere in our past, we accepted #1 and were hurt by it.

Candidly, how can you possibly know what goes on in the minds of total strangers? Are you psychic? Do you have such a mastery of psychology that you can know these things without even having to perform psychoanalysis? Or perhaps, could it be that you believe this for no reason other than you hope it's true?

Originally posted by roger_pearse
Then I look forward to an explanation of the evidence which compels people to live by an irrational conformity to societal values -- the position of just about every atheist online.

First explain why conformance is irrational. But doesn't your premise contradict itself? Atheism is a superminority, so those with that perspective have already demonstrated a willingness to nonconform in that regard.

Originally posted by roger_pearse
Since people who hold this sort of religious position often bang on verbosely about 'evidence' -- as if they could even state their own religious position, never mind justify it -- I think we are entitled to see the colour of their money.

Ok, I'm an atheist. I have no proof that gods don't exist. Happy?

However, I'm not an adragonist. There's an undetectable dragon living in my garage. I know it's there because I feel a burning in my bosom (dragons breath fire!). Also, the guy who sold me the house told me about it, and he has a really old book that confirms his good news. If you don't believe in the dragon, it will torment you while you sleep. I had some nightmares, so that's further proof that the dragon is real. You can choose not to believe if you want, but people who do that all reject the dragon because they have no love or hope and because they don't want to have to obey the dragon. The dragon demands that you send it 10% of your income. But he's reasonable, so it can be 10% of your net, not your gross. Although if you do give from your gross he will be much happier.

If you don't believe me, then it's up to you to prove the dragon isn't there you evil baby eating adragonist. Your failure to provide such a proof is further evidence that the dragon is real. In fact, the more people that fail to prove its nonexistence, the greater the obvious TRUTH that the Dragon is real.

Also, failure to believe me is proof that you are not mature enough to handle the reality of the all loving almighty Dragon. I'll ask him to forgive you, and to guide you toward belief, so that you won't have to face the consequences of your own foolish disbelief which you have freely chosen because you hate freedom.

Originally posted by roger_pearse
One reason I could never be an atheist is the untroubled assertion of things which the slightest investigation would reveal to be untrue.

No reasonable person could reject the obvious reality of the dragon. In fact, I've already provided you with insurmountable proof of his existence, and you are just being belligerant. There's still time to change your ways. But once the dragon becomes visible, it'll be too late. Join now before it's too late! After all, who knows when he's going to do it? You see, that's even more reason to believe!

May the Dragon be with you always!

Originally posted by spamandham
Well, it doesn't sound backwards, it sounds like nonsense. Acting on your desires does not negate "free will", and I have no idea what you mean by acting toward the betterment of both rationality and desire.

I think I didn't convey what I was trying to say very well then.

Originally posted by spamandham
Emotional maturity is the ability to act in ways you reason to be right, even if it opposes your desires.

I've concluded emotional maturity is the ability to act in ways that are right, whether you reason them to be that way or not, and most of the time it will conflict with your personal desires. Do you see the difference? We as people can rationalize anything to make it seem 'right' but it doesn't make it actually right.

Originally posted by spamandham
That's what I'm talking about when I say that faith is an emotionally immature position. Words have meaning. If you try to redefine your way into a better position, you are guilty of equivocation.

I'm guilty of many things. I can say though, I've made efforts and overcome many things I was guilty of. Perhaps you can explain what you mean by equivocation in this case. I like to change my perspective to see things at many angles. I hope that doesn't make me guilty of anything other than understanding.

Originally posted by spamandham
True, but what is it you're failing to trust? You're failing to trust the con-men who tell you outlandish things on nothing other than their word and ancient hearsay. That's a noble form of distrust known as skepticism.

Then I say don't trust people at their word and ancient hearsay. Go get your proof. If you're as skeptical as I was, then maybe that's what it'll take. Just please be careful how you go about it. All I was saying is I admire people who trust and have faith because they can feel what's right and don't need proofs.

Originally posted by spamandham
You have failed to trust in the existence of leprechauns. Because you don't trust, you have no knowledge of love, or truth. See how silly that is?

I was a leprechaun skeptic. I challenged and they were a no show. That's a 0 in my book for them. Nor are they claiming to be the source of trust, love, and truth. They're the source of gold and pranks according to legend. I've also not seen any 'fruits' of their labors - no pots of gold, no pranks.

Originally posted by spamandham
What you've presented a false dichotomy.

It is not false. By what authority do you judge this?

Originally posted by spamandham
I don't have to pick a side, because these are not the only possibilities. I can be open minded, skeptical, and truth seeking while also having love, and not being a sociopath. Skepticism is one of the tools of truth seeking.

You're right, you don't HAVE to do anything. Skepticism is good for shooting things down, not for discovering truth. Asking questions with a genuine interest and exploring things further leads to truth. If you glance at something and say "ah that's crap" then what, pray tell, have you learned?

Originally posted by spamandham
Candidly, how can you possibly know what goes on in the minds of total strangers? Are you psychic? Do you have such a mastery of psychology that you can know these things without even having to perform psychoanalysis? Or perhaps, could it be that you believe this for no reason other than you hope it's true?

I speak from experience. I did not say I know the minds of total strangers. I can say with a certain level what a person goes through because I happen to be one.


[edit on 21-6-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
I've concluded emotional maturity is the ability to act in ways that are right, whether you reason them to be that way or not, and most of the time it will conflict with your personal desires.

...
We as people can rationalize anything to make it seem 'right' but it doesn't make it actually right.

Well, we seem to agree that emotional maturity involves the ability to take action independently of your base desires. But believing what you hope to be true is an action driven by base desire. As such, it is a sign of emotional immaturity.

You seem to be saying something to the effect of "I hope it's true, therefor I believe it's true, therefor I know it's true. It would be immature to reject something I know to be true." Is that a fair assessment?

By the way, rationalizing is also a sign of emotional immaturity.

Originally posted by saint4God
Perhaps you can explain what you mean by equivocation in this case.

We were discussing emotional maturity, and you seemed to be trying to change definitions to suit the argument, such as defining "free will" as acting according to reason, even though acting according to desires is also an act of "free will". But nevermind, since we seem to have finally come to an agreement on what is meant by "emotional maturity".

Originally posted by saint4God
Then I say don't trust people at their word and ancient hearsay. Go get your proof.

You and I have had this discussion already, have we not? The proof is not mine to get. If your god exists, it's his place to provide such proof

Originally posted by saint4God
I was a leprechaun skeptic. I challenged and they were a no show. That's a 0 in my book for them.

You are thus fully justified to say "leprechauns don't exist", without having to qualify constantly that you can not prove they don't exist.

God is a no show for me as well. That's a 0 in my book. "God does not exist."

Originally posted by saint4God
It is not false. By what authority do you judge this?

You gave two choices with the claim it must be one or the other. I do not fit either. Therefor it was a false dichotomy. Do I really need to reference a third party authority to know I don't fit into either category you presented?

Originally posted by saint4God
You're right, you don't HAVE to do anything. Skepticism is good for shooting things down, not for discovering truth.

Skepticism is the underlying philosophy behind science. "Shooting things down" is also known as falsification, which is a disciplined approach to letting the evidence lead to the conclusions rather than forming a conclusion first and looking for evidence that supports it. Shooting down false ideas is the process by which the truth is revealed from the myths, legends, assumptions, etc. It's kind of sad that you think skepticism is something bad.

If you are unwilling to "shoot things down", you are forever stuck with your original assumptions.

Originally posted by saint4God
If you glance at something and say "ah that's crap" then what, pray tell, have you learned?

I hope you aren't assuming nonbelievers have all just glanced over at theists arguments and dismissed it as crap. The arguments tear themselves apart upon close examination. Most of the time, theists can not even present a coherent argument regarding theology, yet expect for noncoherent arguments to be taken seriously. The simple phrase "god created the universe ex nihilo" is a classic example of a statement devoid of any meaning that usually lies at the root of the definition of god.

How can I believe in a god who created the universe from nothing, when the very phrase "created the universe from nothing" is incomprehensible?

The ranks of atheism are filled with ex-theists who thought too much about theology. (there are a lot of boneheaded atheists as well)

Originally posted by saint4God
I can say with a certain level what a person goes through because I happen to be one.

Sorry then, it sounded like you were making a more general statement rather than simply relaying your personal experience.

Originally posted by spamandham
If you believe something simply because you hope it's true, isn't that a failure to maintain that independence?

One makes plans for some earthly event-- plans for lunch, plans for the weekend, plans for summer vacation, etc... All these things are simply hopes that one wishes to see fulfilled. When one makes earthly plans, one has faith that the planned events will occur.

Are these people also immature?

This is the same "substance" of the "assurance of things hoped for" in the definition I provided.

Believing in something because your are motivated to believe it, rather than because there is compelling evidence, is a failure to reach maturity.

I would say that one does not believe in anything that one is not motivated to believe-- even those things which are supported by compelling evidence. A "movement of will" (being motivated) is always required to believe something.

One can be motivated by evidence, personal testimony, or can be self motivated, but motivation always occurs when one comes to believe something to be true.





[edit on 21-6-2005 by Raphael_UO]

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
One makes plans for some earthly event-- plans for lunch, plans for the weekend, plans for summer vacation, etc... All these things are simply hopes that one wishes to see fulfilled. When one makes earthly plans, one has faith that the planned events will occur.

Are these people also immature?

The making of plans is based on past experience that they often come to fruition. When doing so, people also recognize that the plans might not come to fruition, and often prepare for that possibility as well. This is not faith (belief based on hope), it's an inference.

When planning for a picnic, you are a fool if you come to the belief that the weather will cooperate simply because you hope that it will.

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
I would say that one does not believe in anything that one is not motivated to believe-- even those things which are supported by compelling evidence. A "movement of will" (being motivated) is always required to believe something.

Perhaps, but that does not imply that all beliefs are of equal merit simply because there is a form of motivation behind them all. The nature of the motivation is important.

There are numerous examples of people coming to new beliefs in spite of motivation (hope in this sense) to believe otherwise, because the evidence simply could not be refuted.

The evidence plays a role in that movement of will within a rational person. Quantum mechanics was not embraced at first even though the evidence was compelling simply because it didn't fit the preconception of a billiard-ball type universe. It rubbed against the preconcieved notion that the universe was deterministic (maybe it is in some sense, but if so we haven't discovered it).

However, as the evidence mounted, it simply couldn't be rejected. The movement of will came after resignation that the evidence did not fit the Newtonian model.

Originally posted by spamandham
The making of plans is based on past experience that they often come to fruition. When doing so, people also recognize that the plans might not come to fruition, and often prepare for that possibility as well. This is not faith (belief based on hope), it's an inference.

When planning for a picnic, you are a fool if you come to the belief that the weather will cooperate simply because you hope that it will.

It is not faith when you change the definition we were using. The half of the definition you choose to acknowledge was, "the assurance of things hoped for," not "belief based on hope." The point of that reply was to point out that the "substance" of the definition I gave was the same as earthly plans.

As you pointed out the probability of said event occuring as planned leaves the fact of the future situation in some doubt. Ergo, one hopes when one makes a plan that the favorable outcome is the result. Because of the lesser probability of the unfavorable outcome, one is confident (assured) of the realization of the outcome one hopes for.

The evidence plays a role in that movement of will within a rational person. Quantum mechanics was not embraced at first even though the evidence was compelling simply because it didn't fit the preconception of a billiard-ball type universe. It rubbed against the preconcieved notion that the universe was deterministic (maybe it is in some sense, but if so we haven't discovered it).

However, as the evidence mounted, it simply couldn't be rejected. The movement of will came after resignation that the evidence did not fit the Newtonian model.

So then those who had faith in the Newtonian model were emotionally immature?


[edit on 22-6-2005 by Raphael_UO]

Originally posted by spamandham
Well, we seem to agree that emotional maturity involves the ability to take action independently of your base desires.

Ah good.

Originally posted by spamandham
But believing what you hope to be true is an action driven by base desire. As such, it is a sign of emotional immaturity.

Nope, not sure where you got that tangent from. Either a person has what it true or should hope on things they don't know about. One or the other. Hopes do not generate an outcome, it generates a positive outlook.

Originally posted by spamandham
You seem to be saying something to the effect of "I hope it's true, therefor I believe it's true, therefor I know it's true. It would be immature to reject something I know to be true." Is that a fair assessment?

I agree that this is an incorrect way of thinking.

Originally posted by spamandham
By the way, rationalizing is also a sign of emotional immaturity.

Rationalizing to change the truth to conform to one's own selfish desires is emotional immaturity. One should always seek to understand though by using reason and logic.

Originally posted by spamandham
We were discussing emotional maturity, and you seemed to be trying to change definitions to suit the argument, such as defining "free will" as acting according to reason, even though acting according to desires is also an act of "free will". But nevermind, since we seem to have finally come to an agreement on what is meant by "emotional maturity".

I have no intent on changing base definitions or deception. I do my best to look up words if it's questionable on it's usage in a circumstance. This is not to say I'm completely accurate in conveying feelings or complex concepts. This is why I tend to use many words and talk around thing to make sure we have a panoramic perspective on the topic. A great example is the discussions madmanacrosswater and I have been having. I questioned a lot of his word choices, but now understanding what he meant by them, they make a whole lot more sense to me. If I use definition A and someone uses definition B, clarification is imperative as not to falsely assume an incorrect meaning. I signed a statement to speak the truth per the agreement to join ATS and have every intention to fulfill it with with my statements. If that's not the case, then certainly it's to the best interest of the people here for me to be removed.

Originally posted by spamandham
You and I have had this discussion already, have we not? The proof is not mine to get. If your god exists, it's his place to provide such proof

It don't work like that.

Originally posted by spamandham
You are thus fully justified to say "leprechauns don't exist", without having to qualify constantly that you can not prove they don't exist.

I didn't prove what didn't exist. I got proof of what does exist. What does exist informs me of what does and does not exist.

Originally posted by spamandham
God is a no show for me as well. That's a 0 in my book. "God does not exist."

Per above, you did not seek Him out, you're waiting for Him to seek you out. From my experience and interactions with Him, I can say you may be waiting a looooong time.

Originally posted by spamandham
You gave two choices with the claim it must be one or the other. I do not fit either. Therefor it was a false dichotomy. Do I really need to reference a third party authority to know I don't fit into either category you presented?

No, I know people are stuck inbetween (which by the way was our own doing). The dichotemy was not in reference to people, rather everything that exists beyond people.

Originally posted by spamandham
Skepticism is the underlying philosophy behind science. "Shooting things down" is also known as falsification, which is a disciplined approach to letting the evidence lead to the conclusions rather than forming a conclusion first and looking for evidence that supports it. Shooting down false ideas is the process by which the truth is revealed from the myths, legends, assumptions, etc. It's kind of sad that you think skepticism is something bad.

I am a skeptic in many things conciously and subconciously, am I calling myself bad? My compliment goes to those who are able to use reason and logic and go "hm...let me think about this" instead of tossing it aside saying "I can see it so it can't be true". Even further, based on things known to be true to TRUST that everything flowing from that source is also true.

Originally posted by spamandham
If you are unwilling to "shoot things down", you are forever stuck with your original assumptions.

I will shoot things down when the things I know to be true contradict the things I know not to be true.

Originally posted by spamandham
I hope you aren't assuming nonbelievers have all just glanced over at theists arguments and dismissed it as crap. The arguments tear themselves apart upon close examination. Most of the time, theists can not even present a coherent argument regarding theology, yet expect for noncoherent arguments to be taken seriously. The simple phrase "god created the universe ex nihilo" is a classic example of a statement devoid of any meaning that usually lies at the root of the definition of god.

To say all Christians should care about science is like saying all professors should care about football. We all have our special interests of study. I personally think Christians should investigate the creation of the universe (since I'm interested in it as well) but nowhere stated is it a requirement. If I ask you specifics on I-9 valid documentation according to the Immigration Reform and Control Act, would you be able to tell me? Why not, are you not a citizen of the country? Shouldn't you know by what paperwork criteria people are allowed residency and employment?

Originally posted by spamandham
How can I believe in a god who created the universe from nothing, when the very phrase "created the universe from nothing" is incomprehensible?

You run into the same problem with science. Everything has it's origin, yet science cannot define where particulate matter originated from. How is not knowing in science different than not knowing as a Christian?

Originally posted by spamandham
The ranks of atheism are filled with ex-theists who thought too much about theology. (there are a lot of boneheaded atheists as well)

Well, at least your being fair about calling both sides of the fence boneheads...it's a shame you're missing those inbetween. Anyway, just because there are ex-theists does not mean God doesn't exist. All it establishes is that they did not find what they were looking for. It would be then that I'd question what it is they were looking for, where they were looking, and how much effort was put into the search.

Originally posted by saint4God
Sorry then, it sounded like you were making a more general statement rather than simply relaying your personal experience.

No worries. I've had people scream (no kidding), "well just because it works for you doesn't mean it works for everyone else!" and walk away. What I found was most strange about the conversation was they were questioning why they couldn't lose weight. All I said was that I lost 40 pounds by exercising 15 minutes a day doing cardio and cut saturated fat to under 30% a day. By saying that I'm telling them what to do? My bad, just trying to help.


[edit on 22-6-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
It is not faith when you change the definition we were using. The half of the definition you choose to acknowledge was, "the assurance of things hoped for," not "belief based on hope." The point of that reply was to point out that the "substance" of the definition I gave was the same as earthly plans.

Well of course anything can mean everything with insufficient specificity. In religious discussions, the context of faith is "belief without proof".

In the case of Christianity, you provided Paul's definition as "faith is a confident anticipation of things hoped for, a full persuasion of events not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). The portion after the comma clarifies that it is not merely a reserved confidence (as in the case of planning a picnic), but a "full persuasion", i.e., no doubt. It also clarifies that this doubtless belief is in "events not seen", i.e. that which can not be proven.

Is it common to plan a picnic with no doubt about the weather, and without even checking the forcast? And even if the forcast is checked, is there full persuasion that the weather will cooperate?

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
So then those who had faith in the Newtonian model were emotionally immature?

Well first, you'd have to identify a group that had faith in the Newtonian model - i.e., those who accepted it without any proof simply because that's what they wanted. If there were people in such a group, then yes, they were emotionally imature. I'm unaware of such a group.

Keep in mind though that there still is plenty of evidence for Newtonian physics (for typical observations), so I don't see how you could call that faith. It was a conviction based on evidence, rather than based on hope. The greater the evidence in support of a position, the greater the threshold of evidence to overcome it.

The faith part was that the universe was fundamentally deterministic. There is no way to infer that from macroscopic observations, and it really was just a desired outcome, so I think that counts as faith. Yes, those who took such a perspective could have used a bit more emotional maturing, assuming they realized that's what they were doing.

[edit on 22-6-2005 by spamandham]