RE: Punished for Babel?
July 18, 2013 at 9:45 am
(This post was last modified: July 18, 2013 at 9:51 am by fr0d0.)
Tex
'Belief' isn't faith. I believe through faith in God. Faith in the Christian tradition is acting upon knowledge you trust to be true/ My belief in God rests upon knowledge that I've accepted to be true. There has to be an assumption because ultimately God cannot be proven.
What failed attempts have you witnessed? I've witnessed many failed hypotheses. The prayer tests: bad failure that doesn't factor in that Gods response cannot be known. For example.
People do believe so isn't that fuel for speculation? They say it's true but you don't concur. On what grounds?
What about the evidence of existence? Everything either is or isn't the product of a singularity.
Big foot et al rely on physical existence so we can easily know what kind of evidence to expect. Someone could falsify a large footprint etc and then we could run various tests to check.
All we have to go on with God are logical precedents. We have a model to test (if we can formulate a working model, which I claim exists in Christian teaching). If, like me, you conclude that this model works without flaws, that's where you're at. You still have no reason to believe independently. Only acting upon the assumption can be called belief via faith.
Yes it would be blind faith to believe in improbable things without reason. That's what blind faith is. I have no reason to think that I could fly unaided at this moment in time. There (supposedly) is no evidence to support reasonable doubt that flight could or could not be possible. I'm forced to choose the most likely scenario. Unlike with my God question, where the balance is equal.
'Belief' isn't faith. I believe through faith in God. Faith in the Christian tradition is acting upon knowledge you trust to be true/ My belief in God rests upon knowledge that I've accepted to be true. There has to be an assumption because ultimately God cannot be proven.
What failed attempts have you witnessed? I've witnessed many failed hypotheses. The prayer tests: bad failure that doesn't factor in that Gods response cannot be known. For example.
People do believe so isn't that fuel for speculation? They say it's true but you don't concur. On what grounds?
What about the evidence of existence? Everything either is or isn't the product of a singularity.
Big foot et al rely on physical existence so we can easily know what kind of evidence to expect. Someone could falsify a large footprint etc and then we could run various tests to check.
All we have to go on with God are logical precedents. We have a model to test (if we can formulate a working model, which I claim exists in Christian teaching). If, like me, you conclude that this model works without flaws, that's where you're at. You still have no reason to believe independently. Only acting upon the assumption can be called belief via faith.
Yes it would be blind faith to believe in improbable things without reason. That's what blind faith is. I have no reason to think that I could fly unaided at this moment in time. There (supposedly) is no evidence to support reasonable doubt that flight could or could not be possible. I'm forced to choose the most likely scenario. Unlike with my God question, where the balance is equal.
(July 18, 2013 at 8:54 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: you think that god is a question that can never be proven. what i do not understand is how you get to "the assumption has to be made"It doesn't. Either side of the question is unknowable. You abstain from the choice, I have reason to take it.
