Perfection!

[tackattack]

---

There is no such thing as a wrong direction in evolution. There is no intrinsic flaw in nature, nature just is. The idea of flaw is an entirely human one. It may express an ethical or esthetical judgement or a shortcoming in the model of nature as made by man. If nature gives unexpected results it's not because nature has flaws, but because our model of nature has flaws.

Based off Fr0d0's post this just had to be done

There is no such thing as a wrong direction in Faith. There is no intrinsic flaw in God, God just is. The idea of flaw is an entirely human one. It may express an ethical or esthetical judgement or a shortcoming in the idea of God as made by man. If God gives unexpected results it's not because God has flaws, but because our model of God has flaws.

I like your response tackattack, and it had occurred to me when I wrote down my sentences that this one might come. A pitty of the first sentence though, why insert faith instead of god? The problem with your version is of course that it is a skyhook construction: you assume that god IS, where nature is verifiable all around is.

If you make the assumption god = nature your word use resembles that of Einstein. But there is a big difference with most religious takes in that Einstein was horrified by the idea that god is a personal god.

---

I inserted faith instead of God because I was substituting the word Nature for God. I feel that evolution is an explination for human nature thus faith is an explination for the idea of God. I agree that God himself being a personal one is horrifying. Theese are my thoughts on it. God is an entity that either existed in the sigularity before the bigbang or outside of it entirely. It is out of our reach, on this plane of existance, to go outside our universe to my knowledge. Therefore God will never be knowable. As a Christian, we believe that you can have an idea of what aspects of God could be by observing the effects of him within our universe. This "idea of God" is and should be personal as it is very subjective, being a construct of reason and perception. I'm not assuming God = Nature, just a little wordplay. If God were nature I'd have no reason to use the word Nature. Through observing nature/reality I can observe aspects attributable to God, but this of itself doesn't prove God exists. It does support my belief that most likely my idea of a God is a correct presumtion because it holds true to every test I put on it.