Faith.

[kfinkelstein]

Because the evidence suggested becomes less and less observable through anything but mathmentics iself, and thus we are left to trust mathmatics as being infallible. 1+1, for example, equals two. we all know this, and you can put to rocks together and observe the result. When you start speculating about how an 11-dimension super-gravitational membarane makes up everything and anything we know, but we can only obseve 4 of those dimensions, the lines between concrete and abstracta are blurred.

[Cephus]

Quote by: kfinkelstein The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Theories such as super-string rely on dimensions that exist (or at least can only be observed) only on paper, but it certainly seems to tie the universe together. That is just as much faith as in any religion.

Absence of evidence is a damn good reason to reject the claim though. And most of those mathematical proofs rest on solid support, unlike any claims for the supernatural. I'd trust something that worked out on paper than something that the god squad just pulled out of their ass.

[kfinkelstein]

You can make anything work out on paper with the right systems in place..

[freedom13]

Being faithful, in the eyes of religion, is to have complete trust in your God without question. You have to have blind faith, and by that i mean you need to have complete trust and love for your God without any complete concrete proof that the being exists. Oh, and you should follow the rules of your God too.... forgot about that one.

Jesus says a wise man built his house upon a rock, and I wouldn’t call that blind faith. Blind faith could be the opposite, a man who built his house on sand.

Faith in what? Faith in the existence of the United States Government? No need for faith, we can demonstrate it exists. Faith that they're going to do a good job? That's about the worst thing you could ever believe in, given it's recent track record. Quote: 2. Do you also believe that the United States Government has been trustworthy toward the American people? Not for a second, but this isn't faith you're talking about, it's trust. Quote: 3. Should there be any disloyalty between the United States Government and the people? Given how disloyal the government has been toward the principles that America was founded upon, hell yes. Not sure how this has anything to do with religious faith though.

Faith definition: belief and trust in and loyalty to God

Good Faith is like a house built on the rock with trust and loyalty to God.

Blind faith is like a house built on sand and lacking of trust and loyalty to God.

The following parable illustration:

The Wise Man Who Builds on Rock and the Fool Who Builds on Sand

Matthew 7:15-29

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.

And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof.

And it came to pass when Jesus had fully ended these words, the people were in admiration at his doctrine. For he was teaching them as one having power, and not as the scribes and Pharisees.

[Cephus]

Quote by: kfinkelstein You can make anything work out on paper with the right systems in place..

If that were true, religion would have demonstrated that God exists "on paper" long ago.

[Cl3ver]

I knew there would be some great parable by the Man himself. Great post freedom.

So technically my faith wasn't wrong, it's just the wrong type of faith that a certain religion would ask for.

[kfinkelstein]

If that were true, religion would have demonstrated that God exists "on paper" long ago.

They have, but it may not be proof enough for some of us. Its called the bible, Torah, Quran, Etc.

[Cephus]

Quote by: kfinkelstein They have, but it may not be proof enough for some of us. Its called the bible, Torah, Quran, Etc.

That's not proof, that's a claim. Some people simply choose to believe it. The same is true of people who write books about UFOs, those are just claims, but you have a lot of people who accept them.

Science, and mathematics is a science, demands a much higher level of evidence. When the mathematics matches what we see in the real world and what we know of the real world leads to things that only mathematics can work out, that's a lot better than "God did it, so there" that you see in the Bible.

[nerdvincent]

So is that it: faith is believing in a claim instead of a proof?

[Porfyra]

Faith in what? Faith in the existence of the United States Government? No need for faith, we can demonstrate it exists. Faith that they're going to do a good job? That's about the worst thing you could ever believe in, given it's recent track record.

there are so many ways to describe faith it isn't even funny.

personally i see it as loyalty and trust. believing without seeing (as in being a christian or believing some other religion) is also defined as faith but could also be known as just believing. faith in the government would mean that you trust they will do a good job and you are loyal to them.

If that were true, religion would have demonstrated that God exists "on paper" long ago.

i think he does, but it depends on how you look at it. obviously if you just wrote your name on paper and sent it to me i wouldn't believe that you are the same person on the forum. but if God MADE the world and he MADE math then it is very easy to see him on paper.

That's not proof, that's a claim. Some people simply choose to believe it. The same is true of people who write books about UFOs, those are just claims, but you have a lot of people who accept them.

but the bible has alot of evidence behind it, whereas these UFO books have very little evidence. people choose to believe the bible because it is accurate and is backed up by hundreds of other historical documents.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Porfyra People choose to believe the bible because it is accurate and is backed up by hundreds of other historical documents.

Off topic, but is it?

[Porfyra]

yes.

[kfinkelstein]

You wanna provide some documentation to that effect?

[Porfyra]

sure


Bible Accuracy

Bible Accuracy

Bible Accuracy

Accuracy of Bible prophecy


i can find more if you want..........

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Porfyra sure Bible Accuracy Bible Accuracy Bible Accuracy Accuracy of Bible prophecy i can find more if you want..........

1. The first three links you provided go to the exact same page.

2. That page does not support the thesis that the bible is accurate.

3. The final page is riddled with factual errors of logical inconistancies and provides no evidence for its claims. Either that or the supposed passages whose predictions that came to fruition are very vague and largely meaningless.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Porfyra but the bible has alot of evidence behind it, whereas these UFO books have very little evidence. people choose to believe the bible because it is accurate and is backed up by hundreds of other historical documents.

Sorry, the Bible has no evidence behind it, at least for it's supernatural claims. It may have some historical elements but that does nothing whatsoever to support the religious aspects any more than the fact that Stephen King writes about actual New England locations somehow means that the monsters and boogiemen he writes about are real.

[Porfyra]

1. The first three links you provided go to the exact same page. 2. That page does not support the thesis that the bible is accurate. 3. The final page is riddled with factual errors of logical inconistancies and provides no evidence for its claims. Either that or the supposed passages whose predictions that came to fruition are very vague and largely meaningless.

oh sorry about the first three. my ctrl-C wasn't working so i just kept pasting the same thing

as for how you interpret the pages, well, that's not my problem. it's your life, your beliefs.

Sorry, the Bible has no evidence behind it, at least for it's supernatural claims. It may have some historical elements but that does nothing whatsoever to support the religious aspects any more than the fact that Stephen King writes about actual New England locations somehow means that the monsters and boogiemen he writes about are real.

you don't pay much attention, do you?

the prophecies? the miracles? the places in the bible are true, yes, but so are the events. do the research.

[Chris the Chees]

you don't pay much attention, do you?

Speaking with my mod hat on, such personal comments aren't necessary. But back to the point:

the prophecies?

As noted these prophecies are either exceptionally vague thus proving nothing, or thiests go out on a limb to attempt to claim they have been fulfilled.

the miracles?

History is riddled with supposed miracles that have occured. As an undergraduate history student, I wrote my dissertation on medieval chivalry, and I have read literally dozens of accounts of Muslims, Jews, Christians, pagans, etc, supposedly witnessing miracles. To put it blunty, in the past, people had a tendancy to 'spice' up the stories of their peoples heroes by having them performing miricles or various other inhuman feats. So, stories of miracles prove little.

the places in the bible are true, yes, but so are the events.

Some of them, some of them are chronologically out of place, some are very different from other accounts and many are entirely fictional. This, like miracles, is common to ancient and medieval literature. For example, Geoffrey of Monmouth in his psuedo-history Historia , makes numerous references to actual events; that does not stop his obvious fabrications from being entirely the product of imagination.

do the research.

I cannot speak for Cephus, but I have done a considerable amount of reading into biblical criticism; have you?

[Porfyra]

I cannot speak for Cephus, but I have done a considerable amount of reading into biblical criticism; have you?

yes.

As noted these prophecies are either exceptionally vague thus proving nothing, or thiests go out on a limb to attempt to claim they have been fulfilled.

ok... could i have something to back this up?

Some of them, some of them are chronologically out of place, some are very different from other accounts and many are entirely fictional. This, like miracles, is common to ancient and medieval literature. For example, Geoffrey of Monmouth in his psuedo-history Historia , makes numerous references to actual events; that does not stop his obvious fabrications from being entirely the product of imagination.

thats a nice example but what does it have to do with the bible? just because some dude somewhere made up stuff in a story doesn't mean the bible is made up.

[Chris the Chees]

ok... could i have something to back this up?

Very well, there is the relatively famous example of Jesus supposedly predicting the Roman's destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. (Mark 13:1-2)

"1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! 2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

The argument by christians is that this passage proves that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple, which would later occur in 70 C.E. However, modern historians largely accept that Mark was written at around 70 C.E. as a nationalistic tract providing history and hope to the Jews living under a destructive period of Roman occupation. The passage does not prove the fruition of a prophecy, but rather that Mark was at least part written after the destruction of the temple; but christians ignore this salient point and choose to take the utterly illogical and supernatural explaination that it must have been divine knowledge.

just because some dude somewhere made up stuff in a story doesn't mean the bible is made up.

It is a prime example of a work of fiction written in the past which was passed off as true and largely believed for a considerable period of time. It was eventually rejected as fiction because historians looked at it critically, attempted to find evidence that confirmed the claims made or anything that corroborated many of the claims in Geoffrey's work. If the same is applied to the bible, you will see that like Geoffrey, some is true, but a vast chunk is unsubstanciated by other available evidence and sources. If one, therefore rejects, Geoffrey (as everyone does) then by the exact same logic and methodology they should reject the bible. faith in the bible, is in my mind the complete rejection of logic and Rankean methodology.