posted
I’d like to point out that when I use “faith” in a religious sense I’m talking about the Rob’s first definition – “1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.” Believe that God exists does not equal faith in God.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: When was the last time? I mean, are the official declarations considered scripture?
The last time was on September 30, 1978, and yes, the official declarations are considered scripture since they are part of the Doctrine and Covenants and they were given by revelation, just like any of the other standards for church procedure given in the D&C.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are they part of the D&C, though? Section 131 was in the back as an appendix for a while before being incorporated into the D&C.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Are they part of the D&C, though? Section 131 was in the back as an appendix for a while before being incorporated into the D&C.
You may be right. It is possible that the two declarations are not canon since they basically just affirmed previously existing doctrine rather than presenting any new doctrine.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another forum I have frequented for years (designed for discussion of LDS issues) has debated the issue of the Official Declarations before. There is general agreement that OD-1 and OD-2 are both canonized scripture, because they were accepted as such by common consent when presented by the First Presidency in General Conference.
There is still a stirring debate over whether the comments to OD-1 (the Manifesto) are canonized scripture. Specifically, the comment by Woodruff to the effect that God would never allow him or any other Prophet to lead the Church astray.
posted
Isn't this something that isn't exactly subject to debate? I mean, if there isn't a statement that says "this is canonized scripture", then its on the same level as conference talks.
*thinks* Are conference talks scripture?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:When was the last time? I mean, are the official declarations considered scripture?
Yes, so 1978.
From that declaration...
quote: Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord.
This is the same process by which the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, the other declerations, and the Pearl of Great Price entered the canon. I'm not sure about the Articles of Faith.
It's interesting to note that the Lectures on Faith are not included in the Doctrine and Covenants anymore -- but not because they got 'voted' out, but because it would appear that they never went through the process in the first place.
From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:
quote:Until 1921 the "Lectures on Faith" were printed in almost all the English-language editions of the Doctrine and Covenants, and in many, but not all, non-English editions. An introductory statement in the 1921 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants explains that the lectures were deleted because "they were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons" (see Doctrine and Covenants Editions).
EDIT: You people are too fast. I don't think conference talks are scripture, but I'm sure there are members who disagree and think that they are.
quote:It isn't in the canon yet, but you can bet your tushie it's scripture.
Well, see, now this is why people get confused.
I think that Scott is right -- and fundamentally it doesn't matter because just because something isn't 'canonized' doesn't mean that it doesn't apply.
At the same time however, Mormons who grip onto something said in one conference talk at one time and wave it around like it's the absolute truth even if it doesn't completely mesh with other things that have been said are just plain wrong, imo.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do you believe that faith is genetic? That it is a product of . . . sunlight and certain environmental factors, perhaps?
*applauds*
quote: There is rationale and logic in every believer's belief. . . just because YOU can't see the logic doesn't mean it isn't there.
Very well put, Scott.
quote: Most of all, Science's bias is on that-which-is-already-known. To say that "the scientist in question creates knowledge of future events" is really quite false. Not least because they are not creating knowledge as much as they are guessing at unknown knowledge, but also because most theories are proven WRONG anyway. THAT'S the scientific method. To rule out wrong possibilities until a verifiable solution is found--by virtue of guessing correctly.
*applauds* Very true, Caleb!
quote: That the scientific method is the only way to find accurate information.
Scientists do not believe that, Robespierre! Serendipity, inductive reasoning, and other methods have led to many important discoveries and knowledge.
quote: The heat is causing the AIR around it to move, creating different densities.
Again I wonder if this is poor comprehension or poor phrasing. This is, at best, a severe oversimplification.
quote: I think people gain faith by not understanding the world around them. They create(or find) a comforting set of beliefs to make the world seem more friendly.
Wow. How incredibly insulting! Please explain then, the MANY religious scientists. Not to mention the collection of knowledgeable, educated people you are currently debating with.
quote: I've been asking for this logic now for 10 posts, so far no one has responded....
Actually, people spent most of the first few pages of the thread discussing that. Feel free to go back and read them.
As far as your definitions of faith, I also define my faith in terms of #1. And btw, I think science is a wonderful thing; a way to learn all the wonders of the world God created, and thereby learn more about Him. But science, being a study conducted by limited, mortal humans, is fallible! Any claim that it is not enters the realm of your second definition of faith.
quote: You die, thats what happens. Nothing. Proven time and time again. Now of course, we cannot prove that your "soul" doesn't go somewhere and have a party with other souls, but without any evidence for this, we must discount it as fantasy.
Perhaps that's what happens to YOU.
quote: Maybe I was a little murky there, but I am not going to go into a full description of quantum physics.
"Murky" is a good description of a lot of your scientific explanations. Oh, and you need not start explaining quantum physics to me. Until fairly recently, I was a science teacher. I have a degree in chemistry. And if I really have a problem, I'll go ask my dad, an internationally known quantum physicist.
quote: There IS actually some evidence that faith may be genetic, believe it or not; they've found different congenital brain structures in people with strong supernatural beliefs than in people who are avowed skeptics.
I suspect it is difficult to prove that such structures are indeed "congenital" rather than formed as a result of long-term thought processes. Besides, I know plenty of "avowed skeptics" who are quite religious. I would be interested in reading these studies, though, if you have a link? Or a source I can find elsewhere?
quote: For those things which are NOT measurable, precise, or observable, science is of little value.
quote:Serendipity, inductive reasoning, and other methods have led to many important discoveries and knowledge.
All backed by the scientific method. One cannot trust the results of a serendipitous discovery with out replicating and confirming them through the use of SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
quote: Again I wonder if this is poor comprehension or poor phrasing. This is, at best, a severe oversimplification.
Your attempt to throw me off topic by insulting my intelligence is shameful. If you REALLY want me to explain that Infrared Radiation(heat) does not bend light waves, and would like me to explain how light passing through matter of varying densities DOES refract light, then so be it. Are you claiming the heat itself bends light?
quote: Please explain then, the MANY religious scientists.
What is there to explain? It is not impossible for a scientist to use logic in one area, and not in another. This does not make the scientist correct.
quote:But science, being a study conducted by limited, mortal humans, is fallible! Any claim that it is not enters the realm of your second definition of faith.
No one claims science to be infallible. The definition of the Scientific Method should clue you in to this. The current theories are only current until someone finds evidence of nature acting in a way that is contrary to these theories. You seem to want to ignore the enormous error correction apparatus built into science.
quote: "Murky" is a good description of a lot of your scientific explanations. Oh, and you need not start explaining quantum physics to me. Until fairly recently, I was a science teacher. I have a degree in chemistry. And if I really have a problem, I'll go ask my dad, an internationally known quantum physicist.
Oh yeah!? Well my dad..... works in a factory. Does that make my point any more or less correct? Your false appeal to authority is a typical logical fallacy. I have had many science teachers, who had not even a college graduate's understanding of science or the scientific method. I could care less who your dad is, or what your previous employment was. Since you seem so keen on thinking you are the smartest person in the universe, why don't YOU explain what Caleb ment in his post about the heat of the sun could be bending light.
quote:For those things which are NOT measurable, precise, or observable, science is of little value.
Anything that is not observable, is of NO consequence. Explain how something that is neither measurable, precise, or observable would affect this universe.
I do not like the escalation in your tone. The discussion seemed to be remaining civil, but you are in danger of throwing that away. If what I am saying upsets you, and causes you to be unable to respond in a civil manner, why don't you just ignore this thread?
posted
"The last function of reason is to recognize there are an inifinite of things which surpass it." Blaine Pascal
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Robespierre, I felt that you were being incredibly insulting. I thought my response was rather restrained. But since you clearly were offended, I apologize.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Accepted. And I will apologize if i said anything that specifically antagonized you. I am keen to keep the conversation from flying into ranting and yelling. I am new to this board, and I have the impression that this board is a calm one, with little to no name-calling and a laid back clientel. This is exactly the environment I have been looking for. Plenty of smart people around too.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll be taking that credit for being a prophet now, thank you.
Again, I did not mean to suggest that heat from the Sun could bend the light passing by it... I already said that once, let's not cover it again.
The POINT of what I was saying is that Science is fundamentally flawed insofar as it is only able to uncover knowledge that it is LOOKING FOR.
Hence its lack of value in a discussion of things which cannot, at present, be measured.
Your assertion that "anything that is not observable, is of no consequence" is what's really at issue here, seeing as how about 90% of the world's population would disagree with you. That, too, is an "appeal to authority" in a way, but I think you're a bit too comfortable claiming that all of these people are simply mistaken without having any *ahem* scientific evidence to back up that position.
Can you show, scientifically, that that which is not observable is of no consequence? What is 'consequence', anyway?
Ideally anything that is real ought to be observable, but you cannot forget that simply BEING an active observer discounts your ability to observe objectively, and there's nothing to suggest that human beings are ABLE to observe all things that are real.
The Big Bang Theory, for example. It fits the facts and it's useful to know about it, but in the end it is not provable. This would be an example of something with value that cannot be observed.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'm sorry, but I need a restatement of what exactly you want to discuss related to faith. I don't think that many people here would argue with your claims about science and the scientific method as long as you acknowledge its limits -- which you seem to do above.
And I don't know that many of us would quibble with the statement that matters of faith cannot be *proved* by the scientific method [as it is currently defined by most of the science community].
So what exactly are we supposed to be talking about here?
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Everything you've told us about being helped by God is a matter of optimistic outlook.
This is kind of funny. Everyone around me knows what a pessimist I am. I don't think I'm EVER optimistic about anything EXCEPT God. Hmmm...I wonder why that is?
Forgive me if someone already posted this (esp. in this thread). I've missed the past eight pages of this topic and I don't feel like going through the whole thing...my connection is so slow it'd take a week.
quote: Can you show, scientifically, that that which is not observable is of no consequence? What is 'consequence', anyway?
I do not need to show that. In your very description you preclude any value of such a thing by declaring it un-observable. If I claim that there are tiny actors in my TV that make the nice shows for me, but am not willing to open the TV and see if there are any actors in there, my theory will remain useless.
quote:The Big Bang Theory, for example. It fits the facts and it's useful to know about it, but in the end it is not provable. This would be an example of something with value that cannot be observed.
What facts does the Big Bang Theory fit? Are these facts observable? (I know that there are facts, and that it IS observable, I am just asking if you know this) There are in existence some theories which do not offer ways to determine their truth. Such theories are useless until someone can determine a way to test them.
quote: but I think you're a bit too comfortable claiming that all of these people are simply mistaken
500 years ago most people thought the earth was flat. Would you say the Comubus was arrogant or "too comfortable"?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: So what exactly are we supposed to be talking about here?
When I stepped in, people seemed to be discussing holy texts and which ones were more or less "true." I began by asking why those who believe, accept these texts as absolute truth. It evolved from there. If this is all too far off topic, I have no problem creating a science VS religion thread. What do you think?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, no, 500 years ago many uneducated thought the earth was flat. Educated people had known the earth was flat for about 2000 years or so.
The greeks and egyptians figured it out. However, when the dark ages rolled around, this knowledge was lost to superstition and religion for 1000 years. Educated and uneducated alike thought the earth was flat until the 1500's.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I have a co-worker who tells me that the earth is no more than 6000 years old. He asserts that the bible is a complete and accurate document, which is unflawwed. This is what I mean by absolute truth. I am not sure how others here view the bible, but this belief seems to be wide spread.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, I have a co-worker who tells me that the earth is no more than 6000 years old.
See, now I would not agree with that. It has been less than 6000 years since Creation, but I don't believe that the "six days" of Creation were necessarily literal.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I see. I doubt that you'll find anyone at Hatrack that believes that -- and that's a pretty boring debate anyway.
How about something more interesting vis a vis science and religion:
Can science learn anything valuable from scriptural texts (Christian or otherwise)? And can that value be more than just personal (i.e. a scientist finds comfort or whatever in faith) but come in the form of opening new scientific frontiers or suggesting ways of going about 'doing' science that aren't currently employed?
EDIT: I should add that this question is not a set up. I know that there are religionists who would answer yes to that question, but I'm not convinced either way. I ask the question as one who is intersted in how discourse (especially written texts) influence how humanity experiences and shapes this world.
quote:originally posted by Robespierre You die, thats what happens. Nothing. Proven time and time again. Now of course, we cannot prove that your "soul" doesn't go somewhere and have a party with other souls, but without any evidence for this, we must discount it as fantasy.
Why must we discount it as fantasy if we can’t prove it? Do you believe that everything that happens in the universe is provable? If so, what is the [provable] basis for this view?
You may want to take a look at Gödel sometime to see a mathematical proof that not everything that is mathematically true can be mathematically proven.
quote:originally posted by Robespierre The greeks and egyptians figured it out. However, when the dark ages rolled around, this knowledge was lost to superstition and religion for 1000 years. Educated and uneducated alike thought the earth was flat until the 1500's.
Well, no, actually. The Copernicus/Galileo disputes w/ the Church were about whether the sun rotated around the earth or the earth rotated around the sun, not about whether the earth was flat. See this link for a brief overview:
quote: From the foregoing, it’s not surprising that flat-earthism has been associated with Christianity since the beginning. Many of the Fathers of the Church were flat-earthers, and they developed a system with which to oppose the Greek astronomy then becoming popular. As late as 548 A.D., the Egyptian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes was vigorously defending the flat earth in his book Christian Topography. But Cosmas was fighting a losing battle, and the Ptolemaic system, based on a spherical earth, rapidly took over. By the 12th century (despite Edward Blick’s implication to the contrary), the flat-earth concept was essentially a dead letter in the West.Emphasis added.
Columbus was not trying to convince people the world was round when he argued for his voyage, he was trying to convince them that the world was small enough to safely make the trip (not knowing about the Americas at the time). No one argued against the voyage because they thought the boat would sail off the edge of the earth. Remember, the art of navigation widely in use at the time absolutely required acknowledging the earth is a sphere.
If you really want to have a faith/science discussion, you need to get your facts straight.
quote: Can science learn anything valuable from scriptural texts (Christian or otherwise)?
Archeology can be aided by ancient texts. All of the western world was familiar with the city of Troy before it was even discovered to be an acutal city. My problem comes when biblical archeologists claim that becuase they confirm some cities in the bible actually existed, that it confirms the truth of the bible as a holy text. This merely confirms that the names of real places were used when writting it. If this logic were sound, we would be forced to believe that Odyssius actually did stab a cyclops named Polyphemus in the eye because the city of Troy has been discovered.
quote: but come in the form of opening new scientific frontiers or suggesting ways of going about 'doing' science that aren't currently employed?
This is certainly possible. Science did evolve from religion. Astronomy is the direct decendant of astrology. Chemistry is the child of alchemy. The point to made here though, is that these fields were based on observations of the real world. Most of what religions write about in the real world has been explained by science, or is never going to be explained, because it is un-observable.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Many of the Fathers of the Church were flat-earthers, and they developed a system with which to oppose the Greek astronomy then becoming popular. As late as 548 A.D., the Egyptian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes was vigorously defending the flat earth in his book Christian Topography.
I said
quote: The greeks and egyptians figured it out. However, when the dark ages rolled around, this knowledge was lost to superstition and religion for 1000 years.
I will admitt that your source says I am wrong about the 1000 years. However, I was correct in saying that the greeks and egyptians figured it out.
quote: The Copernicus/Galileo disputes w/ the Church were about whether the sun rotated around the earth or the earth rotated around the sun, not about whether the earth was flat.
No one here brought up Copernicus/Galileo until you. Why do you mention this well known fact?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I say that there is not a God, and that he does not help me in any way, as he does not exist.
Yeah, I get it, its the title of the thread. I thought we were cool about were the discussion was going though.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The flat/round thing began when I said this:
quote: 500 years ago most people thought the earth was flat. Would you say the Comubus was arrogant or "too comfortable"?
I made a mistake. I should have used an example I knew more about.
However, this whole thing makes my point. There are MANY MANY people who think as I did, that people were not aware of the spherical earth during the dark ages. Just because many people think that, does not make it true. However, I have responded to observable data, and changed my view on the subject.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why is observable data the only proper grounding for truth?
How else can something be verified as true?
It seems that to ask the question, is to state the answer.
To be sure, it is possible to simply accept something as true, without observing it at all. However, there would be no way of knowing if you were correct or not. You may think your idea is true, but have no way of knowing if it is or not.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem, Rob, is that you're using Science--or the existence of science, really--to come to a conclusion about the non-existence of God. Now, I'm totally open to the possibility that there may not be a God, but as you yourself have argued, science cannot be used to interpret something for which we have no scientific data. Ergo, to come to a SCIENTIFIC conlusion about the non-existence of God is rather silly.
To say "science can't see it, therefore it does not exist" is as unscientific as you can get. You'd have to start from the assumption that modern science can see EVERYTHING, and then you'd have to PROVE that it can already see everything, and then you'd have to provide evidence showing that God does not exist. None of these can be done, which is why your blanket statements asserting that Science proves God does not exist are faulty. What you CAN say is that "I don't believe science has ever encountered any data that would support the existence of God".
I was just joking about the help thing, sort of. You should recognize that this discussion, by virtue of its subject matter, involves primarily those individuals who DO believe in a God, and you should flavor your posts respectfully keeping that in mind.
Respectfully would not include suggesting that all who believe in God are illogical OR unscientific. Naturally every individual sees their own beliefs as logical, or they would not believe them. If it is your intent to convince them that their beliefs are illogical, you'll need to prove to them with evidence that their beliefs are unfounded, rather than claiming that science-in-general proves them wrong. Especially because science-in-general really has nothing to say about the existence of God other than the fact that it "can't prove anything one way or the other".
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is not to say that Science couldn't EVENTUALLY prove or disprove the existence of God, I should add. Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: To say "science can't see it, therefore it does not exist" is as unscientific as you can get.
I totally agree with you, but who said that?
quote: Now, I'm totally open to the possibility that there may not be a God, but as you yourself have argued, science cannot be used to interpret something for which we have no scientific data. Ergo, to come to a SCIENTIFIC conlusion about the non-existence of God is rather silly.
Who caim to a "scientific" conclusion about the non-existence of God? I could be wrong, but I don't ever recall stating that science says there is no God. I DO remember questioning people who claim that there IS a God, and asking for evidence.
You are misplacing the burden of proof. The burden lies on the shoulders of believers. Science does not need to prove that something doesn't exist. Those who say this thing does exist, need to provide positive evidence that it does.
You said:
quote: Especially because science-in-general really has nothing to say about the existence of God other than the fact that it "can't prove anything one way or the other".
Which sounds like something I said:
quote: Logic, however, does NOT make predictions about what you believe.
and
quote: But you can NEVER prove that lying is a sin. Or that Jesus was the son of God. These sort of things are outside the world of logic
quote:originally posted by Robespierre How else can something be verified as true?
It seems that to ask the question, is to state the answer.
But why do all truths need to be verifiable? You take some things on faith (definition 1, not 2). For example, you believe that in 1919 Eddington actually carried out an experiment that verified the curvature of light caused by the sun’s gravity. I’m assuming you weren’t there; obviously you trusted someone’s account of the event.
quote:To be sure, it is possible to simply accept something as true, without observing it at all. However, there would be no way of knowing if you were correct or not. You may think your idea is true, but have no way of knowing if it is or not.
Most people have no way of directly verifying most of the things they believe. For example, Eddington did not prove that light was deflected – he measured the position of a star. In effect, all he “proved” was that a the point in time of the eclipse, a star X was in position Y.
It was only by comparing that position to someone else’s measurement of the star when it was not behind the sun and by applying mathematical formulas that someone else developed that allowed him to say that the light from the star was being bent by the sun.
Let me be clear, I think this is an entirely valid way to discover truths about the physical universe (despite the fact that Eddington actually made a mistake in his measurements and had to be proven right later).
But to say that this method relies only on observable data is not true – it relies on other persons’ accounts of observed data. These accounts are not “verifiable” without doing their experiments over again – and even then it only verifies the phenomenon to the people who witness the re-verification. Without some willingness to believe in something unprovable, science could not advance.
At this point you’d be hard-pressed to prove that someone name Albert Einstein existed and came up with the two theories of relativity. But I believe he existed and, to the extent I am able to comprehend his theories, I believe his theories exposed some heretofore unknown truths about the physical universe.
posted
You are blurring the line between Faith #1 and Faith #2. Belief in God, as agreed earlier, is something that requires Faith #2.
quote: At this point you’d be hard-pressed to prove that someone name Albert Einstein existed and came up with the two theories of relativity.
I could show you the original copies of the papers written by him, corrolate those with examples of his handwritting, show you motion pictures of him, have you interview those who worked with him, etc.
quote: But to say that this method relies only on observable data is not true – it relies on other persons’ accounts of observed data.
But in the end, it all comes down to observable data. Of which the bible has none. The original point here was me questioning the holy texts and asking for evidence of their truths.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To say "science can't see it, therefore it does not exist" is as unscientific as you can get.
quote:I totally agree with you, but who said that?
You did, actually:
quote:we cannot prove that your "soul" doesn't go somewhere and have a party with other souls, but without any evidence for this, we must discount it as fantasy.
quote:You are misplacing the burden of proof. The burden lies on the shoulders of believers. Science does not need to prove that something doesn't exist. Those who say this thing does exist, need to provide positive evidence that it does.
The burden lies with those who wish to change the minds of others, my friend. The Christians here haven't asked you--yet--to believe in their God. After going back through your posts it seems that you are not specifically asking them to give up their faith, either, but it is you who have suggested that knowledge apart from science is irrelevant.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: "science can't see it, therefore it does not exist"
and
quote: we cannot prove that your "soul" doesn't go somewhere and have a party with other souls, but without any evidence for this, we must discount it as fantasy.
are saying two totally unrelated things. When you use such a general phrase as "science can't see it" you invite ambiguity. It would seem the the goal of those of you disagreeing with me has been to attack me on a semantic level, without addressing the substance of what I am saying.
What I said about the Soul is true, and it relates very well witht he burden of proof argument.
quote: but it is you who have suggested that knowledge apart from science is irrelevant.
That is correct. I would ask for someone to provide one example of this knowledge which is apart from science. This is what I have been asking all along, talk to me about why you believe what you do. What is there that you think exists outside of science, that can be "true"?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Belief in God, as agreed earlier, is something that requires Faith #2.
Who exactly agreed to this? You stated it as if it were fact, two people posted who disagreed, no one posted that they agreed.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, but Caleb was not talking about the definition of the word "faith."
I'd appreciate it if you'd take some care not to use the words "faith" and "belief" as if they were interchangable. They're not.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is "we can't prove it so we must call it fantasy" any different from "science can't see it therefore it doesn't exist"?
Science can't see = we can't prove it's fantasy = doesn't exist
Or did you NOT mean that any idea not founded in science should be done away with? It seems like that's what you said. I usually use the word fantasy to describe either a state of imagination or deception. How did you mean it when you said it?
quote:It would seem the the goal of those of you disagreeing with me has been to attack me on a semantic level, without addressing the substance of what I am saying.
Actually I do not believe in the Gods that you have been questioning, and am not really even arguing "against you" per se.
And I'm not "attacking" you on a semantic level and ignoring your substance so much as saying your "arguments" don't HAVE substance to begin with. Admittedly this is because you're not really trying to prove that God doesn't exist as much as you're demanding that others prove that he DOES, while pointing out over and over again that they don't have proof. What's the substance in that?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
