"God cannot create a square circle"

[Tom Sawyer]

Guys, the fact that we don't believe in talking snakes means we have faith too!

Ya, but it's faith in ourselves because we have ourselves take the place of God in our universe due to our small-minded arrogance and lack of understanding about the simple fact that God is totally real.

 

[rhutchin]

Guys, the fact that we don't believe in talking snakes means we have faith too!

Not really. Faith has to do with that which one believes; not that which one does not believe. Not believing in talking snakes does not tell us what you believe. Now if you believe that life somehow appeared through natural means apart from God, that would be very great faith.

- - - Updated - - -

...it's faith in ourselves...

Now, that is a tremendous faith for sure.

 

[rhutchin]

That's not what the word faith means and you know it.

Your inability to provide us a definition for faith does not advance your case.

See, the fact that he had not provided a definition of faith should not be taken as his being unable to provide a definition.
These leaps to desired conclusions demonstrate either an unwillingness or inability to work ideas logically.

The presumption is that we take our definitions from a dictionary. Thus, no need to go to the extreme to define terms at every instance.

As Sawyer goes counter to the definition provided by the dictionaries - "That's not what the word faith means," there is burden on him to tell us his definition since it does not appear we could know what he means even after looking it up in the dictionary. I bet even you don't have a clue what he means by "faith." Of course, you had issues with the meaning of miracle, so who knows?

 

[rhutchin]

Then accuse the others of bias.

Not bias. You just have a strong belief in that which cannot be proved. You have faith, a very great faith. I have no problem with your faith; I just think your faith is misplaced. In addition, you may be biased, but that is irrelevant.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not really. Faith has to do with that which one believes; not that which one does not believe. Not believing in talking snakes does not tell us what you believe. Now if you believe that life somehow appeared through natural means apart from God, that would be very great faith..

I think you meant to say...

"Now if you believe that life somehow appeared through natural means apart from god(s)..."

Your statement implies a very specific alleged creator. It wouldn't take any more faith to have belief in some other god(s) other than your own god.

Then accuse the others of bias.

Not bias. You just have a strong belief in that which cannot be proved.

There is a notable difference. Faith in religion is based primarily on inertia and the alleged historical acts from thousands of years ago. This faith is broad and can affect how a person sets their morals and actions. Atheism is refined in scope, based on continuing disclosed evidence from science, and only affects one particular view of the universe (god).

 

[rhutchin]

That's not what the word faith means and you know it.

Your inability to provide us a definition for faith does not advance your case.

Faith : 1. Use of inductive reasoning to apply observations of past events to recognize a potential that future related events may occur in a similar fashion but avoiding coming to a conclusion about it.
"Based on my seeing the sun rising in the east every day of my life, I have faith that maybe it will do the same thing tommorrow morning and I can't say for sure."

The above is an invalid definition of faith. When you used this definition to describe Keith&Co as a "man of faith", your statement was as invalid as the definition.

Wrong context. See, I was right about you.

The context of this conversation is belief in God versus a worldview created to replace God and the faith engendered by that belief - we have two belief systems at play; that centered on God and that centered on nature and the faith inherent in both because of beliefs in outcomes advocated by the worldview that cannot be proven through any scientific experiment.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Now if you believe that life somehow appeared through natural means apart from God, that would be very great faith.

Or it's just considering other possibilities, which you don't do.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's not what the word faith means and you know it.

Your inability to provide us a definition for faith does not advance your case.

Faith : 1. Use of inductive reasoning to apply observations of past events to recognize a potential that future related events may occur in a similar fashion but avoiding coming to a conclusion about it.
"Based on my seeing the sun rising in the east every day of my life, I have faith that maybe it will do the same thing tommorrow morning and I can't say for sure."

The above is an invalid definition of faith. When you used this definition to describe Keith&Co as a "man of faith", your statement was as invalid as the definition.

Wrong context. See, I was right about you.

The context of this conversation is belief in God versus a worldview created to replace God...

Replace who now? There is no replacing of god(s) in Atheism. They simply don't exist.

...and the faith engendered by that belief

There is no Atheism worldview. Atheism says a person doesn't believe there is god(s). That's all. There is no clear moral imperative that follows it up. There is no Atheism moral code book, like Christianity has Bible 1.0 and 2.0.

we have two belief systems at play; that centered on God and that centered on nature and the faith inherent in both because of beliefs in outcomes advocated by the worldview that cannot be proven through any scientific experiment.

There is no faith in nature. Nature will not intervene if we pray. We can't speak of the will of nature. Or condemn certain acts (other than perpetual motion) because nature forbids it. Nature just is. There is no faith about it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's not what the word faith means and you know it.

Your inability to provide us a definition for faith does not advance your case.

Faith : 1. Use of inductive reasoning to apply observations of past events to recognize a potential that future related events may occur in a similar fashion but avoiding coming to a conclusion about it.
"Based on my seeing the sun rising in the east every day of my life, I have faith that maybe it will do the same thing tommorrow morning and I can't say for sure."

The above is an invalid definition of faith. When you used this definition to describe Keith&Co as a "man of faith", your statement was as invalid as the definition.

Wrong context. See, I was right about you.

The context of this conversation is belief in God versus a worldview created to replace God and the faith engendered by that belief - we have two belief systems at play; that centered on God and that centered on nature and the faith inherent in both because of beliefs in outcomes advocated by the worldview that cannot be proven through any scientific experiment.

You're not making any sense at all.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You're not making any sense at all.

I suspect that's the goal.

 

[rhutchin]

Now if you believe that life somehow appeared through natural means apart from God, that would be very great faith.

Or it's just considering other possibilities, which you don't do.

I don't mind other possibilities. I guess we have to wait until science can say something definitive about them. Until that time, current proposals remain valid.

 

[rhutchin]

That's not what the word faith means and you know it.

Your inability to provide us a definition for faith does not advance your case.

Faith : 1. Use of inductive reasoning to apply observations of past events to recognize a potential that future related events may occur in a similar fashion but avoiding coming to a conclusion about it.
"Based on my seeing the sun rising in the east every day of my life, I have faith that maybe it will do the same thing tommorrow morning and I can't say for sure."

The above is an invalid definition of faith. When you used this definition to describe Keith&Co as a "man of faith", your statement was as invalid as the definition.

Wrong context. See, I was right about you.

The context of this conversation is belief in God versus a worldview created to replace God and the faith engendered by that belief - we have two belief systems at play; that centered on God and that centered on nature and the faith inherent in both because of beliefs in outcomes advocated by the worldview that cannot be proven through any scientific experiment.

You're not making any sense at all.

Well, I tried to figure out what you were saying. You give a definition of faith and then say that it is invalid. OK, what was your point - "When you used this definition..." Except that was not my definition or at least not the one I used to describe Keith&Co. What is a person to do when confronted with such things?

- - - Updated - - -

You're not making any sense at all.

I suspect that's the goal.

You mean you actually understood this--

"Faith : 1. Use of inductive reasoning to apply observations of past events to recognize a potential that future related events may occur in a similar fashion but avoiding coming to a conclusion about it.
"Based on my seeing the sun rising in the east every day of my life, I have faith that maybe it will do the same thing tommorrow morning and I can't say for sure."

The above is an invalid definition of faith. When you used this definition to describe Keith&Co as a "man of faith", your statement was as invalid as the definition."

 

[rhutchin]

There is no faith in nature. Nature will not intervene if we pray. We can't speak of the will of nature. Or condemn certain acts (other than perpetual motion) because nature forbids it. Nature just is. There is no faith about it.

Sure there is. People have faith that nature (natural laws) can lead to the creation of life that evolution can then manipulate. People have faith that evolution - mutation, natural selection, etc. - could actually take some simple form of life and create, over time, the variety of life we observe today. People who adhere to evolutionary processes as the force behind all life have a belief system based on nothing but faith.

 

[jonJ]

There is no faith in nature. Nature will not intervene if we pray. We can't speak of the will of nature. Or condemn certain acts (other than perpetual motion) because nature forbids it. Nature just is. There is no faith about it.

Sure there is. People have faith that nature (natural laws) can lead to the creation of life that evolution can then manipulate. People have faith that evolution - mutation, natural selection, etc. - could actually take some simple form of life and create, over time, the variety of life we observe today. People who adhere to evolutionary processes as the force behind all life have a belief system based on nothing but faith.

No, we don't have an unjustified belief -- that would be faith. We have a justified belief, based on the fact that the models used in science which rest on the assumption of evolution are useful and productive. But that belief is inherently provisional, and if and when enough evidence was to accumulate in favour of a God hypothesis, then science would switch to that.

What about you? What evidence would cause you to switch away from your God hypothesis?

 

[rhutchin]

We have a justified belief, based on the fact that the models used in science which rest on the assumption of evolution are useful and productive. But that belief is inherently provisional, and if and when enough evidence was to accumulate in favour of a God hypothesis, then science would switch to that.

The "models" are created by evolutionists and are useful and productive in justifying evolution because that is their purpose. There is nothing provisional about belief in evolution - the purpose for evolution (for simplicity, the macro part) is to explain life without God. Evolutionists are blind to evidence that would indicate that God had to create life. There is still no viable explanation (despite all the creative imaginings of the evolutionists) for the appearance of life nor of the ability of evolutionary processes to take one life form and create the great variety of life we observe today. That doesn't deter the evolutionist - he has a belief system that he will not give up and that belief system is the source of his faith - a very strong faith.

What about you? What evidence would cause you to switch away from your God hypothesis?

We read, "the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that those who do not believe are without excuse:" and referring to the flood of Noah, "this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:"

This suggests that the issue will never be resolved by reference to evidence simply because people want to believe what they want to believe and there will never be enough evidence to persuade otherwise. Nonetheless, the Bible says that God created the universe and God created life and these are the two biggest problems for those who reject God - How to get the universe and life.

So, if science were to demonstrate that the universe or life could happen without God, that would be disconcerting. I don't see it happening.

Then there is the issue of evil. Without God, there should be no evil - only animals acting as animals and animals are not evil. Because evil exists, God must exist.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

There is no faith in nature. Nature will not intervene if we pray. We can't speak of the will of nature. Or condemn certain acts (other than perpetual motion) because nature forbids it. Nature just is. There is no faith about it.

Sure there is. People have faith that nature (natural laws) can lead to the creation of life that evolution can then manipulate. People have faith that evolution - mutation, natural selection, etc. - could actually take some simple form of life and create, over time, the variety of life we observe today. People who adhere to evolutionary processes as the force behind all life have a belief system based on nothing but faith.

There are two kinds of faith, justified faith and unjustified faith. Belief in evolution is justified because we have massive amounts of evidence for that. Since God has no evidence at all for its basic existence and lots of problems that the basic claims for God create logical contradictions, God is a false belief, in no way justifiable and thus false belief, worthless faith. Nature, we can observe and work with directly, scientifically. You are trying here to confuse these two kinds of faith, but the faith in the observable Universe is different from belief in magic sky pixies.

Unjustified and unjustifiable faith is false faith and is intellectually unacceptable. It leads to people in the name of false faith to reject observable facts and reject reason and rationality. That sort of unjustified faith can never lead to truth or real understanding.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Then there is the issue of evil. Without God, there should be no evil - only animals acting as animals and animals are not evil. Because evil exists, God must exist.

The problem with God is that God is defined as morally good, and omnipotent and thus we should see strong evidence of that in this world. But we see just the opposite. Why would an omnipotent God tolerate original sin for a second. Allow Satan to operate as an agent of evil? Demand evil massacres et al? So many problems with this defined as all good, all powerful God. Which no believer can explain nor explain away.

“If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That’s the difference between me and your God.”
- Tracie Harris

God as a hypothesis is a totally failed hypothesis. Especially when the theists try to drag morality into the argument.

God supposedly is morally perfect and has free will. God then, of his own free will, never does anything morally evil. God has a good nature. Why then does not this God give all mankind a god-like good nature and a god-like free will? Romans 11, why did the Jews not believe Jesus was the messiah, the son of God. Paul tells us that God hardened their hearts to not believe. So God does not value free will. So why not just harden the hearts of all men to believe? This all makes no sense, doesn't it? Islam is even worse. "Allah leads who he will, and leads astray who he will".

This simply does not work, does it? These sort of things are usually called The Problem Of Evil, but I am going to start calling this
The Problem Of The Moral Failure of a Perfectly Good God. This to sharpen the focus on why God is a failed concept, a failed hypothesis that cannot be saved.

 

[rhutchin]

The problem with God is that God is defined as morally good, and omnipotent and thus we should see strong evidence of that in this world. But we see just the opposite.

Is that true? We see considerable good done by those who believe in God both as individuals and collectively as churches and denominations. For example when a disaster occurs, we see churches responding.

We also see much evil and this is associated with people who have no belief in God. Shouldn't we expect that?

Why would an omnipotent God tolerate original sin for a second.

You may be confused here. Original sin refers to the effects of Adam's sin and not to Adam's sin. You seem to be asking why God even allowed Adam to sin in the first place. Are you?

All we know is that God is carrying out His plan and His plan included Adam's sin.

God as a hypothesis is a totally failed hypothesis. Especially when the theists try to drag morality into the argument.

God supposedly is morally perfect and has free will. God then, of his own free will, never does anything morally evil. God has a good nature. Why then does not this God give all mankind a god-like good nature and a god-like free will? Romans 11, why did the Jews not believe Jesus was the messiah, the son of God. Paul tells us that God hardened their hearts to not believe. So God does not value free will. So why not just harden the hearts of all men to believe? This all makes no sense, doesn't it? Islam is even worse. "Allah leads who he will, and leads astray who he will".

This simply does not work, does it? These sort of things are usually called The Problem Of Evil, but I am going to start calling this
The Problem Of The Moral Failure of a Perfectly Good God. This to sharpen the focus on why God is a failed concept, a failed hypothesis that cannot be saved.

Whether it works or not depends on God's plan. When God created the world, He had decreed all that would happen from day one until the end. Now, all is playing out exactly as God has decreed - all according to plan.

Your objection seems to be that you don't know why God is doing it this way and not some other way - and perhaps it is that you think you know better.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

We also see much evil and this is associated with people who have no belief in God. Shouldn't we expect that?

Evidence?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

.

Is that true? We see considerable good done by those who believe in God both as individuals and collectively as churches and denominations. For example when a disaster occurs, we see churches responding.

We also see much evil and this is associated with people who have no belief in God. Shouldn't we expect that?

Why would an omnipotent God tolerate original sin for a second.

You may be confused here. Original sin refers to the effects of Adam's sin and not to Adam's sin. You seem to be asking why God even allowed Adam to sin in the first place. Are you?

All we know is that God is carrying out His plan and His plan included Adam's sin.

God as a hypothesis is a totally failed hypothesis. Especially when the theists try to drag morality into the argument.

God supposedly is morally perfect and has free will. God then, of his own free will, never does anything morally evil. God has a good nature. Why then does not this God give all mankind a god-like good nature and a god-like free will? Romans 11, why did the Jews not believe Jesus was the messiah, the son of God. Paul tells us that God hardened their hearts to not believe. So God does not value free will. So why not just harden the hearts of all men to believe? This all makes no sense, doesn't it? Islam is even worse. "Allah leads who he will, and leads astray who he will".

This simply does not work, does it? These sort of things are usually called The Problem Of Evil, but I am going to start calling this
The ProblTheem Of The Moral Failure of a Perfectly Good God. This to sharpen the focus on why God is a failed concept, a failed hypothesis that cannot be saved.

Whether it works or not depends on God's plan. When God created the world, He had decreed all that would happen from day one until the end. Now, all is playing out exactly as God has decreed - all according to plan.

Your objection seems to be that you don't know why God is doing it this way and not some other way - and perhaps it is that you think you know better.

God is dogmatically stated to be good, morally good, perfectly good. A plan to do otherwise is a nonstarter. An empty rationalization.
Not an explanation. You dodged my important points. Why does God tolerated original sin at all, even for a moment? (Original sin is not found in Genesis anyway). No, these rationalizations do not work.

Crime statistics show the Southern states have high rates of violent crime. Yet have the highest rates of religious belief. Blacks are only 13.4% of the population but commit 47% of violent crime. But also have by far, the highest rate of belief in God. Your nonsense about high rates of non-believer crime and violence is nonsense.

The last German census before WW2 in Germany shows only 5% of Germans identified as non-Christian, 2% of them being Jewish. God's plan is not a good rationalization, nor is lame attempts to smear atheists.

Romans 11, God hardens the hearts of Jews to not believe in Jesus. Since God obviously does not care about free will, why not make all men believers? You did not address this. God's plans? Yeah, great plans.

Why doesn't God make all mankind with a god-like good nature and a god-like free will, who then like God, freely chooses not to do moral evil? You dodged this. This is a good "plan", why choose another?

No, wobbly vague claims about unknown plans that fail the suck it and see test are not adequate replies to the problem of a The Problem Of The Moral Failure of a Perfectly Good God. Nor is anti-atheist bigotry that ignores facts about true believers and crime.

Now, why did God tolerate original sin for even a second. Do you have anything other than a vague rationalization?