Christian Faith

[Gun Nut]

There's nothing at all wrong with using science to prove God. What's wrong is using bad science to do it.

If God went through all the trouble of creating science, I'd expect he'd insist on people engaging in a proper methodology when using it to demonstrate his existence. Anything else would just be rude and insulting to the man and he tends to burn folks in Hell for that sort of thing.

Science is a man-made process used to investigate the universe.... God just created the universe, is all. So, He created science like he created the internet.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Right, that’s what I said. If he invented science, doing bad science in his service is essentially heresy.

 

[DBT]

By "Attack", I mean the frequent occurrence of The Scientific Method (TM) being used to investigate Theological claims.
It is dishonest to cry about claims that "Science proves God" when they are made in response to Science claiming that they have "disproved God".

It's like a bully crying about being punched in the face after punching someone in their face for not giving them their lunch money.

It's about evidence and support, be it science, philosophy or religion, it is evidence that supports any claim and a justified conviction that the claim is likely to be true.

An absence of evidence does not support a claim or a conviction of truth.

Faith is used as a tool or a means to bypass justification through evidence.....bypassing something that we expect to see in practically all other aspects of life. law, commerce, science, philosophy - evidence that supports a claim or the truth of something, but forego when it comes to faith.

 

[southernhybrid]

There's nothing at all wrong with using science to prove God. What's wrong is using bad science to do it.

If God went through all the trouble of creating science, I'd expect he'd insist on people engaging in a proper methodology when using it to demonstrate his existence. Anything else would just be rude and insulting to the man and he tends to burn folks in Hell for that sort of thing.

Science is a man-made process used to investigate the universe.... God just created the universe, is all. So, He created science like he created the internet.

See, that's the problem. You made a statement that has no evidence. There is not any evidence that any gods exist, outside of the minds of the believers. Discussing whether or not any gods exist isn't an attack. That's what you don't seem to understand. You are still free to believe whatever it is that makes you feel comfortable, but those of us who either grew up being indoctrinated with religion, or were raised free of that indoctrination, don't see any evidence for the supernatural.

Once the veil of religious indoctrination is lifted, it's close to impossible to make any sense out of it. But, that doesn't mean that religion doesn't do both good and bad things. Many man made ideologies have both positive and negative parts. While the church I was forced to attend as a child was disgusting, imo, there are many churches where I currently live that do a lot of charity work, without trying to force anyone into accepting their beliefs. That type of Christian takes the kinder, gentler, more socialistic words of Jesus and uses them as motivation to help others. Other types of Christians take the harsher words of the NT and use those words to denigrate, attack and threaten atheists and those who don't believe the same things that they do. Discussing these things isn't an attack. It's just curious people interested in trying to understand why so many still believe in things that seem unrealistic to us, where these ideas originated etc.

Why do you think that a god or gods exist? Is it because of some ancient scriptures that were changed countless times over the years? Is it cultural, emotional, wishful thinking, a feeling of belonging, dreams, etc. I honestly don't get it.

 

[James Brown]

By "Attack", I mean the frequent occurrence of The Scientific Method (TM) being used to investigate Theological claims.

Is there a way that we can determine the veracity of opposing Theological claims?

 

[Gun Nut]

Right, that’s what I said. If he invented science, doing bad science in his service is essentially heresy.

free will... etc...

 

[Gun Nut]

By "Attack", I mean the frequent occurrence of The Scientific Method (TM) being used to investigate Theological claims.
It is dishonest to cry about claims that "Science proves God" when they are made in response to Science claiming that they have "disproved God".

It's like a bully crying about being punched in the face after punching someone in their face for not giving them their lunch money.

It's about evidence and support, be it science, philosophy or religion, it is evidence that supports any claim and a justified conviction that the claim is likely to be true.

An absence of evidence does not support a claim or a conviction of truth.

Faith is used as a tool or a means to bypass justification through evidence.....bypassing something that we expect to see in practically all other aspects of life. law, commerce, science, philosophy - evidence that supports a claim or the truth of something, but forego when it comes to faith.

You approach a swiftly flowing river and need to cross it. You notice a tree has fallen across the river, forming a natural bridge. You must determine if it is safe to cross. You do not have any tools... just your senses.
How do you judge if the tree will support your weight?

You use faith in your judgement, based on experience.

We bypass science all the time. You know from experience what is going to break under your feet and what will likely support you. Do you trust your judgement? That's faith. You don't know the density of the log.. if it is rotten on the inside.. the exact diameter or even your own exact weight.

You can choose to use faith (in yourself, in your god, in your family, whatever) to fill the gaps of knowledge, so as not to be paralyzed by an absence of information.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Right, that’s what I said. If he invented science, doing bad science in his service is essentially heresy.

free will... etc...

Yes, that's what I'm saying. We have the free will to engage in theological studies which employ poor methodologies, but we'll just burn forever in the fires of Hell if we do so due to it being a heretical decision. It's the same as how we have the free will to use the Eightfold Path of Buddhism as a guide to moral behaviour, but that choice brings with it the consequence of spending every afternoon for the rest of eternity getting ass-raped by a trident.

Our free will gives us the ability to do these things, but there are repercussions to how we choose to use that ability.

 

[Gun Nut]

Our free will gives us the ability to do these things, but there are repercussions to how we choose to use that ability.

I find this incredibly ironic coming from you specifically... but forum rules prohibit my elaboration on that...

 

[Lion IRC]

By "Attack", I mean the frequent occurrence of The Scientific Method (TM) being used to investigate Theological claims.

Is there a way that we can determine the veracity of opposing Theological claims?

Sure. The same way you determine the veracity of non-opposing theological claims.
Evidence and reason.

Claim - God communicates with people.
Evidence - People who report this experience.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

By "Attack", I mean the frequent occurrence of The Scientific Method (TM) being used to investigate Theological claims.

Is there a way that we can determine the veracity of opposing Theological claims?

Sure. The same way you determine the veracity of non-opposing theological claims.
Evidence and reason.

Claim - God communicates with people.
Evidence - People who report this experience.

Ouch. My heart goes out to all of those victims of anal probing by aliens then.

 

[James Brown]

By "Attack", I mean the frequent occurrence of The Scientific Method (TM) being used to investigate Theological claims.

Is there a way that we can determine the veracity of opposing Theological claims?

Sure. The same way you determine the veracity of non-opposing theological claims.
Evidence and reason.

Claim - God communicates with people.
Evidence - People who report this experience.

But GunNut said that using Evidence and Reason is an attack on Christianity.

If Christianity weren't under constant attack, we wouldn't have to defend ourselves on playing fields we otherwise avoid...

By "Attack", I mean the frequent occurrence of The Scientific Method (TM) being used to investigate Theological claims.

So assuming you take the opposite view as GunNut, how does one verify the veracity of equal but opposite theological claims? Two people report communication with God. One person says that God told her that God loves everyone. Another person says that God told him that he should kill homosexuals. They can't both be right.

So how to decide?

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

By "Attack", I mean the frequent occurrence of The Scientific Method (TM) being used to investigate Theological claims.
It is dishonest to cry about claims that "Science proves God" when they are made in response to Science claiming that they have "disproved God".

It's like a bully crying about being punched in the face after punching someone in their face for not giving them their lunch money.

It's about evidence and support, be it science, philosophy or religion, it is evidence that supports any claim and a justified conviction that the claim is likely to be true.

An absence of evidence does not support a claim or a conviction of truth.

Faith is used as a tool or a means to bypass justification through evidence.....bypassing something that we expect to see in practically all other aspects of life. law, commerce, science, philosophy - evidence that supports a claim or the truth of something, but forego when it comes to faith.

You approach a swiftly flowing river and need to cross it. You notice a tree has fallen across the river, forming a natural bridge. You must determine if it is safe to cross. You do not have any tools... just your senses.
How do you judge if the tree will support your weight?

You use faith in your judgement, based on experience.

No, you use confidence in your judgment, based on experience. Where does experience come into play with faith?

 

[James Brown]

Faith in my own judgement? Okay, for a certain definition of faith.

If I said, "I have faith that God won't let me fall in the river," would I be rational in leaping onto the log without a care?


I'm also curious when a scientist has ever claimed to have disproven God.

 

[steve_bank]

By "Attack", I mean the frequent occurrence of The Scientific Method (TM) being used to investigate Theological claims.

Is there a way that we can determine the veracity of opposing Theological claims?

Sure. The same way you determine the veracity of non-opposing theological claims.
Evidence and reason.

Claim - God communicates with people.
Evidence - People who report this experience.

Ok. God told me that Christians have largely been corrupted worshiping false gods like wealth and material things. He will destroy the world by fire. Those of us moral folks regardless of faith or no faith will be protected. Those condemned will vaporize in a flame sen5t to Hell. Especially Christians who do not realy live as Christians.

I've also been in mental contact with aliens in another galaxy and I have channeled Albert Einstein.

Am I crazy and deluded or did I talk to god?

 

[Rhea]

Is there a way that we can determine the veracity of opposing Theological claims?

Sure. The same way you determine the veracity of non-opposing theological claims.
Evidence and reason.

Claim - God communicates with people.
Evidence - People who report this experience.

So wait, you just said that any experience that’s ever been reported by a person is true.

(Please make sure you tell the lawyers that if you ever get served for jury duty, mkay? Just, you know, for the sake of justice.)

 

[DBT]

By "Attack", I mean the frequent occurrence of The Scientific Method (TM) being used to investigate Theological claims.
It is dishonest to cry about claims that "Science proves God" when they are made in response to Science claiming that they have "disproved God".

It's like a bully crying about being punched in the face after punching someone in their face for not giving them their lunch money.

It's about evidence and support, be it science, philosophy or religion, it is evidence that supports any claim and a justified conviction that the claim is likely to be true.

An absence of evidence does not support a claim or a conviction of truth.

Faith is used as a tool or a means to bypass justification through evidence.....bypassing something that we expect to see in practically all other aspects of life. law, commerce, science, philosophy - evidence that supports a claim or the truth of something, but forego when it comes to faith.

You approach a swiftly flowing river and need to cross it. You notice a tree has fallen across the river, forming a natural bridge. You must determine if it is safe to cross. You do not have any tools... just your senses.
How do you judge if the tree will support your weight?

In that situation you are not lacking evidence. You have experience with trees, the strength or load bearing properties of timber, fallen logs, etc....you can see that the tree is firmly grounded on both banks of the river and that it is quite likely that you can cross safely. Your assessment is based on your experience with the objects and events of the world and the likelihood of something going wrong in many different situations. This is not faith.

You use faith in your judgement, based on experience.

Conflation. If you have had objective experience, logs, timber, trees, rivers, etc , you have evidence. Your assessment of the situation is based on evidence, your past experience and knowledge of these things, you are able to determine risk.

Faith on the other hand is a belief or conviction held without the support of evidence, so you can't have it both ways.

You can't say that faith is a belief held on evidence and faith is a belief held without evidence because that is the fallacy of equivocation.

With equivocation, faith can be anything you want it to be, which makes the term essentially meaningless.

 

[DBT]

By "Attack", I mean the frequent occurrence of The Scientific Method (TM) being used to investigate Theological claims.

Is there a way that we can determine the veracity of opposing Theological claims?

Sure. The same way you determine the veracity of non-opposing theological claims.
Evidence and reason.

Claim - God communicates with people.
Evidence - People who report this experience.

Isn't it possible that people have reported a lot of things, experiences, events, that may not be true?

 

[Lion IRC]

Isn't it possible that people have reported a lot of things, experiences, events, that may not be true?

Yes. Of course.
Global warming might be false

 

[Lion IRC]

Am I crazy and deluded or did I talk to god?

If I misheard what someone told me I might need my hearing checked but that doesn't make me deluded. Your first and most basic claim is that you heard someone's voice.

If that is true then I don't think the default response should be no you didn't hear anything
...you liar/lunatic