Faith transcends logic

@kellyjay said
I can also give you cause for the things I believe in, can you produce reasons for believing in nothing started it all, or that mindlessness put the instructions into life, on every point here I think you are coming up short.

No, you can't give "cause" for believing a woman changed into a pillar of salt or that "Nephilim" existed.

I don't believe "nothing" started the universe. I also choose to side with educated scientists and decades of peer-reviewed research rather than ancient genocidal goat-hearders.

@vivify said
No, you can't give "cause" for believing a woman changed into a pillar of salt or that "Nephilim" existed.

I don't believe "nothing" started the universe. I also choose to side with educated scientists and decades of peer-reviewed research rather than ancient genocidal goat-hearders.

It was written down for the woman changing into salt, it was written down that Nephilim existed.

If you don't believe "nothing" started the universe, fine. You do believe with educated scientists, and peer-reviewed research that the universe was started, how?

Show me what it is that you are not blindly following so we can compare and contrast the different explanations!

Blind faith or reason, what are you relying on, faith without reasons, with no proof yet you accept it?

@kellyjay said
Here is your problem, ignoring it doesn't make it go away, as soon as you deny a mind you promoting mindlessness, as soon as you deny something started you are saying nothing started it. If you wish to add to the conversation it always was, you are going against two things science and religion so an explanation is required. If you don't have one, sticking one's head in the sand is not an answer.

No Kelly, the problem is entirely yours and your inability to listen to people when they say what they believe, rather than making sweeping statements that nobody has expressed.

Again, can you quote anybody who has stated 'nothing started it all' or 'mindlessness put the instructions into life'? - I, for example, believe neither of those things.

@kellyjay said
It was written down for the woman changing into salt, it was written down that Nephilim existed.

It was written down that Achilles received a prophecy that he would live a long unremarkable life, or a short but heroic one which would be remembered long afterwards. And you know what? the prophecy came TRUE ! We still know of the exploits of Achilles. Because it was written down!

Now, do you think that is evidence that Achilles really existed, just because it was written down?

And if we have several copies which agree, do you think that makes the evidence stronger, that Achilles really existed?

@kellyjay said
Questions about origins are not silly nor are they useless, your proclamations about what is and isn't natural can only be known if you know how it all started. In the beginning, God alters everything you think is natural. You don't even have an explanation that covers all of the things in the universe, so you punt.

Try to get your head around this: the Hebrew myth about origins is just that, a myth, and by no means the only one. This whole origin-fixation of yours and josephw's is culturally and historically peculiar to the Hebrews. In the pagan Greek scheme of things, the cosmos is eternal, there was no origin. In the Buddhist scheme of things, it does not matter whether there was an origin or no origin; nothing depends on knowing either way, nothing depends on its having been either way. There is no reason to think the Hebrew myth is true and the others are all false. And it has nothing to do with anything's having been written down.

@kellyjay said
It was written down for the woman changing into salt, it was written down that Nephilim existed.

If you don't believe "nothing" started the universe, fine. You do believe with educated scientists, and peer-reviewed research that the universe was started, how?

Show me what it is that you are not blindly following so we can compare and contrast the different explanation ...[text shortened]... nd faith or reason, what are you relying on, faith without reasons, with no proof yet you accept it?

This thread is about faith vs logic.

Which is more logical:

To side with highly educated scientists who build upon decades of detailed, painstaking research....or people who believed angels made human bodies for themselves and impregnated women with superheroes called Nephilim?

@kellyjay said
Faith has to do with the fidelity of someone or thing. Faith in our Creator to those that choose to deny Him at every turn no matter what, doesn't make Him less credible. Your faith in nothing and mindlessness is based on your dislike of the idea there is a creator not that "nothing and mindlessness' have anything positive you can point to so you can see this is why.

Why don't you start a thread called 'Let's talk absolute incomprehensible gibberish', then we can all join in.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
No Kelly, the problem is entirely yours and your inability to listen to people when they say what they believe, rather than making sweeping statements that nobody has expressed.

Again, can you quote anybody who has stated 'nothing started it all' or 'mindlessness put the instructions into life'? - I, for example, believe neither of those things.

Not my fault when you say no to a mind guiding the processes that leaves mindfulness.

@moonbus said
It was written down that Achilles received a prophecy that he would live a long unremarkable life, or a short but heroic one which would be remembered long afterwards. And you know what? the prophecy came TRUE ! We still know of the exploits of Achilles. Because it was written down!

Now, do you think that is evidence that Achilles really existed, just because it was ...[text shortened]... ies which agree, do you think that makes the evidence stronger, that Achilles really existed?

When things are written as historical events that is what it is, what it is not is nothing. The historical events that we see fall out with different people whose names are now established coming out those events, so family trees are established. Not to mention physical traces in the area.

@moonbus said
Try to get your head around this: the Hebrew myth about origins is just that, a myth, and by no means the only one. This whole origin-fixation of yours and josephw's is culturally and historically peculiar to the Hebrews. In the pagan Greek scheme of things, the cosmos is eternal, there was no origin. In the Buddhist scheme of things, it does not matter whether there w ...[text shortened]... rue and the others are all false. And it has nothing to do with anything's having been written down.

Oh gee you don’t believe therefore it isn’t true. The gods of the ancient world were born and raised by other so called gods who also had beginnings starting within the universe.

The God of scripture created the universe and everything in it, God Himself is the only non-created one there is. They are not close to the same, neither the scriptures that speak of God, and those that speaks to those gods.

@vivify said
This thread is about faith vs logic.

Which is more logical:

To side with highly educated scientists who build upon decades of detailed, painstaking research....or people who believed angels made human bodies for themselves and impregnated women with superheroes called Nephilim?

Well produce some of that detailed research that touches the topics I have been speaking to! Simply making a claim that you agree with them without providing the facts that they have produced something is meaningless, it amounts to empty claims not backed by evidence yet believed.

@indonesia-phil said
Why don't you start a thread called 'Let's talk absolute incomprehensible gibberish', then we can all join in.

So using some comprehensible words why don’t you give some positive arguments towards how how life does not require a mind to put it together.

@kellyjay said
So using some comprehensible words why don’t you give some positive arguments towards how how life does not require a mind to put it together.

But if he does, you'll stop talking to him.

@kellyjay said
Well produce some of that detailed research that touches the topics I have been speaking to! Simply making a claim that you agree with them without providing the facts that they have produced something is meaningless, it amounts to empty claims not backed by evidence yet believed.

Again: the topic is faith vs. logic. Not your vague ideas of what "evidence" for something is.

Notice you didn't answer which position was more logical because the answer is obvious: it's not the one the one you support.

You have two doctors: one says you got sick due to a virus the other says you got sick because God is testing you.
Which doctor's assessment is more logical? Which doctor would you entrust your life to?

Even without evidence for a position we can at least determine when one is less logical than another. Supernatural explanations will always be less logical than naturalistic ones.