07 Jan 09
Originally posted by josephwfaith is blind belief
Cool! I think that's the first time I've been called a dope.
So you think faith means blindly believing in the existence of God?
Don't be a dope! 😲
if you aren't blind in this case, it would mean you have proof and if you have proof it means you have no faith
07 Jan 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIt is "blind" faith to believe there is no proof for the existence of God.
[b]…So you think faith means blindly believing in the existence of God? ...…
How can believing in the existence of something despite no evidence/reasoning to justify that belief be anything other than “blindly believing”?
-after all, that is what “blindly believing / faith / blind faith (there is no difference)” generally means.
(“blind f ...[text shortened]... o a bad thing in computing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_faith_(computer_science)
)[/b]
"I" can't prove that God exists, but you have to be "blind" not to see the proof in creation!
07 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou don't know what faith is!
faith is blind belief
if you aren't blind in this case, it would mean you have proof and if you have proof it means you have no faith
Faith is not blind belief.
Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
07 Jan 09
Originally posted by jaywill…Does having your "blind faith" automatically mean that that which one has faith in CANNOT be true ?...…
I have never understood what people mean by "blind faith" in relation to coming into a relationship with God through the Holy Spirit and the recorded history of God in the Bible.
But be that as it may, let's entertain the possibility of a Christian's so-called "blind faith" for a minute.
Does having your "blind faith" [b]automaticially mean that that which one has faith in CANNOT be true ?[/b]
No, just as having blind faith that there exists a Santa does not automatically mean that there is no Santa -but it is still blind faith because it is not based on evidence/reason and because there is no evidence/reason to support it thus I should regard the credibility of the hypothesis that there is a god exactly the same as that credibility of the hypothesis that there is a Santa (i.e. non).
07 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by vkgkakvtYes -faith is believing something purely because you want it to be true for emotional reasons as opposed to believing something because you have a rational premise (i.e. evidence or logic) to believe it is true.
There's a reason for faith, usually it's personal.
07 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by josephw…It is "blind" faith to believe there is no proof for the existence of God. ...…
It is "blind" faith to believe there is no proof for the existence of God.
"I" can't prove that God exists, but you have to be "blind" not to see the proof in creation!
Not true. It is blind faith to believe there IS proof for the existence of a god for exactly the same reason it is blind faith to believe there is a god; neither hypothesis is based on evidence/reason and you cannot give any credible evidence/reason in the support of either hypothesis. Can you point out to me the existance of any proof for the existence of a god?
When there is no evidence/reason in support an existential claim then it is rational to believe that the probability of it being true is vanishingly small. If that was not the case than it would be “rational” to believe that there is a credible chance of all sorts of absurdities being true (e.g. that there is a Santa and there is a Bigfoot and there is a flying pink elephant that lays eggs etc).
……I" can't prove that God exists, but you have to be "blind" not to see the proof in creation!...…
I am not blind. I see bits of the universe around me. This is proof that the universe exists (assuming my brain is not in a nutrient tank and my sensory experiences are not all an illusion -note there I have no evidence/reason to believe that my sensory experiences are all an illusion and this would actually be the more complex hypothesis). Any proof of the mere existence of the universe is not proof that there is a god because the mere existence of the universe is not proof that a god created it. Therefore, the belief that there is a god still comes from blind faith.
07 Jan 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"Can you point out to me the existance of any proof for the existence of a god?"
[b]…It is "blind" faith to believe there is no proof for the existence of God. ...…
Not true. It is blind faith to believe there IS proof for the existence of a god for exactly the same reason it is blind faith to believe there is a god; neither hypothesis is based on evidence/reason and you cannot give any credible evidence/reason in the sup ...[text shortened]... a god created it. Therefore, the belief that there is a god still comes from blind faith.[/b]
All that exists.
08 Jan 09
Originally posted by josephwYou have obviously ignored what I said in my last post.
[b]"Can you point out to me the existance of any proof for the existence of a god?"
All that exists.[/b]
As I already pointed out:
“Any proof of the mere existence of the universe is not proof that there is a god because the mere existence of the universe is not proof that a god created it. “
So all we can rationally know “that exists” (i.e. through reason/evidence) is not proof of an existence of a god.
08 Jan 09
Originally posted by josephwdo you have any other argument other than the bible to prove your claims? coz it is kinda circular reasoning.
You don't know what faith is!
Faith is not blind belief.
Hebrews 11:1
[b]"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."[/b]
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs
"firm belief in something for which there is no proof " this is the real definition, not some quote from the bible that can be mistranslated, misquote, misinterpreted or just wrong.
faith is blind. requires no proof. because it is blind. it might help if you explain what you understand by blind faith and why faith is not blind belief(which is a synonym for faith btw). try and choose a relevant passage if you must and explain it. otherwise we will continue to be under the impression you have no idea what you are talking about.
08 Jan 09
Originally posted by Zahlanzi"do you have any other argument other than the bible to prove your claims?"
do you have any other argument other than the bible to prove your claims? coz it is kinda circular reasoning.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctri ...[text shortened]... wise we will continue to be under the impression you have no idea what you are talking about.
The Bible is the word of God. The word of God is the ultimate authority.
I don't need any other argument.
All YOU have is your own authority, which is your problem. YOU say there is no proof. YOU say there is no evidence. YOU try to define the terms based on YOUR own authority. YOU are in error.
08 Jan 09
5 edits
Originally posted by josephw…"do you have any other argument other than the bible to prove your claims?"
[b]"do you have any other argument other than the bible to prove your claims?"
The Bible is the word of God. The word of God is the ultimate authority.
I don't need any other argument.
All YOU have is your own authority, which is your problem. YOU say there is no proof. YOU say there is no evidence. YOU try to define the terms based on YOUR own authority. YOU are in error.[/b]
The Bible is the word of God
..…
How do you know that?
The Bible was written by people and not by a god.
People are often wrong.
How do you know that the people that wrote the Bible were generally mistaken?
It appears to me that this means you have inadvertently answered Zahlanzi’s question (you don’t like actually answering questions -do you -I have noticed that on numerous occasions); -you have no other "argument" other than the Bible to "prove" your claims (the words “argument“ and “prove“ are both misnomers in this context).
08 Jan 09
Originally posted by josephwIn your claim that the bible is the word of god, all YOU have is your own authority, which is your problem. YOU say there is proof. YOU say there is evidence. YOU try to define the terms based on YOUR own authority. YOU are in error.
[b]"do you have any other argument other than the bible to prove your claims?"
The Bible is the word of God. The word of God is the ultimate authority.
I don't need any other argument.
All YOU have is your own authority, which is your problem. YOU say there is no proof. YOU say there is no evidence. YOU try to define the terms based on YOUR own authority. YOU are in error.[/b]
08 Jan 09
1 edit
bong! bong! next please! move along, we don't need to see his pass, move along!
faith as defined by the bible itself, is, and pay close attention here Mr.Hamilton, i dont want you to miss anything,
'faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.'
you will of course naturally behold the term , 'evident demonstration of realities', evident because there is evidence, like its internal harmony, despite being written over an extensive period by some forty different individual, evidence for example in the fulfillment of prophecies sometimes hundreds of years in advance, so accurate that skeptics have stated they were written after the events, evidence for example in the dietry laws, moral laws and laws of quarantine etc etc, which protected the adherents from various diseases, evidence for example in the beautiful christian principles which if applied would solve most of the social ills that plague our planet, so please, enough of this postulation that it is based solely on emotion, for quite clearly you have never examined it, or you would not be saying as much, and to render judgment prior to examination, is termed prejudice, and we don't want that, do we?