Deity Existence

[Jikanu]

They dont claim to have all the answers. they just know what God's revealed to them.

And i'll have to do some more research on how the old testament is reasoned. However, i doubt that it's out of sheer malevolence.

[Vasu]

They dont claim to have all the answers. they just know what God's revealed to them.

They do not have proof of god or proof that anything was revealed to them.

[Jikanu]

Faith is the lack of needing proof. You look at things in scientific terms, but that's not all there is. Assuming Religions are right, and the Soul exists, there's radically different realm out there that we know very, very, very little about.

[Ivramire]

The key word is then ''assuming'' and ''belief''.


How many more times must it get to this point only to fall into a tangent and rehash the whole argument all over again?

[Vasu]

So is it enough that I have faith that someone is a murderer and put him to death for it? Because the holy father says so? I can't prove he did, but I do have faith that he did.

[Hraesvelg]

The key word is then ''assuming'' and ''belief''.


How many more times must it get to this point only to fall into a tangent and rehash the whole argument all over again?

We have a few billion years until our sun goes nova.

[Jikanu]

So is it enough that I have faith that someone is a murderer and put him to death for it? Because the holy father says so? I can't prove he did, but I do have faith that he did.

That's a bit different. In matters in which tangible evidence can CLEARLY prove Guilty or Not-Guilty that will preside over faith.

Besides, i'm relatively certain that you could look at Christianity from a viewpoint that condemns the death penalty, with Jesus's protecting of the woman who was going to be stoned for divorcing her husband or something... i forget what it was... so...

[Hraesvelg]

That's a bit different. In matters in which tangible evidence can CLEARLY prove Guilty or Not-Guilty that will preside over faith.

That's sort of the point of the statement, isn't it? Tangible evidence would CLEARLY prove the existence of a supernatural being. Why have a double standard?

[Jikanu]

Because things of the supernatural nature are for the most part intangible. Therefore asking for tangible evidence of the intangible is rather impossible, isnt it?

[Hraesvelg]

But just pointing to the supernatural and saying "NYAH, NYAH, OFF-LIMITS TO SKEPTICAL INQUIRY! RULES OF EVIDENCE DON'T APPLY!" doesn't work. It makes one look either naive or a fool.