Prove it. Exactly and it has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with cause and effect. Observed effect. Faith is a matter of the imagination.
I just did. I used "gravity" and "radio waves" to express my point. You must do a lot of speed reading? Are you going to hold me to your definition of faith again? Perhaps going to that all inclusive source the dictionary. Faith is the "concrete evidence at hand." I stated, it was a Biblical term. Webster and the guys are on their own. Such a definition would include, now read this very carefully, even the scientific term "cause and effect." let's throw in "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." To dismiss Faith as foolish "blind credulity" simply because you and the religious community choose to except such propaganda is unfortunate and misleading. Actually, many scriptural expressions speak very highly of "cause and effect," for example: "You reap what you sow," Bad company will ruin good habits," "Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind," you get it, "cause and effect." Speaking of the "imagination of the mind." It's not hard to win an argument, if you get to define all the terms.
They expressed your puzzling notion, they did not make your point. No, just feel free to make up chit. :insane: What a crock Somebody's on his own . . . You're making this up as you go, aren't you? 1. The word is "accept". 2. I have not dismissed faith, you should really read the whole thread. I only defend science from mythologists. I'm using widely accepted and defined terms from authoritative sources. It is you that is being imaginative here, Sunshine. By all means, give us your redefinitions in Tusk terminology so that we might be able to better comprehend your perplexing philosophy.
I have but one thought left in regards to this thread and all the other threads that this topic is debated, To each his/her own. We all know that this is not a topic that one side cannot convince the other side that they are right. I should think that if Priests/Pastors and Scientists can't how can we, the congregation, expect to.
This is a point I've been trying to make. You can't prove faith using science and you can't prove science using faith. As long as people are clear about the distinction, there is no problem. Science concludes that the supernatural does not exist due to absolute lack of evidence. This does not preclude the faithful from believing whatever they want to.
Red: There is only a lack of evidence that falls under the "accepted" scientific regime. You have basically defined the supernatural out of existence based on natural criteria. This is an unreasonable state of mind. If men walked around demanding that everything that takes place in life, (and is certainly real).....if we demanded that all this take place in a laboratory, is repeatabe and observable then we would be much poorer for it. It is an unreasonable attitude to assume blanket application of the scientific method for all reality. And once again, I have to ask: Is there an attorney on this forum? I can't believe there are no lawyers that check out this board from time to time.
THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT!!!! You believe it to exist. Fine. But then you say that I must believe it also, based on your beliefs. Look the supernatural is not natural, it's imaginary. I will absolutely use real, natural criteria in my reasoning. Crying "NO FAIR" is poor debating technique. Convince me if you've got any substance. If you demand that the supernatural be accepted without resort to faith, then you have to be willing to demonstrate rational criteria for doing that. How many times do you plan to repeat this. I don't plan to address it anymore. Come up with something new, will you? It is a logical state of mind. I know you don't understand what the hell I'm talking about . . . but you are demanding that I simply dismiss logical analysis. Don't hold your breath.
What some seem to not realize is that just because someone doesn’t have faith in something nor do the believe in something are they saying that it is impossible for it to exist. Which is the case of Red. He chooses not to accept the beliefs of Christians, due to the lack of concrete evidence. He isn’t saying that there is no way in hell that any of the religious beliefs are possible, just that due to the lack of evidence it isn’t something he is willing to accept or have faith in. Fair enough to me. To me we are still very similar. Christians, Jewish, Muslim, or whatever have faith in and follow God or a supreme being. Those who follow the findings of science and the facts that they present are very similar in that they put their faith and beliefs in science, still a great presence than themselves. Acknowledging that something, greater than they are, created everything. Their something is partially explained by science, those who follow a religion is explained thru God.
Red: I don't think I ever said you "have" to believe it. I think I may have said you "have" to admit it is reasonable and rational to assume the supernatural exists based on testimony of eyewitnesses thoughout history. I'm not crying "no fair", I am just waiting on a decision regarding the probability of the courtroom decision in my admittedly fictional case. Again, it is my contention that is a "reasonable" decision, not a leap of faith without evidence and certainly not an irrational belief in imaginary magic, etc. I don't blame you, these things always end in (thank God) one or two main sticking point where it is pointless to continue unless they are resolved. I was hoping to get an answer and be able to move on to the next part of the argument. I really can't say anymore about it until then. But you are right, it is the same territory. At least we have it boiled down to a couple of main issues though. Red: I'm demanding no such thing. If anything I would demand that you be able to distinguish between immaterial and imaginary. But anyway, I was just waiting a bit. No luck so far though.
that is not rational. delusion and dishonesty and hallucination are common and well-understood phenomena. that is what it is reasonable and rational to understand.
