I've written a thread about this similar topic before but in a more different intonation to this one.

There is this saying, 'extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence'
Since the evidence for the existence of god and its claims is not strong enough and scientific findings are continuously going against stuffs writen in various holy books like the bible.

Should we use faith to accept that god exists and also accept various divine claims written in those holy books or should we rather do away with those stuffs, change our presuppositions and embrace scientific facts with evidence and proofs?


Faith is a feeling, conviction, or belief that something is true or real, not contingent upon reason or justification. Believing a proposition when there is no evidence in support of.
It is confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on proof. It may also refer to a particular system of religious belief.

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.


MuttleyLaff
malvisguy212
nobilis
winner01
CaptainJune

mmmh

menesheh:
I've written a thread about this similar topic before but in a more different intonation to this one.

There is this saying, 'extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence'
Since the evidence for the existence of god and its claims is not strong enough and scientific findings are continuously going against stuffs writen in various holy books like the bible.

Should we use faith to accept that god exists and also accept various divine claims written in those holy books or should we rather do away with those stuffs, change our presuppositions and embrace scientific facts with evidence and proofs?


Faith is a feeling, conviction, or belief that something is true or real, not contingent upon reason or justification. Believing a proposition when there is no evidence in support of.
It is confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on proof. It may also refer to a particular system of religious belief.

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.


MuttleyLaff
malvisguy212
nobilis
winner01
CaptainJune

LOL.

I have some few questions.
1. When you talk about Faith an belief in God, which God are you talking about?
Are you talking about the God(s) of the Abrahamic religions or are you talking about all other Gods out there whose followers also have holy books claimed to have been inspired by their deity?

Even among the Abrahamic religions, are you talking about Jehovah, Yahweh or Allah? Or do you erroneously think they are the same God?
Go through the old testament, the new testament and the koran, you will see that they are not the same God. They are very different in character, attitude, actions and dispositions.

So which God is the real God and how will u arrive at that conclusion?

2. Let us zero in on Christianity and its bible.
Now the bible protrays God as all-loving, slow to anger, righteous, protecting the helpless and so on.
The same bible also portrays God as a fickle being who is a slave to his passions. He sanctions slavery, manslaughter, polygamy, genocide (Egypt, Amalek, Assyria), favouritism and so on. In most cases, like in the case of Uzzah, he kills by himself. This same God who is portrayed as peace-loving is also portrayed as a specialist in pitting one group of his creatures against the others.

Even though faith doesn't need to have evidence but it shouldn't be blind. Faith should not be divorced from reason. I refer you to Pope John Paul II's encyclical letter titled: FIDES ET RATIO.
That being said, why will you now base your faith on such a book that is self-contradictory?
Why will you have faith in such a God that blows hot today and blows cold tomorrow.

For example, more than half of the people who profess Christianity today are not really doing so because they love God. No. They do so because they are afraid of hell fire. Because they know that even though he is portrayed as merciful, they see him as one who can be wicked in punishing someone; they see him as one who, even though he is portrayed as merciful, has a limit to the level of his mercy.

3. The God of the christians is portrayed as loving unconditionally. Yet he gives out laws and tells those who do not obey him that they will be punished for not obeying.
Now is that the definition of unconditional love?

So I will ask you: what exactly is the basis of your "faith"?

First off, thanks for the mention.

There's something we have to understand about the relationship between faith and evidence - they are the same thing. They're both evidence of something. Faith is evidence of the unseen; science is evidence of what is seen. Whichever is used one thing is certain - Faith is older than science.

With science we're able to interact with and understand the physical world, its mysteries, its laws, man, animal, plants, land, air, etc. However, with faith we're able to interact with and understand the spiritual world, its mysteries, its laws, the forces that inhabit this world, the beings, etc.

Atheists and unbelievers perceive faith in God as some kind of belief without evidence. This is why it is said that they are blind fools. While you can never manufacture a 'physical' evidence for something of spiritual nature, you can never deny the reality of the supernatural, or the existence of the spiritual realm whose evidence lie personal experience, people's experience, history of people having the same experience, physical manifestations confirming the Word of God such as unexplainable cure of cancer, HIV/AIDS, resurrection from clinical death, the manifestations of the gifts of prophecy (that accurately describes the details of life of strangers), tongues and interpretation, word of knowledge, discerning of spirits etc etc, or physical manifestations of spiritual phenomena such as poltergeist activities, ouija board, the activities of rain makers, physically undetectable cause(s) of an illness bearing the same symptom with common illness, womb overdue for delivery but remains in that stage probably for years (rare and usual at the same time), unexplainable manifestations defying explanation which the medical and scientific world recognise as real but fail to explain using scientific knowledge gained from reading textbooks, but which others also call the paranormal, there're also out of body experiences, near-death experiences, too numerous to mention.

The bottom line is faith in God is not blind neither is is it the exercise people resort to to feel good about themselves and their situation. Faith in God is no longer a question of religion because the evidence of the existence of God is overwhelming in our daily lives so that whoever does not believe despite this pieces of evidence scattered all over the universe has no one but himself to blame in judgment neither will he have any excuse to offer for doubting the evidence of the existence of God - faith and science.

CaptainJune:
First off, thanks for the mention.

There's something we have to understand about the relationship between faith and evidence - they are the same thing. They're both evidence of something. Faith is evidence of the unseen; science is evidence of what is seen. Whichever is used one thing is certain - Faith is older than science.

As always you don't still check what you post.

Faith is not an evidence of anything.. FAITH: A feeling or conviction that something is true without empirical evidence.

A muslim has faith in Allah, this is not an evidence of Allah but simply a conviction.
A christian has Faith is Yahweh, this is not evidence of Yahweh but simply a conviction.
I may have FAITH that a flying diamond pig exists, this is not evidence of the pig but simply my delusional CONVICTION.

Your faith in anything doesn't make it true, doesn't even make it probably true... Your faith only means you believe it whether it is true or not. So please don't pull this stupendous comparison between Empirical evidence (that science deals with) and Faith (conviction).

With science we're able to interact with and understand the physical world, its mysteries, its laws, man, animal, plants, land, air, etc. However, with faith we're able to interact with and understand the spiritual world, its mysteries, its laws, the forces that inhabit this world, the beings, etc.

With FAITH you only able to be convicted in your own delusion that there is such a thing as the spiritual world when you are in a material world. Again study of nature (science) tenders postulations and gives the methods used to arrive to such conclusions.

But in your conviction of something as delusional as claim a spirit world, no compelling evidence to suggest so, yet you are fully convinced of it and call your conviction evidence? is that not a total show of ludicrous gullibility

I have FAITH that i am Zeddicus Zul Zorranda... Bingo, there is my evidence..

Atheists and unbelievers perceive faith in God as some kind of belief without evidence.

Exactly! Its a conviction, just FAITH and nothing more..

This is why it is said that they are blind fools. While you can never manufacture a 'physical' evidence for something of spiritual nature, you can never deny the reality of the supernatural, or the existence of the spiritual realm whose evidence lie personal experience, people's experience,

One can only imagine how such gullibility stems. . Personal Experience, so people should swallow YOUR PERSONAL conviction as a UNIVERSAL TRUTH?

since your personal experience cannot be demonstrated for substantiation, it sorely rests that you are only postulating your own assumptions.

You postulate that something IS, yet you can not tender how you arrived at such conclusion... How then did you know because for the fact that you got to know show that it is perceivable.

But NO, you don't know, you are only convicted that it is true thereby shutting out reason in entirety, subjecting yourself to a gullible state of nonsensical conviction.

Makes us wonder who "the blind fools or fool" is in this case..

history of people having the same experience, physical manifestations confirming the Word of God such as unexplainable cure of cancer,

Where you lack knowledge is a call for more study and not some stupendous superstition. . .

Study has come up with [size=16]Chemotherapy, Radiation therapy and many other ways cancer can be battled[/size] which in the near future will be drastically improved with more study, leaving to people like you who employ superstition where they lack knowledge, man would still be riding horses now.

HIV/AIDS

Malaria once had no cure now is as common as common cold.
where you lack knowledge should incite more study not superstition...

resurrection from clinical death,

A common medical phenomenon... For goodness sake stop sounding too childish..

the manifestations of the gifts of prophecy (that accurately describes the details of life of strangers), tongues and interpretation, word of knowledge, discerning of spirits etc etc, or physical manifestations of spiritual phenomena such as poltergeist activities, ouija board, the activities of rain makers, physically undetectable cause(s) of an illness bearing the same symptom with common illness, womb overdue for delivery but remains in that stage probably for years (rare and usual at the same time), unexplainable manifestations defying explanation which the medical and scientific world recognise as real but fail to explain using scientific knowledge gained from reading textbooks,

It's nobody's fault that you are that Gullible... To you if something is unexplained then BINGO, evidence of the spiritual. Are you well at all?

Something unknown i repeat is a call for study, scrutiny and experimentation to know exactly what is not employ the type of delusional superstition you so want to cling to.

I wonder what the future of scientific knowledge will be on earth if people reasoned like this..

but which others also call the paranormal, there're also out of body experiences, near-death experiences, too numerous to mention.

Out of body experiences, Illusionary projections. And somehow someone cannot fathom that the BRAIN is the center of consciousness and perception in man. . Every illusionary projection by man is as a result of the brain which in turn is one of the last ORGANS to die in the body..

James Randy Challenge been up since 1964, why not go and prove your so desperate claims of preternatural activities and claim the 1million dollars prize.

The bottom line is faith in God is not blind neither is is it the exercise people resort to to feel good about themselves and their situation. Faith in God is no longer a question of religion because the evidence of the existence of God is overwhelming in our daily lives so that whoever does not believe despite this pieces of evidence scattered all over the universe has no one but himself to blame in judgment neither will he have any excuse to offer for doubting the evidence of the existence of God - faith and science.

[b]It is crystal clear. . . Your FAITH is a blind one. what else could you term something that has no compelling evidence but only claims of PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

We take it that your FAITH in a God is an escape route to feel good about yourself and your situation where you will be blindly clinging to a ridiculous notion that something is coming to solve your problems.

And now you are laying claims to OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES of which you claimed above has no physical evidence but only Faith..
Please pray tell: Give us these OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES, we will like to see them.

And he throws in the superstition of the supposed universal creator engaging on a barbaric judgement concept, Maybe then we will find out if the supposed God is against the use of brain and not unfounded conviction..Dragging down the supposed perfect god to a childish state of Egoism and barbaric narcissism.

All in All again please do not drag down SCIENCE (study, experiment, observation) down to the stupendous level such as your delusional convictions in things that cannot be demonstrated or substantiated....

Faith in a thing doesn't make it true, it only means you believe it whether is true or not[/b]

menesheh:
I've written a thread about this similar topic before but in a more different intonation to this one.

There is this saying, 'extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence'
Since the evidence for the existence of god and its claims is not strong enough and scientific findings are continuously going against stuffs writen in various holy books like the bible.

Should we use faith to accept that god exists and also accept various divine claims written in those holy books or should we rather do away with those stuffs, change our presuppositions and embrace scientific facts with evidence and proofs?


Faith is a feeling, conviction, or belief that something is true or real, not contingent upon reason or justification. Believing a proposition when there is no evidence in support of.
It is confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on proof. It may also refer to a particular system of religious belief.

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.


MuttleyLaff
malvisguy212
nobilis
winner01
CaptainJune

that is not how the bible defined faith, faith is not a felling and the bible encourage us to ask question and be fully convinced of what we believe.

Christians can be "case makers" precisely because the Christian faith is an evidential faith. When we, as Christians, argue for the truth of the Christian Worldview, we are not sharing an opinion. There either is a God, or there is not. Jesus is that God, or He is not. Salvation comes through Christ alone (as Jesus Himself maintained), or it does not.
This is not a matter of opinion, personal
preference or wishful thinking. The
Christian faith is grounded in evidence
that can be assessed and evaluated. The Christian faith is an evidential faith.

https://www.nairaland.com/2148108/christian-faith-based-upon-evidence

CaptainJune:
First off, thanks for the mention.
They're both evidence of something. Faith is evidence of the unseen; science is evidence of what is seen. Whichever is used one thing is certain - Faith is older than science.

The bolded part of your post caught my attention immensely, faith is the evidence of the unseen . Waw. . you are misunderstanding faith to predictions based on evidence and data collected.

Here we are, stocked in a vast deep universe, with Phenomena we as human couldn't phantom out the causes of those things. Human with its cognitive reasoning prowess has created too many fantasies through the observable and non-observable phenomenal happenings before them and outside their reach. The question that arises is "how can we, the greater primate distinguish between facts of a phenomenon to fantasy of the same phenomenon. Are we to apply faith, or use observable evidence to evaluate those things. Applying faith implys accepting anything atall posited by human mind without censor.

Faith as you said being the evidence of the unseen, is not a pathway to finding the fact of something. Lets say there is a murder in a house, can u apply faith by either saying that it is not murder, or start looking for clues to finding what actually happened.

Using faith as the evidence for the unseen maybe dellusional. A magician performing in a stage may use tricks, accepting his tricks as true with the application of faith may be an illusion. We can start believing anything with faith since faith is the evidence of those unseen fantasies.

What can I say?

I guess you can never really take away the human need to believe in something. Nigerians have found solace in religion because it, amongst other things, encourages us to shun our responsiblity. When something good happens, it must be god, and when something happens, it just has to be the devil. Nigerians have to be number one in the ranking of people who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. If it is not the government it is god and if it isn't god then it is the devil.

This same god has failed to reveal itself or repeat all it's "miracles", at least the ones in the bible and other religious story books, in over 2000years. When malaria was a major epidemic, and it still is, killing thousands of people, "it" never performed any miracle nor healed anyone. In its love, as its followers will like us to believe, it let millions of kids and people die. Then a set of humans decided to look into this problem "themselves" until they were able to come up with a cure and thus saved millions of lives. Needless to mention that countries that don't expect god to solve their problems have progressed and broken greater barriers than Africans, who god seems to be only concerned with either sending them to hell or preparing "paradise" with lots of singing jobs, and who still live in abject poverty.

Until the average Nigerian understands that he is solely responsible for whatever goes on in his life, we will continue to be faced with people who consider "believing" in something as evidence that that "something" exists.

malvisguy212:
that is not how the bible defined faith, faith is not a felling and the bible encourage us to ask question and be fully convinced of what we believe.

Faith is an english word meaning different things, in the context this topic, post the particular meaning of faith from any dictionary and also the reference to the particular dictionary used.

Christians can be "case makers" precisely because the Christian faith is an evidential faith. When we, as Christians, argue for the truth of the Christian Worldview, we are not sharing an opinion. There either is a God, or there is not. Jesus is that God, or He is not. Salvation comes through Christ alone (as Jesus Himself maintained), or it does not.
This is not a matter of opinion, personal
preference or wishful thinking. The
Christian faith is grounded in evidence
that can be assessed and evaluated. The Christian faith is an evidential faith.

https://www.nairaland.com/2148108/christian-faith-based-upon-evidence

[/quote]

Why i invited you to this thread is that you argue constructively than most naive defender of christainity.


BOLDED, there is this word SKEPTISM which connotes non-absolutism, continuous asking questions despite vast evidence supporting an opinion or a facts. That's one reason i find science so amazing. Now, PRESUPPOSITION implys taking positions and ready to do away with any counter to the already assumed position. Opinions offered as you said can sometimes be overridden by more workable offer. Also opinions offered sometime can be wrong.

To my point now, can you be wrong about god? Are you ready to change your position about your god if there is emergence of more plausible god, say muslem god, if there appear vivid evidence in support of allah.

Among many other gods claims, using evidence by faith (as you rightly said), is it justifiable to use such evidence as presented in those various holy books as a justification for such a believe? of which you can testify with me that those evidence are intrisic to each and every of those religions.

johnydon22:
As always you don't still check what you post.

Faith is not an evidence of anything.. FAITH: A feeling or conviction that something is true without empirical evidence.

A muslim has faith in Allah, this is not an evidence of Allah but simply a conviction.
A christian has Faith is Yahweh, this is not evidence of Yahweh but simply a conviction.
I may have FAITH that a flying diamond pig exists, this is not evidence of the pig but simply my delusional CONVICTION.

Your faith in anything doesn't make it true, doesn't even make it probably true... Your faith only means you believe it whether it is true or not. So please don't pull this stupendous comparison between Empirical evidence (that science deals with) and Faith (conviction).


With FAITH you only able to be convicted in your own delusion that there is such a thing as the spiritual world when you are in a material world. Again study of nature (science) tenders postulations and gives the methods used to arrive to such conclusions.

But in your conviction of something as delusional as claim a spirit world, no compelling evidence to suggest so, yet you are fully convinced of it and call your conviction evidence? is that not a total show of ludicrous gullibility

I have FAITH that i am Zeddicus Zul Zorranda... Bingo, there is my evidence..


Exactly! Its a conviction, just FAITH and nothing more..

One can only imagine how such gullibility stems. . Personal Experience, so people should swallow YOUR PERSONAL conviction as a UNIVERSAL TRUTH?

since your personal experience cannot be demonstrated for substantiation, it sorely rests that you are only postulating your own assumptions.

You postulate that something IS, yet you can not tender how you arrived at such conclusion... How then did you know because for the fact that you got to know show that it is perceivable.

But NO, you don't know, you are only convicted that it is true thereby shutting out reason in entirety, subjecting yourself to a gullible state of nonsensical conviction.

Makes us wonder who "the blind fools or fool" is in this case..
Where you lack knowledge is a call for more study and not some stupendous superstition. . .

Study has come up with [size=16]Chemotherapy, Radiation therapy and many other ways cancer can be battled[/size] which in the near future will be drastically improved with more study, leaving to people like you who employ superstition where they lack knowledge, man would still be riding horses now.
Malaria once had no cure now is as common as common cold.
where you lack knowledge should incite more study not superstition...
A common medical phenomenon... For goodness sake stop sounding too childish..
It's nobody's fault that you are that Gullible... To you if something is unexplained then BINGO, evidence of the spiritual. Are you well at all?

Something unknown i repeat is a call for study, scrutiny and experimentation to know exactly what is not employ the type of delusional superstition you so want to cling to.

I wonder what the future of scientific knowledge will be on earth if people reasoned like this..
Out of body experiences, Illusionary projections. And somehow someone cannot fathom that the BRAIN is the center of consciousness and perception in man. . Every illusionary projection by man is as a result of the brain which in turn is one of the last ORGANS to die in the body..

James Randy Challenge been up since 1964, why not go and prove your so desperate claims of preternatural activities and claim the 1million dollars prize.


[b]It is crystal clear. . . Your FAITH is a blind one. what else could you term something that has no compelling evidence but only claims of PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

We take it that your FAITH in a God is an escape route to feel good about yourself and your situation where you will be blindly clinging to a ridiculous notion that something is coming to solve your problems.

And now you are laying claims to OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES of which you claimed above has no physical evidence but only Faith..
Please pray tell: Give us these OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES, we will like to see them.

And he throws in the superstition of the supposed universal creator engaging on a barbaric judgement concept, Maybe then we will find out if the supposed God is against the use of brain and not unfounded conviction..Dragging down the supposed perfect god to a childish state of Egoism and barbaric narcissism.

All in All again please do not drag down SCIENCE (study, experiment, observation) down to the stupendous level such as your delusional convictions in things that cannot be demonstrated or substantiated....

Faith in a thing doesn't make it true, it only means you believe it whether is true or not[/b]

Awesome


Thread almost closed but not yet

nobilis:




LOL.



I have some few questions.

1. When you talk about Faith an belief in God, which God are you talking about?

Are you talking about the God(s) of the Abrahamic religions or are you talking about all other Gods out there whose followers also have holy books claimed to have been inspired by their deity?

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Yes, the God of Elijah, of Moses, of king David, of Jeremiah, of Joshua, of John the baptist, of Peter, of John, of Matthew, of Paul. The one and same God.

Even among the Abrahamic religions, are you talking about Jehovah, Yahweh or Allah? Or do you erroneously think they are the same God?

Go through the old testament, the new testament and the koran, you will see that they are not the same God. They are very different in character, attitude, actions and dispositions.

Jehovah and Yahweh are two among the appellations of the I AM, the Elohim, the God of Abraham. Allah is a deity extremely different in disposition, expectation, character and ways from the God of Abraham. Jehovah and Allah are as different as day is different from night, as mountain is different from valley. Yahweh sent His Son to die for the sins of mankind, but Allah denies the death of Jesus Christ, says it is a figment of imagination, in other words.

So which God is the real God and how will u arrive at that conclusion?

The God who is greater than all other gods is the true God. The logical question should be how can we determine the God that is greater than others?



One of the tests to determine the answer to such question and probably the most important test of the sovereign nature of the true God is the test of universality. How known or experienced are the different gods to people all over the world? Has Buddah been seen by thousands of Africans or Europeans or Canadians or the Greeks past and present? Krishna? Allah? Zeus, Baal? Molech? Odin? Has Sango or Amadioha revealed themselves to people across tribes, nations or the world in order to erase doubts of their existence and to establish their supremacy over other gods? Which god passes this test of universality? I'd like to know. They cannot. You know why? They're not gods but demons parading as gods. They're hindered by time and space so that they cannot be everywhere at the same time. This is why this so-called religious gods can never stretch their activities beyond a region. The only Being that passes this test and even goes beyond that since He is the Creator of time and space is the God of Abraham.



Another test is the test of universal revelation. This is similar to the test of universality but the difference here lies in reaching out to people of contrary beliefs by the true deity. How often have you heard that thousands, I mean thousands - okay, for the sake of modesty let's say hundreds of practicing buddhists, or Muslims seen and accurately described Krishna or Zeus or Dagon or Ra? What about atheists? Have they had any experience with these gods in order to impact their beliefs or lack of it in their existence? Have Muslims seen or heard any Indian god or goddess? Where? Give me links, books, audio or video evidence of this phenomenon. The one true God accepts everyone irrespective of belief and loves them the same. The one true God not only reveals Himself to His followers but also to those following other deities. It is easy to doubt Christians when they say they saw or heard Jesus Christ. However, a number of pagans, atheists, Muslims, buddhists, traditionalists, or egyptians, people of various religious beliefs have reported seeing Jesus Christ or angels, an encounter which changed their lives forever.

Another test is the test of the afterlife. Does the afterlife exist? How do we determine its existence? If it exists, which deity do we have to give account of our existence on earth? Is it Allah, or the Egyptian sun god, or Annubis, or Chemosh, or Diana? The question of the afterlife is no longer a subject restricted to religion or spiritual beliefs. It is a subject of scientific interest and the results of these experiments are quite interesting. Many subjects describe seeing a deity whose descriptions correspond to Jesus Christ or the Father. Some describe seeing peaceful light and a being in the center of that light, some experiences are so vivid and detail that they describe the nail marks on his hands while some describe seeing the peaceful abode of the saints in paradise. A set of others had a different story of being dragged to a region of flames of fire, seeing hell, hearing tormenting wails and screamings. All these experiences point to the fact that the Bible is no fiction. It is real as real can be.


There are many other tests but this three should suffice to answer your questions concerning the determination of the true God.

2. Let us zero in on Christianity and its bible.

Now the bible protrays God as all-loving, slow to anger, righteous, protecting the helpless and so on.

The same bible also portrays God as a fickle being who is a slave to his passions. He sanctions slavery, manslaughter, polygamy, genocide (Egypt, Amalek, Assyria), favouritism and so on. In most cases, like in the case of Uzzah, he kills by himself. This same God who is portrayed as peace-loving is also portrayed as a specialist in pitting one group of his creatures against the others.

This has no bearing with the topic of discussion. Let's stick to the topic. Focusing on this may lead us to deviate from the original topic.

Even though faith doesn't need to have evidence but it shouldn't be blind. Faith should not be divorced from reason.

I quite agree with you on this. Ironically, this is also my argument for the belief in the existence of God.

For example, more than half of the people who profess Christianity today are not really doing so because they love God. No. They do so because they are afraid of hell fire. Because they know that even though he is portrayed as merciful, they see him as one who can be wicked in punishing someone; they see him as one who, even though he is portrayed as merciful, has a limit to the level of his mercy.

You should speak for yourself here. Do you think everyone loves sin the way you do? Why do you ignorantly assume that serving God is based on fear of punishment when literally thousands are much more fulfilled and happier serving God than serving the devil as you do? You can't just judge everyone with your narrow lens of perception. Even if there were no hell or heaven, many will still gladly serve God for the rest of their lives while many will still refuse to serve Him. It is just like the relationship between a father and his children. They know their father is ready to punish them when they go wrong but they never doubt for a second their father's love for them. The father's love is reciprocated despite the certainty of punishment because the love the father has for them is far far greater than the desire to punish them. They do not rebel against their father simply on the thought of possible suffering of punishment should they go wrong.

Besides, you conveniently excluded the part where belief in God is based on love for what God has done and is doing for His people. His goodness, His mercies, His answers to prayers, His deliverance of His people from chains of darkness, His miracles, His salvation given freely to all mankind, His unconditional love for us despite our wickedness. These are just a few among many reasons for loving and serving God and they're more than enough for anyone to serve Him without fear of punishment because there's no fear in love. You're very free to ignore His love but that is ultimately your choice, not ours, the children of God.

3. The God of the christians is portrayed as loving unconditionally. Yet he gives out laws and tells those who do not obey him that they will be punished for not obeying.

I continue to say this, you're deluded if you think God is only a God of love. He is, of course. However, He is also a God of wrath. He is a God of mercy as well as a God of judgment. He has made this fact well known in His Word and through the ages. It will be best you always keep that in mind.

So I will ask you: what exactly is the basis of your "faith"?

I want to ask, what is the basis of your doubt despite all the physical evidence of an unseen Creator?

johnydon22:
As always you don't still check what you post.

Faith is not an evidence of anything.. FAITH: A feeling or conviction that something is true without empirical evidence.

A muslim has faith in Allah, this is not an evidence of Allah but simply a conviction.
A christian has Faith is Yahweh, this is not evidence of Yahweh but simply a conviction.
I may have FAITH that a flying diamond pig exists, this is not evidence of the pig but simply my delusional CONVICTION.

Your faith in anything doesn't make it true, doesn't even make it probably true... Your faith only means you believe it whether it is true or not. So please don't pull this stupendous comparison between Empirical evidence (that science deals with) and Faith (conviction).

If you read the Bible, you'd see that the Israelites worshiped different gods, they had 'faith' in those gods of woods and stone they carved and served otherwise they wouldn't have bothered serving those gods. However, their faith was blind. There was no reason to put their faith in the existence of the things that did not supernaturally deliver them from trouble, gods that could not provide water for them in the wilderness, gods that were incapable of healing them from their diseases, gods that could not supernaturally feed them when they were hungry and had run out of food in the wilderness when they left Egypt. Their faith in those gods was, in essence, blind. This is not the faith the Bible teaches. God asks His people to believe in Him with childlike faith. Faith which is convinced of the ability of God. This conviction comes from knowing or experience of the power and ability of God so that one's confidence rests completely in God. This is not the blind faith that believes in a deity in the absence of the physical manifestations of the deity's powers or ability, as you erroneously assume I described.

With FAITH you only able to be convicted in your own delusion that there is such a thing as the spiritual world when you are in a material world. Again study of nature (science) tenders postulations and gives the methods used to arrive to such conclusions.

But in your conviction of something as delusional as claim a spirit world, no compelling evidence to suggest so, yet you are fully convinced of it and call your conviction evidence? is that not a total show of ludicrous gullibility

I have FAITH that i am Zeddicus Zul Zorranda... Bingo, there is my evidence..

If you read my post, you'll find this comment very laughable because there's no semblance of faith in this declaration. It is pure delusion and fantasy, not faith. It is possible schizophrenia in the making. You talk about science arriving at a conclusion
through observation and deduction, are you aware of many events that science has no explanation to offer using the same methods to arrive at a conclusion, occurrences about which it has kept mom? If science is the sole process by which reality is proven, why has it failed to come up with clear conclusions as regards these supernatural phenomena? Why is it still difficult to explain why a patient was able to accurately describe to doctors what they said and what transpired in the operating room at the same time she was being operated on even though all the instruments showed her brain was dead, or say clinically dead, without life or pulse, but eventually resurrected to the great surprise of the doctors and nurses who had eventually declared her time of death?

One can only imagine how such gullibility stems. . Personal Experience, so people should swallow YOUR PERSONAL conviction as a UNIVERSAL TRUTH?

since your personal experience cannot be demonstrated for substantiation, it sorely rests that you are only postulating your own assumptions.

You postulate that something IS, yet you can not tender how you arrived at such conclusion... How then did you know because for the fact that you got to know show that it is perceivable.

But NO, you don't know, you are only convicted that it is true thereby shutting out reason in entirety, subjecting yourself to a gullible state of nonsensical conviction.

Makes us wonder who "the blind fools or fool" is in this case..

Lol. Did I hear you say faith should be based on my personal experience? This here is really funny submission. Whether you admit it or deny it, there are so many things in this world that defy logical or scientific explanation. The fact that they cannot be explained using scientific methods of deduction, should they be discounted as false? Should they be ignored because they fail to appear under the microscopic lens of science?

You'll never get a compelling scientific evidence of faith in God. Even science is incapable of providing such even if it does not deny the existence of consciousness after death.

Where you lack knowledge is a call for more study and not some stupendous superstition. . .

Study has come up with [size=16]Chemotherapy, Radiation therapy and many other ways cancer can be battled[/size] which in the near future will be drastically improved with more study, leaving to people like you who employ superstition where they lack knowledge, man would still be riding horses now.
Malaria once had no cure now is as common as common cold.
where you lack knowledge should incite more study not superstition...

On the contrary, your blind insistence on the impossibility of the spiritual world is superstitious. Medical experts and some scientists, not attached to any religion of the world, have proved to the world that the spiritual world is a reality. For want of space, I shall not publish their findings now. If scientists and people who have had similar experiences, Christians or non-Christians, testify to the reality of the existence of the soul, then it is worse than blindness and ignorance to state otherwise.

Out of body experiences, Illusionary projections. And somehow someone cannot fathom that the BRAIN is the center of consciousness and perception in man. . Every illusionary projection by man is as a result of the brain which in turn is one of the last ORGANS to die in the body..

Very unintelligent comment. You're still backward in terms of scientific discoveries that state the possibility of consciousness even after the brain is dead, even after oxygen has left it for about four to six minutes tops and the person is declared dead.

Faith in a thing doesn't make it true, it only means you believe it whether is true or not

True. It doesn't matter if you have faith in God or not. It doesn't make Him any less real. However, faith in God is the conviction of His existence. It is a conviction not based on the principles of science or logic, a conviction that is aware of His reality, His presence, His power, His love - this awareness is the basis of faith, it is the evidence of the unseen, it is true faith in God.

menesheh:


The bolded part of your post caught my attention immensely, faith is the evidence of the unseen . Waw. . Are you misunderstanding faith to predictions based on evidence and data collected.

Here we are, stocked in a vast deep universe, with Phenomena we as human couldn't phantom out the causes of those things. Human with its cognitive reasoning prowess has created too many fantasies through the observable and non-observable phenomenal happenings before them and outside their reach. The question that arises is "how can we, the greater primate distinguish between facts of a phenomenon to fantasy of the same phenomenon. Are we to apply faith, or use observable evidence to evaluate those things. Applying faith implys accepting anything atall posited by human mind without censor.

Faith as you said being the evidence of the unseen, is not a pathway to finding the fact of something. Lets say there is a murder in a house, can u apply faith by either saying that it is not murder, or start looking for clues to finding what actually happened.

Using faith as the evidence for the unseen maybe illusional. A magician performing in a stage may use tricks, accepting his tricks as true with the application of faith may be illusional. We can start believing anything with faith since faith is the evidence of those unseen fantasies.

Read my posts to understand the meaning of faith (in God) as opposed to gullibility and fantasy and illusion. They're all quite different terms and are not related to the faith I'm talking about.

hahn:
What can I say?

I guess you can never really take away the human need to believe in something. Nigerians have found solace in religion because it, amongst other things, encourages us to shun our responsiblity. When something good happens, it must be god, and when something happens, it just has to be the devil. Nigerians have to be number one in the ranking of people who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. If it is not the government it is god and if it isn't god then it is the devil.

This same god has failed to reveal itself or repeat all it's "miracles", at least the ones in the bible and other religious story books, in over 2000years. When malaria was a major epidemic, and it still is, killing thousands of people, "it" never performed any miracle nor healed anyone. In its love, as its followers will like us to believe, it let millions of kids and people die. Then a set of humans decided to look into this problem "themselves" until they were able to come up with a cure and thus saved millions of lives. Needless to mention that countries that don't expect god to solve their problems have progressed and broken greater barriers than Africans, who god seems to be only concerned with either sending them to hell or preparing "paradise" with lots of singing jobs, and who still live in abject poverty.

Until the average Nigerian understands that he is solely responsible for whatever goes on in his life, we will continue to be faced with people who consider "believing" in something as evidence that that "something" exists.

Of course, there's no amount of miraculous evidence or proof of the supernatural that will separate the natural man from his ignorance.

He never looks for it neither does he investigate the claims but he is quick to condemn the testimonies of millions all over the world all saying the same thing.

Moreover, it's absurd to assume that responsibility is tied to spiritual matters. That people peg every event on either God or the devil or the government is the most careless statement I ever read showing a great absence of effort in thinking this through. And I thought I've heard it all.

CaptainJune:


Read my posts to understand the meaning of faith (in God) as opposed to gullibility and fantasy and illusion. They're all quite different terms and are not related to the faith I'm talking about.

I didn't see any English definition of faith in your previous comment. I noticed that you are intentionally dodging my question.



cheer

CaptainJune:


Of course, there's no amount of miraculous evidence or proof of the supernatural that will separate the natural man from his ignorance.

He never looks for it neither does he investigate the claims but he is quick to condemn the testimonies of millions all over the world all saying the same thing.

Moreover, it's absurd to assume that responsibility is tied to spiritual matters. That people peg every event on either God or the devil or the government is the most careless statement I ever read showing a great absence of effort in thinking this through. And I thought I've heard it all.

I am only responsible for what I write. You are responsible for what you understand

nobilis:




For example, more than half of the people who profess Christianity today are not really doing so because they love God. No. They do so because they are afraid of hell fire. Because they know that even though he is portrayed as merciful, they see him as one who can be wicked in punishing someone; they see him as one who, even though he is portrayed as merciful, has a limit to the level of his mercy.

3. The God of the christians is portrayed as loving unconditionally. Yet he gives out laws and tells those who do not obey him that they will be punished for not obeying.
Now is that the definition of unconditional love?

So I will ask you: what exactly is the basis of your "faith"?

See you are right that most christians are afraid of hell,these set of christians are the ones that will go to church only on a sunday,will want to 'be holy' on a sunday because they were told that sunday is the day chosen to worship God
But if only they would study the bible they would know better,instead they let 'someone else' tell them about 'the God they serve'
If only they would search for themselves what the bible says concerning them...if only...

CaptainJune:




The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Yes, the God of Elijah, of Moses, of king David, of Jeremiah, of Joshua, of John the baptist, of Peter, of John, of Matthew, of Paul. The one and same God.







Jehovah and Yahweh are two among the appellations of the I AM, the Elohim, the God of Abraham. Allah is a deity extremely different in disposition, expectation, character and ways from the God of Abraham. Jehovah and Allah are as different as day is different from night, as mountain is different from valley. Yahweh sent His Son to die for the sins of mankind, but Allah denies the death of Jesus Christ, says it is a figment of imagination, in other words.







The God who is greater than all other gods is the true God. The logical question should be how can we determine the God that is greater than others?



One of the tests to determine the answer to such question and probably the most important test of the sovereign nature of the true God is the test of universality. How known or experienced are the different gods to people all over the world? Has Buddah been seen by thousands of Africans or Europeans or Canadians or the Greeks past and present? Krishna? Allah? Zeus, Baal? Molech? Odin? Has Sango or Amadioha revealed themselves to people across tribes, nations or the world in order to erase doubts of their existence and to establish their supremacy over other gods? Which god passes this test of universality? I'd like to know. They cannot. You know why? They're not gods but demons parading as gods. They're hindered by time and space so that they cannot be everywhere at the same time. This is why this so-called religious gods can never stretch their activities beyond a region. The only Being that passes this test and even goes beyond that since He is the Creator of time and space is the God of Abraham.



Another test is the test of universal revelation. This is similar to the test of universality but the difference here lies in reaching out to people of contrary beliefs by the true deity. How often have you heard that thousands, I mean thousands - okay, for the sake of modesty let's say hundreds of practicing buddhists, or Muslims seen and accurately described Krishna or Zeus or Dagon or Ra? What about atheists? Have they had any experience with these gods in order to impact their beliefs or lack of it in their existence? Have Muslims seen or heard any Indian god or goddess? Where? Give me links, books, audio or video evidence of this phenomenon. The one true God accepts everyone irrespective of belief and loves them the same. The one true God not only reveals Himself to His followers but also to those following other deities. It is easy to doubt Christians when they say they saw or heard Jesus Christ. However, a number of pagans, atheists, Muslims, buddhists, traditionalists, or egyptians, people of various religious beliefs have reported seeing Jesus Christ or angels, an encounter which changed their lives forever.

I'm sorry to say but most of your facts aren't in line with reality.

Jehovah is the name of the Christian God.
Yahweh (YHWH) is the name of the Jewish God.
Allah is the name of the Muslim God.

You cannot say Jehovah and Yahweh is the same God because their characteristics are very very different. Study the Jewish Talmud and Torah and then study the bible. U will notice these glaring differences.
Moreover, the Jewish God has more in common with the Muslim God than with the Christian God.

Secondly, you're talking about revelation. God revealed himself to this person and to that other person. Most of these revelations are not verifiable. We just have to take the words of those who claim they experienced God.

Even what is supposed to be the ultimate revelation of the christian God is still in doubt: the existence of Jesus hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

So don't bring that logic here.

menesheh:




I didn't see any English definition of faith in your previous comment. I noticed that you are intentionally dodging my question.



cheer

May have been overlooked or answered previously. Either way, do point out the question "in question".

CaptainJune:


Of course, there's no amount of miraculous evidence or proof of the supernatural that will separate the natural man from his ignorance.

He never looks for it neither does he investigate the claims but he is quick to condemn the testimonies of millions all over the world all saying the same thing.

Moreover, it's absurd to assume that responsibility is tied to spiritual matters. That people peg every event on either God or the devil or the government is the most careless statement I ever read showing a great absence of effort in thinking this through. And I thought I've heard it all.

Everybody will like to win noble price and be popular. Miracle can't withstand scientific test of which many have been carried out. If what you termed miracle do happened, don't just say "it is a miracle" because you don't understand how it happened, it is laziness. Get to work, ask questions, collect data and evaluate it, i bet my shoe, at the end, you will know the processes that leads to such phenomenon.

Man for the greater part of the past millenia has engaged in such unsubstantiated labouring of whatever that looks confusing and strange to them as miracle or even god, to the extent of worshipping those things. With science, we now know those things and have stopped labouring anything we don't understand as miracle from the unknown.

CaptainJune:


May have been overlooked or answered previously. Either way, do point out the question "in question".

Very easy to copy and paste the particular English meaning of faith from your previous posts since you claimed to have answered it.

hahn:


I am only responsible for what I write. You are responsible for what you understand

So much for intelligent folks. Not at all disappointed. It was expected as typical of atheists.

menesheh:


Everybody will like to win noble price and be popular. Miracle can't withstand scientific test of which many have been carried out. If what you termed miracle do happened, don't just say "it is a miracle" because you don't understand how it happened, it is laziness. Get to work, ask questions, collect data and evaluate it, i bet my shoe, at the end, you will know the processes that leads to such phenomenon.

In all honesty, this is a really naïve statement as regards spiritual matters manifesting in the physical. Can you evaluate and give a scientific explanation to the 'psychic' phenomenon? How about you dissect the human anatomy to study the mechanism of the gift of prophecy among others? All I'm trying to tell you is that spiritual matters cannot be verified the same way physical matters are done.

Man for the greater part of the past millenia has engaged in such unsubstantiated labouring of whatever that looks confusing and strange to them as miracle or even god, to the extent of worshipping those things. With science, we now know those things and have stopped labouring anything we don't uet understand as miracle from the unknown.

You said it. Faith in God, as well as the products of such faith, is not confusing, and is not strange.
When will you understand that science is grossly incapable of providing logical explanation for every phenomenon or event in this world or universe?

menesheh:



Very easy to copy and paste the particular English meaning of faith from your previous posts since you claimed to have answered it.

All my posts have already defined what I mean by faith in the existence of God as opposed to blind faith or ignorant belief and trust which are factors responsible for making religious fanatics or extremists of various religions of the world.

Faith in God should not be blind or stupid. God Himself is more than willing to lead anyone who lets Him to the level of total and complete trust in Him. In the Bible, you'll discover that Moses' faith in God was as a result of God proving Himself to the Egyptians, Enoch had faith in God because he walked with God three hundred years before God took him, Abraham believed that God was able to perform whatever He said because he knew God, Joshua, Caleb, Samuel, Noah, David, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Peter, John, Paul, etc etc all had faith based on their personal and historical experiences of the ability and power of God. It was not blind. They all had very great and tangible reason(s) to put their complete trust in God who is unseen but whose acts are always seen.

If a Christian, believing to be full of Biblical faith, decided to walk on water because he read that Jesus Christ and Peter did, and as such he would be able to perform the same feat, then such Christian would be a personification of stupidity because he would not be operating in faith in that case; he would be operating in fatal presumption and ignorance.

Yet, the faith the Christian thought himself to possess and the faith the prophets and apostles of the Old and New Testament operated on have the same English definition - complete trust in someone or someone; belief in a religious doctrine or a deity based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. So what was the problem with the presumptuous Christian's faith? Simple, his faith was not based on reason.

How? How was Peter's faith different from the faith of this Christian if both exercised the same measure of faith, and especially when this Christian's faith even seemed to surpass Peter's? This is why people should learn to read the Bible to understand it and not just read it as if it were a novel. When Peter walked on water, he didn't just take the decision to walk on water. He asked Christ to tell him to come to Him if really He was the one approaching them on water. Then Christ gave Peter a reason to walk on water, Christ told him to come to Him. That was why Peter walked on water towards Jesus, otherwise he wouldn't have attempted it even though he had previously cast out demons through the same faith.

Now, do you see why the dictionary definition of faith does not cut it in explaining faith in God?

CaptainJune:
In all honesty, this is a really naïve statement as regards spiritual matters manifesting in the physical.

how can you go about demonstrating that those manifestations are supernatural causes rather than natural physical causes.

Can you evaluate and give a scientific explanation to the 'psychic' phenomenon? How about you dissect the human anatomy to study the mechanism of the gift of prophecy among others? All I'm trying to tell you is that spiritual matters cannot be verified the same way physical matters are done.

how do want us to demonstrating that such 'psychic phenomenon' you called prophecy and supernatural phenomenons are true without the application of science, reasoning and logic. Sometimes, it seems that most people didn't understand what science is all about. science is about using methodology to work-out a phenomena whether supernatural and natural phenomena. we have numerous of such stories of supernatural causes. How do we go about evaluating those claims. This is one of those reasons why supernatural claims and propositions could not make a head way to science because it have no justifications. In order to abate bias and pseudos in our everyday judgement and activities, we have to use scientific methods to evaluate and substantiate it to arrive to more plausible conclusion than relying on faith.

You said it. Faith in God, as well as the products of such faith, is not confusing, and is not strange.
When will you understand that science is grossly incapable of providing logical explanation for every phenomenon or event in this world or universe?

science never claim to know. science is trying to study a phenomenon not proposing what a phenomenon it seems to be like you are doing. why we seems to appreciate and believe scientific researches is that it undergoes processes to ascertain the real truth of a phenomenon. science has proven to be working and providing mechanisms it apply to arrive to a more possible conclusion but you got nothing more-than propositioning a supernatural god that caused everything without any evidence to prove that. upon that you are relying on faith to accept it as fact.

CaptainJune:


All my posts have already defined what I mean by faith in the existence of God as opposed to blind faith or ignorant belief and trust which are factors responsible for making religious fanatics or extremists of various religions of the world.

Faith in God should not be blind or stupid. God Himself is more than willing to lead anyone who lets Him to the level of total and complete trust in Him. In the Bible, you'll discover that Moses' faith in God was as a result of God proving Himself to the Egyptians, Enoch had faith in God because he walked with God three hundred years before God took him, Abraham believed that God was able to perform whatever He said because he knew God, Joshua, Caleb, Samuel, Noah, David, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Peter, John, Paul, etc etc all had faith based on their personal and historical experiences of the ability and power of God. It was not blind. They all had very great and tangible reason(s) to put their complete trust in God who is unseen but whose acts are always seen.

If a Christian, believing to be full of Biblical faith, decided to walk on water because he read that Jesus Christ and Peter did, and as such he would be able to perform the same feat, then such Christian would be a personification of stupidity because he would not be operating in faith in that case; he would be operating in fatal presumption and ignorance.

Yet, the faith the Christian thought himself to possess and the faith the prophets and apostles of the Old and New Testament operated on have the same English definition - complete trust in someone or someone; belief in a religious doctrine or a deity based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. So what was the problem with the presumptuous Christian's faith? Simple, his faith was not based on reason.

How? How was Peter's faith different from the faith of this Christian if both exercised the same measure of faith, and especially when this Christian's faith even seemed to surpass Peter's? This is why people should learn to read the Bible to understand it and not just read it as if it were a novel. When Peter walked on water, he didn't just take the decision to walk on water. He asked Christ to tell him to come to Him if really He was the one approaching them on water. Then Christ gave Peter a reason to walk on water, Christ told him to come to Him. That was why Peter walked on water towards Jesus, otherwise he wouldn't have attempted it even though he had previously cast out demons through the same faith.

Now, do you see why the dictionary definition of faith does not cut it in explaining faith in God?

see my question again

In the context this topic, post the particular meaning of faith from any english dictionary and also the reference to the particular dictionary used.

note the bolded. Am saying that the word faith is a common English word.

menesheh:
I've written a thread about this similar topic before but in a more different intonation to this one.

There is this saying, 'extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence'
Since the evidence for the existence of god and its claims is not strong enough and scientific findings are continuously going against stuffs writen in various holy books like the bible.

Should we use faith to accept that god exists and also accept various divine claims written in those holy books or should we rather do away with those stuffs, change our presuppositions and embrace scientific facts with evidence and proofs?


Faith is a feeling, conviction, or belief that something is true or real, not contingent upon reason or justification. Believing a proposition when there is no evidence in support of.
It is confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on proof. It may also refer to a particular system of religious belief.

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.


MuttleyLaff
malvisguy212
nobilis
winner01
CaptainJune

What is your point.

Eddlad:



What is your point.

Read again. This time, you have to read between the line.

menesheh:


Read again. This time, you have to read between the line.

I did and gathered that you are looking for evidence to disprove God's existence. Am I about right?

Eddlad:


I did and gathered that you are looking for evidence to disprove God's existence. Am I about right?

not actually.

it is not what my post connotes.

menesheh:



not actually.

So what,actually.