Biblical "good"

[MarkFL]

You don't know how precious you are to our Father in Heaven.

Somehow being destined (according to the Bible) to be tormented by fire and worms for eternity simply because I cannot believe things unless there is compelling evidence, no matter what kind of life I have led, does not make me feel very precious. But let's just say I no longer worry about it.

 

[Brighten04]

Somehow being destined (according to the Bible) to be tormented by fire and worms for eternity simply because I cannot believe things unless there is compelling evidence, no matter what kind of life I have led, does not make me feel very precious. But let's just say I no longer worry about it.

Though you may not FEEL precious to our Father does not negate the fact that you are. You are loved completely.

 

[MarkFL]

...the fact that you are...

Just a quibble...this is a belief, not a fact. While it may or may not be true, we cannot call it a fact, until there is some kind of compelling evidence for it one way or the other. I am fine with people having beliefs, but beliefs not backed by compelling objective evidence cannot be legitimately trotted out as fact. This may fly when talking with others who share your beliefs, but when you are speaking to the world at large, it cannot honestly be done.

This is the last I will say about it here though...I don't want to have to split this thread again. :dunno:

 

[Brighten04]

Just a quibble...this is a belief, not a fact. While it may or may not be true, we cannot call it a fact, until there is some kind of compelling evidence for it one way or the other. I am fine with people having beliefs, but beliefs not backed by compelling objective evidence cannot be legitimately trotted out as fact. This may fly when talking with others who share your beliefs, but when you are speaking to the world at large, it cannot honestly be done.

This is the last I will say about it here though...I don't want to have to split this thread again. :dunno:

It is a fact that our Father in Heaven loves you. Now whether you can receive it is another story. There is a story in the Bible that I wish to share with you if you want me to, but only if you want. I can't tonight though, I am tired and I am ready to go to bed. I don't have to do it on this thread. You can pm me if you like and I can tell you there.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Just a quibble...this is a belief, not a fact. While it may or may not be true, we cannot call it a fact, until there is some kind of compelling evidence for it one way or the other. I am fine with people having beliefs, but beliefs not backed by compelling objective evidence cannot be legitimately trotted out as fact. This may fly when talking with others who share your beliefs, but when you are speaking to the world at large, it cannot honestly be done.

This is the last I will say about it here though...I don't want to have to split this thread again. :dunno:

Continue to be honest with yourself. Do good for all others that you have any opportunity to do without expecting anything in return from any man. The rest will come in due time. Have patience. I wish you the very best.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[Alithis]

Just a quibble...this is a belief, not a fact. While it may or may not be true, we cannot call it a fact, until there is some kind of compelling evidence for it one way or the other. I am fine with people having beliefs, but beliefs not backed by compelling objective evidence cannot be legitimately trotted out as fact. This may fly when talking with others who share your beliefs, but when you are speaking to the world at large, it cannot honestly be done.

This is the last I will say about it here though...I don't want to have to split this thread again. :dunno:

it is a fact to me after all .. facts can be disbelieved by willful choice .i disbelieve so called scientific factual evidence all the time .

 

[MarkFL]

it is a fact to me after all .. facts can be disbelieved by willful choice .i disbelieve so called scientific factual evidence all the time .

Okay, you guys want to continue this...

"It is a fact to me" is simply another way to say "I believe this is true, but I have no compelling evidence to support it." This gains you no ground in a rigorous discussion. And if a discussion isn't rigorous, why should we even bother?

You can call beliefs facts, and you can disbelieve facts all you want. However this is intellectually dishonest and greatly diminishes your ability to have a meaningful conversation. Please do understand though, that I am not saying you are wrong about what you say, I am only saying you are wrong to call it fact. You cannot demonstrate it is true, and until you or anyone anywhere can, it remains a belief.

Facts are a special class of statement that require proof, or at least compelling evidence. Facts are verifiable. All the hope and desire that the entirety of humanity can collectively muster will not magically move a belief up to the status of fact. Likewise, such desire will not bump a fact down to the status of belief.

 

[Alithis]

Okay, you guys want to continue this...

"It is a fact to me" is simply another way to say "I believe this is true, but I have no compelling evidence to support it." This gains you no ground in a rigorous discussion. And if a discussion isn't rigorous, why should we even bother?

You can call beliefs facts, and you can disbelieve facts all you want. However this is intellectually dishonest and greatly diminishes your ability to have a meaningful conversation. Please do understand though, that I am not saying you are wrong about what you say, I am only saying you are wrong to call it fact. You cannot demonstrate it is true, and until you or anyone anywhere can, it remains a belief.

Facts are a special class of statement that require proof, or at least compelling evidence. Facts are verifiable. All the hope and desire that the entirety of humanity can collectively muster will not magically move a belief up to the status of fact. Likewise, such desire will not bump a fact down to the status of belief.

actually i was being blatantly honest ... i Do choose to disbelieve what you might consider to be scientific fact . because faith is not something that can be comprehended with the intellectual mnd.it is not founded in that which is seen but that which is seen points to it . the visible displays the existence of the invisible so to speak .
like we cannot see wind .. but when the leaves in the trees rustle or roar we know it is because there is wind .

so it is with the entire creation - is displays there is a creator .
some "chose" to disbelieve that and so they come up with theories like that of evolution . but the perfection of order in absolutely everything shouts design .. as you know . it does not display random chaos .
earlier you said there is no evidence of God .. But that's not so .. there is . thus far you refuse to admit it .

so you also need to be honest .

Now in the reverse - you will say (i guess) there is evidence of evolution .. you just "choose not to see it "..! and you are correct . I wil be honest about that fully . i do not choose to see evidence of evolution .

so there we are at an impasse -it would seem ..

BUT for one massive difference ... for me , having rejected theories and their so called evidence ( which to me are no evidence at all ) i have chosen to place my faith in what the bible does state (it is a fact that it states things ) . and in so doing have tangibly experienced many of those things which are promised there in .

you have,thus far, done the opposite and ,thus far, tangibly experienced nothing of what it promises .

Its a bit like a recipe book thats states .. (albeit beyond some of the reasoning of the human mind ) that if you take this and then do this and that ..you will end up with this product .

you ,thus far chose not to believe the recipe and so do not aply the recipe and .. do not get the product the recipe sates you will get .. then ,without any qualification say the recipe is a load of rubbish .. (or you qualify based on someone else who followed part of the recipe hashed it up and then disappointed you with it )

-lets be honest

 

[MarkFL]

actually i was being blatantly honest ... i Do choose to disbelieve what you might consider to be scientific fact . because faith is not something that can be comprehended with the intellectual mnd.it is not founded in that which is seen but that which is seen points to it . the visible displays the existence of the invisible so to speak .
like we cannot see wind .. but when the leaves in the trees rustle or roar we know it is because there is wind .

When you choose to ignore compelling evidence, this is quite different from my requiring compelling evidence before I will believe something. Yes, wind is invisible, but its effects can be verified. It doesn't take faith to believe in the kinetic molecular model of gases.

so it is with the entire creation - is displays there is a creator/

No, the existence of the universe does not in fact imply a creator.

some "chose" to disbelieve that and so they come up with theories like that of evolution . but the perfection of order in absolutely everything shouts design .. as you know . it does not display random chaos.

Evolution does not preclude a creator...many Christians are able to reconcile the massive evidence in favor of evolution and their belief in God. The theory of evolution was not an effort to not believe in anything, it was a successful effort to explain the the diversity of life. The fallacy that complexity implies design has already been beautifully refuted too many times for it to still be lamely trotted out. Perhaps most notable among the many refutations is that of David Hume:

His first objection is that we have no experience of world making. Hume highlighted the fact that everything we claim to know the cause of, we have derived these inductions from previous experiences of similar objects being created, or seen the object itself being created ourselves. For example, with a watch we know it has to be created by a watch-maker because we can observe it being made and compare it to the making of other similar watches or objects to deduce they have alike causes in their creation. However, he argues that we have no experience of the universe's creation, or any other universe's creations to compare our own universe to, and never will therefore it would be illogical to infer that our universe has been created by an intelligent designer in the same way in which a watch has.[citation needed]

The second criticism Hume offers is about the form of the argument as an analogy in itself. An analogical argument claims that, because object X (a watch) is like object Y (the universe) in one respect, they are therefore probably alike in another, hidden, respect (their cause i.e. having to be created by an intelligent designer). He points out that for an argument from analogy to be successful, the two things that are being compared have to have an adequate number of similarities that are relevant to the respect you are analogizing them with. For example, a kitten and a lion may be very similar in many respects, however just because a lion makes a "roar" it would not be correct to infer a kitten also "roars", because the similarities between the two objects are not similar enough and the degree of relevance to what sound they make is not relevant enough. Hume then argues that the universe and a watch also do not have enough relevant or close similarities to infer that they were both created the same way. For example, the universe is made of organic natural material however the watch is made of artificial mechanic materials. He claims that in the same respect, the universe could be argued to be more analogous to something more organic such as a vegetable (in which we can observe for ourselves does not need a 'designer' or a 'watchmaker' to be created). Although he does admit the analogy of a universe to a vegetable seems ridiculous, he says that it is just as ridiculous to analogize the universe with a watch.

The third criticism Hume offers is that even if the argument did give evidence for a designer; it still gives no evidence for the traditional 'omnipotent', 'benevolent' (all-powerful and all-loving) God of traditional Christian theism. One of the main assumptions of Paley's argument is that 'like effects have like causes'; or that machines (e.g. the watch) and the universe have similar features of design, therefore they must both also have the same cause of their existence i.e. they must both have an intelligent designer. However, Hume points out that what Paley does not comprehend is to what extent do these 'like causes' extend; i.e. how similar the creation of a universe is to the creation of a watch. Instead, Paley moves straight to the conclusion that this designer of the universe is the 'God' he believes in - of traditional Christianity. Hume, however takes the idea of 'like causes' and points out some potential absurdities in how far the 'likeness' of these causes could extend to if the argument were taken further as to explain this. One example he uses is how a machine or a watch is usually designed by a whole team of people rather than just one person, therefore surely, if we are analogizing the two in this way, it would point to there being a group of Gods who created the universe not just a single being. Another example he uses is that usually, complex machines are the result of many years of trial and error with every new machine an improved version of the last. Also by analogy of the two, would this not hint that the universe could also have been just one of many of God's 'trials', and that there are much better universes out there? However if this were taken to be true, surely the 'creator' of it all would not be 'all loving' and 'all powerful' if they had to carry out the process of 'trial and error' when creating the universe?

Hume also points out there is still a possibility that the universe could have been created by random chance but still show evidence of design, given the universe is eternal and would have an infinite amount of time to be able to form a universe so complex and ordered as our own. He called this the 'Epicurean hypothesis'. It argued that when the universe was first created, the universe was random and chaotic but if the universe is eternal, over this unlimited period of time natural forces could have naturally 'evolved' by random particles coming together over time, into the incredibly ordered system we can observe today without the need of an intelligent designer as an explanation.

The last objection he makes draws on the widely-discussed problem of evil. He argues that all the daily unnecessary suffering that goes on everywhere within the world is yet another factor which pulls away from the idea that God is an 'omnipotent' 'benevolent' being

earlier you said there is no evidence of God .. But that's not so .. there is . thus far you refuse to admit it .

Then where is it? People always say "there is evidence" and yet never ever provide anything that passes for such. If there were evidence it wouldn't take faith to believe.

so you also need to be honest.

All I have done is point out that beliefs are not facts. That's as honest as it gets.

Now in the reverse - you will say (i guess) there is evidence of evolution .. you just "choose not to see it "..! and you are correct . I wil be honest about that fully . i do not choose to see evidence of evolution.

Interesting...you make a call for honesty, and then you admit you are willfully ignoring compelling evidence.

so there we are at an impasse -it would seem ..

Yes, if you are going to say there is evidence when there is none, and then say there is none when there is, then we cannot effectively carry on a discussion. Both parties must be willing to be reasonable.

BUT for one massive difference ... for me , having rejected theories and their so called evidence ( which to me are no evidence at all ) i have chosen to place my faith in what the bible does state (it is a fact that it states things ) . and in so doing have tangibly experienced many of those things which are promised there in .

Yes, it is a fact that the Bible states things...however the truth of the Bible is a belief. There is no rational reason to believe it is true in its entirety.

you have,thus far, done the opposite and ,thus far, tangibly experienced nothing of what it promises .

I simply require compelling evidence. I am not willfully ignoring evidence as you are, I simply require evidence in the first place.

Its a bit like a recipe book thats states .. (albeit beyond some of the reasoning of the human mind ) that if you take this and then do this and that ..you will end up with this product .

you ,thus far chose not to believe the recipe and so do not aply the recipe and .. do not get the product the recipe sates you will get .. then ,without any qualification say the recipe is a load of rubbish .. (or you qualify based on someone else who followed part of the recipe hashed it up and then disappointed you with it )

That's a very poor analogy...I and anyone can actually independently verify the end result from a recipe in a cookbook. Your recipe has an ingredient of faith, the willful suspension of rational thought. Buddhists and Hindus for example get a different result when they apply that same ingredient.

-lets be honest

I have been nothing but intellectually honest...you cannot say the same...you have even admitted as much.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Okay, you guys want to continue this...

"It is a fact to me" is simply another way to say "I believe this is true, but I have no compelling evidence to support it." This gains you no ground in a rigorous discussion. And if a discussion isn't rigorous, why should we even bother?

You can call beliefs facts, and you can disbelieve facts all you want. However this is intellectually dishonest and greatly diminishes your ability to have a meaningful conversation. Please do understand though, that I am not saying you are wrong about what you say, I am only saying you are wrong to call it fact. You cannot demonstrate it is true, and until you or anyone anywhere can, it remains a belief.

Facts are a special class of statement that require proof, or at least compelling evidence. Facts are verifiable. All the hope and desire that the entirety of humanity can collectively muster will not magically move a belief up to the status of fact. Likewise, such desire will not bump a fact down to the status of belief.

The fact is that scientific data can never be used as an all encompassing reality due to the scientific method. The method takes one piece of one possible scenario and dissects it. Then reproduces the same thing it dissects in order to verify it, thus proving it to be true. This is good, but then it goes on to assume all other things off of this one bit of information. This is misleading as it is simply a guess, be it educated or not, still a guess. In reality there are infinite possibilities and scenarios of which science and all the super computers of the world will never be able to pinpoint and verify. This leads to the only thing it can; assumption. If this wasn't proof enough, the exponential multiplication of possibilities only grows the further outward we reach from our base knowledge. Not to mention that materialist or secularists assume that there are only the 4 dimensions based on the fact that they can identify three of them as concrete and can speculate about the fourth being time/space. Basing existence or fact on what has thus been revealed to us is nonsense. It is like a 3 year old attesting that there are only 10 numbers because that is all they have leave nd thus far. The materialistic pursuit of scientific knowledge is blinding to the infinite possibilities that lie beyond present human grasps and insists that there is nothing more.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[MarkFL]

The fact is that scientific data can never be used as an all encompassing reality due to the scientific method. The method takes one piece of one possible scenario and dissects it. Then reproduces the same thing it dissects in order to verify it, thus proving it to be true. This is good, but then it goes on to assume all other things off of this one bit of information. This is misleading as it is simply a guess, be it educated or not, still a guess. In reality there are infinite possibilities and scenarios of which science and all the super computers of the world will never be able to pinpoint and verify. This leads to the only thing it can; assumption. If this wasn't proof enough, the exponential multiplication of possibilities only grows the further outward we reach from our base knowledge. Not to mention that materialist or secularists assume that there are only the 4 dimensions based on the fact that they can identify three of them as concrete and can speculate about the fourth being time/space. Basing existence or fact on what has thus been revealed to us is nonsense. It is like a 3 year old attesting that there are only 10 numbers because that is all they have leave nd thus far. The materialistic pursuit of scientific knowledge is blinding to the infinite possibilities that lie beyond present human grasps and insists that there is nothing more.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

Science is our best path for discovering the truth about the natural world. Models are formulated to explain phenomenon, and then the predictions of the model are tested. If the model holds up under testing, it then becomes a scientific theory. Two examples I like to cite are Einsteins theory of gravity (general relativity) and Darwin's theory of evolution. Both are models which were formulated to explain what we see, and both have held up beautifully to the testing of their predictions. Both can be stated as fact.

But, all of this strays from the simple point I was trying to make about the difference between belief and fact. I do not understand why so much effort is being put into avoiding this simple but fundamental distinction.

 

[Brighten04]

Science is our best path for discovering the truth about the natural world. Models are formulated to explain phenomenon, and then the predictions of the model are tested. If the model holds up under testing, it then becomes a scientific theory. Two examples I like to cite are Einsteins theory of gravity (general relativity) and Darwin's theory of evolution. Both are models which were formulated to explain what we see, and both have held up beautifully to the testing of their predictions. Both can be stated as fact.

But, all of this strays from the simple point I was trying to make about the difference between belief and fact. I do not understand why so much effort is being put into avoiding this simple but fundamental distinction.

Darwin does not explain the unexplainable. He does not explain things like love, tenderness,intuition, and what makes sentience different between monkeys and men.He does not explain the hunger for the truth that our Father has placed in all men. Monkeys do not hunger for truth.

 

[MarkFL]

Darwin does not explain the unexplainable. He does not explain things like love, tenderness,intuition, and what makes sentience different between monkeys and men.He does not explain the hunger for the truth that our Father has placed in all men. Monkeys do not hunger for truth.

Primates are a highly intelligent and curious group of animals. As primates ourselves, and as one of the great apes, we naturally share this primate trait, and because of a relatively large mental capacity which natural selection gradually endowed us with over millions of years, we are able to express this curiosity in such endeavors as science and philosophy. So no, the failure here is not with Darwin, but with lack of understanding of his theory and how to properly apply it.

 

[Brighten04]

Primates are a highly intelligent and curious group of animals. As primates ourselves, and as one of the great apes, we naturally share this primate trait, and because of a relatively large mental capacity which natural selection gradually endowed us with over millions of years, we are able to express this curiosity in such endeavors as science and philosophy. So no, the failure here is not with Darwin, but with lack of understanding of his theory and how to properly apply it.

So Darwin is who you have faith in. Other words Darwin is your Father. OK, cool. As I thought and expressed before, you do not know who you are.

 

[MarkFL]

So Darwin is who you have faith in. Other words Darwin is your Father. OK, cool. As I thought and expressed before, you do not know who you are.

Now you are just being deliberately silly. Darwin's theory does not require faith, because there is a mountain of compelling evidence in support of it. Evolution is a fact...that God or Zeus or any other supernatural entity loves me is not a fact. I have done my best to patiently explain to you both here and in PMs the difference between fact and belief, but you refuse to acknowledge this simple fundamental distinction. My patience does have limits when confronted with a stubborn disregard for being reasonable. Therefore reasonable and fruitful discussion with you and anyone else not willing to concede this basic point is simply not possible.

 

[Brighten04]

Now you are just being deliberately silly. Darwin's theory does not require faith, because there is a mountain of compelling evidence in support of it. Evolution is a fact...that God or Zeus or any other supernatural entity loves me is not a fact. I have done my best to patiently explain to you both here and in PMs the difference between fact and belief, but you refuse to acknowledge this simple fundamental distinction. My patience does have limits when confronted with a stubborn disregard for being reasonable. Therefore reasonable and fruitful discussion with you and anyone else not willing to concede this basic point is simply not possible.

Actually it takes more faith to believe in Darwin than it takes to believe in the love of our Father in Heaven. But, one thing our Father will not do is force someone to believe He loves them. You say you seek truth. But, you put your faith theories. You harden your heart against a love like no other. Then, you say our Father dooms you to burn forever. I submit that no He does not. He loves you, and He has made the way for you to be with Him forever. But, if you do not want it, He will not force you. Neither will I. Go on your own way if you want to. You keep saying you want proof that He loves you. You cannot prove that He doesn't.

 

[MarkFL]

Actually it takes more faith to believe in Darwin than it takes to believe in the love of our Father in Heaven.

No, you are absolutely wrong about that. There is all kinds of compelling evidence for evolution and none for the supernatural. But you refuse to be reasonable.

You say you seek truth. But, you put your faith theories.

Again, the theories have compelling evidence backing them...that's how they become theories. So again, it does not take faith, only reasoning. But you have shown over and over that you refuse to be reasonable.

Then, you say our Father dooms you to burn forever.

That's what the Bible says. Because I need evidence, I will be tortured mercilessly for eternity by fire and worms.

You keep saying you want proof that He loves you. You cannot prove that He doesn't.

I have not stated a belief as fact. It is not on me to prove anything. The burden of proof is on you, because you stated something as fact that has no compelling evidence to back it. That's how it works. I have not said I know he or anything supernatural does not love me...I have only stated that I have no legitimate reason to believe it. There's a huge difference, yet flailing theists will often try to dishonestly shift the burden of proof when they inevitably fail in their own burden, but to a seasoned veteran of these discussions, I am on to that little trick.

If you were a reasonable person, you would have admitted early on in this discussion that your statement about God's love for me is a belief, not a fact in the true sense of the word. Then we would have been done. I am not asking you to deny your faith, but I am insisting that belief not be called fact when there is no honest and legitimate reason to do so. But you refuse to be reasonable.

Your refusal to concede that belief without compelling evidence in fact changes nothing though. Your belief is still only a belief. You refusal only demonstrates that you are stubborn and unable to hold a fruitful mature discussion.

 

[Brighten04]

As I stated in pm. There has to be a point of agreement to reason from. You do not accept the Bible, I don't accept Darwin. You call that an impasse. But I leave you to think about.

Proverbs 26:5
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Psalm 53 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

2 God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God.


John 3:16King James Version (KJV)

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

[MarkFL]

...You do not accept the Bible, I don't accept Darwin...

These two things are not the same...not in the least. There is no compelling reason to accept the Bible with regards to its claims about the supernatural as truth, while there is compelling and overwhelming evidence to accept the principle of evolution as the fact that it is. I am simply saying because there is no compelling reason to accept the Bible, I do not. You are saying because you don't agree with the implications of the theory of evolution, you will make the unreasonable decision to ignore all of the evidence and not accept it. This is your prerogative, but it naturally garners you zero respect from me.

 

[charis en excelcis]

These two things are not the same...not in the least. There is no compelling reason to accept the Bible with regards to its claims about the supernatural as truth, while there is compelling and overwhelming evidence to accept the principle of evolution as the fact that it is. I am simply saying because there is no compelling reason to accept the Bible, I do not. You are saying because you don't agree with the implications of the theory of evolution, you will make the unreasonable decision to ignore all of the evidence and not accept it. This is your prerogative, but it naturally garners you zero respect from me.

Here is why I do not believe in the theory of macro-evolution.
1. Genetic evidence. The comparative genetics between super species would require that each super species evolved separately from the other.
2. The existence of man. We are slow, dim-sighted, relatively deaf, devoid of any true predatory tools (claws and teeth). We are poorly equipped for any kind of weather or environment. in short, in an evolutionary environment of any length, we die.
3. the lack of any "machine" capable of producing the steady beneficial changes necessary for macro-evolution.
4. the expected fragmentary nature of the fossil record. Without demonstrated solutions (in scientific method) of the problems with evolution, the fossils are inadequate.
I will say, that if I was not a theist, I would choose evolution as the most likely answer to the origin of the species. (Occham's razor.)