Religulous
Out of context: Reply #51
- Started
- Last post
- 72 Responses
- gramme0
"You 'have faith' that there exist things that leave no mark or their existence on the world, yet are continuous in their potential to affect the real world.. This is somewhat of a word game - existence can and in everday usage is, defined as something having qualities or affecting such that can be perceived.."
I didn't say that God's existence, or the rest of the spiritual realm, leaves no mark on the world. By tangible, I'll go with the Oxford definition of "perceptible by touch" and add sight, sound, or smell to the equation. God cannot be touched, seen, heard, or smelt. The effects of his existence can be seen, but faith is required to believe such an idea. He did come to earth in human form (Fact: Jesus lived. Faith: He is who he claimed to be, i.e. the Son of God, deity incarnate.). He remains in spirit (i.e., the Holy Spirit, or third person of the Trinity), but Jesus the man is in heaven. (I realize there are several faith-based statements there, but bear with me).
Whether I wish to find evidence of God in this world or not is somewhat irrelevant: He reveals himself at his discretion.
My original statement, again, was not regarding whether God exists or not. Of course I believe that, as anyone whose been snooping around here longer than six months knows. My point, yet again, was that one can make faith-based statements about God's Existence, and maintain perfect harmony with logic. That was the only point I set out to make, but of course you lulled me into making others along the way. ;)
"I say, both that your citing of these effects reduces your 'faith' to a hypothesis, basing it upon this 'evidence', and also that this hypothesis is unproven, given that the true causes for all the evidence shown by religious people of their gods' existence and actions in the world are, one by one, shown to have a scientific, logical basis."
My faith has been forged by direct and secondary experience of the divine, and tested by logic. It can hardly be called a hypothesis, because it involves experiences, vividly real ones, which I can't prove to you using any sort of scientific construct. Not that logic is an ultimate filter, mind you; I've been saying all along that human logic is too limited to be trusted with major conclusions about Life, Happiness, and Everything.
It is true that many things once considered mystical have indeed been found to belong firmly in the physical. From my perspective this is a good thing; it pares away the unnecessary metaphysical chaff that people have assigned to various faiths over the millennia. But I have yet to see the fundamental "true causes" behind Christianity (or any other monotheistic religion) uncovered by science or logic. The things which have been "uncovered" have been myths like the Shroud of Turin, or the figure of Mary in central America that weeps blood, etc. What I think you may be referring to are religious superstitions which have been shown, via scientific investigation, to be farcical.
- oh
my
fucking
godneowe - There's a god for that?gramme
- are you new, neowe ? We always do this, at great length every few months... : P We like it.mikotondria3
- It's in his name. He's neo-plural. Post-singular.gramme
- i don't even know where to start with thisscarabin
- oh