He Is Dead

[Piamed]

Sorry, but there is no contradiction between acknowledging that you don’t know everything, and stating that by it's definition faith cannot be based on evidence or it wouldn't be faith. They are disparate points. Besides, you later state yourself that faith does not require proof, so not sure why you previously talked of evidence supporting faith - your words not mine.

I note also the contrast between my acceptance of the possibility of doubt and your unfounded certainty ‘Some of us already knew that, yes, largely by faith.’ To know anything by faith is a contradiction in my book. And the Bible is one big contradiction. This is the grating unsubstantiated certainty I spoke of.

Whether or not there was a conjuror or prophet called Jesus in some Roman Empire backwater who duped the locals has about as much to do with the price of fish as the existence of a supreme being.

Just because a human given divine powers would make a mess of things is also an irrelevance, and a lack of actual chaos does not indicate a ‘greater hand at play’. Such a conclusion does not follow at all, and seems like a leap of faith to me. That figures. It is again the flawed thinking that there must be some greater meaning where there is none. A ‘God of the Gaps’ which is diminished progressively as science advances.

I fail to see how scientific evidence led anyone to conclude a ‘governing intelligence’. Creationists spend their time hunting for evidence of a designer when biological evidence points the other way. From vestigial limbs to extreme flatulence points towards the unintelligence of design in my opinion.



I fail to see the relevance of Einstein either – as I recall he made it quite clear he was not a believer after many religious folk tried to infer that he was.

Enjoy

Unfortunately, I have no idea what your first sentence means but you stating definitively that "Christian or any other faith is not based upon evidence" is an attempt at achieving an absolute and certain statement.

You are correct, I absolutely stated that faith does not require proof; notwithstanding that, many believers are certain that their is proof running alongside their faith. One of the challenges is that many athiests believe that only empirical data consititutes proof. I previously drew your attention to that and used your own cited observer, Dawkins, to illustrate that many highly cephalised individuals disagree with your assertion.

Please highlight where you illustrated possibility of doubt versus certainty and absolutes. Yes, I did say that many of us knew by faith that God exists. You said that to know by faith is a contradiction. To what. Are you suggestion that include faith and knowing in a single sentence is oxmoronic? If so how so?

The analogy of Bruce Almighty was just that and was not meant to be taken literally. I stated that it was a lighter touch.

The God of Gaps theology is something I do not subscribe to. I Understand why you brought it up but is fundamentally flawed as far as I am concerned for some very obvious reasons. God does not disappear from view when previously unexplained phenomena are given natural explanations.

I understand that you fail to see certain things, this brings you into conflict with some of Dawkins recent sayings and those of Frew et al.

You fail to see the relevance of Einstein? Perhaps you are unaware of much of what Einstein said about God. To be honest so am I but I found some snippets. For example: Einstein, famously, said that "God does NOT play dice". On the face of it Einstein believed in God.

Whether he did or not means nothing to me as I have my faith; I bring him up to discuss with you. The key things uncertain about Einstein are related to which god was he talking about? Clearly, Einstein wasn't a polytheist, since he used the singular term "God", rather than the plural "gods". It is not unreasonable to deduce therefore, that he was a montheist. He also stated explicitly that he believed in God.

Regarding my last post, I note with interest that you rather conveniently ignored my questions and comments pertaining to Dawkins' change of heart and most particularly shied away from attempting to produce empirical evidence that God does not exist. Surely you have this. Of course I know you don't. I'm speak rhetorically. So, if not, given that you do not talk in absolutes or certainties, particularly of the unfounded variety, you must be open to the possibility that God exists. Di ba?