That is just plain silly. Of course I'm consulting the Bible, but it is the Bible that is being questioned. That same Paul who wrote Hebrews 11:1 also wrote Timothy 2:15: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."...
That I do not agree with your interpretation of what that passage means does not indicate an omission on my part. What it does mean is that I consider your perceived definition, to be error, and that means I shouldn't cite what you believe. Actually, I believe it is you that is attempting to...
OK, I get it. You're saying that science exists without the scientist; that like a fire, it can experience spontaneously combustion... that is come into being on its own... interesting. Rather than jumping the gun, I would say that I'm gratified that there are several scientists that consider...
It seems to me that you are making an invalid distinction. From my observation, all accepted science begins with a minority view; that is from a source that is not immediately accepted by a majority who do not want their sacred cows disputed. And I believe it to be a fallacy to describe...
So you consider that the scientists in the video are not reputable? Science doesn't invent itself. It comes from scientists who presumably are accepted in that community as having legitimacy and worthy reputations.
The theology (which is a study of God and things that pertain to Him) is that...
In my estimation, science, according to what is being said in the youtube video posted below, is beginning to approach ideas expressed in the theology revealed to Joseph Smith back in June of 1830.
In the Pearl of Great Price; the book of Moses 1:35-39 we find this: (God is speaking to...
It seems to me that to say that faith is blind, is to equate it with superstition. From Dictionary.com, we have:
Superstition: noun;
1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the...
I suppose one source of our disagreement is in from whom does the perspective come in terms of its being objective. If the event witnessed by the testator is indeed an event that actually happened (as in not made up by the person reporting it), then it is by definition, an objectively occurring...
That's an interesting take, but I never attributed it to some kind of (or any kind of) atheist conspiracy. I never actually thought of it in those terms, I will admit to getting the impression that a lot of atheists think that way; otherwise they might not be atheists, being as they do seem to...
If it can't see, it can't see whether blind or has its eyes closed. But either way means that there is no evidence to support faith.
I maintain that there is evidence. That evidence is the testimony of prophets and apostles concerning the atonement of Jesus Christ. Therefore faith can and...
For me, faith is invested in the atonement of Jesus Christ, a past event, more so than in future events although I do believe that there are yet future events that have been prophesied to happen. Prophesies concerning the future, I believe, have been validated by the fact that some have already...
In your response, you completely ignore this: "That statement is not however, a definition about the nature of faith in terms of how one comes to have faith. That kind of definition is something wholly different from which Paul, in his letter to the Hebrews, was discussing. The Hebrews reference...
If you are referring to Hebrews 11:1 as the source for your definition, then you are ignoring a basic distinction involving definitions. Faith as an example (one) of evidence for something unseen is a definition for something that suggests that the unseen is real; that is one type of...
You say alternative then. Still, that implies that faith does not employ reason, it being an alternative to reason. I still nonetheless say that faith requires reason. I define reason as those mental considerations using some for mof external evidence to reason upon. I disagree with you that...
Christians are variously accused of believing because that is what they want to believe. To someone who wants to make that accusation there is no good rebuttal they will accept. I will say that from my perspective, that hey are rejecting because that is what they want to do and not out of some...
I
I find it interesting that you refer to the evidence I cite as merely anecdotal. As a contrast, I'd like to point out that the words of scientists are accepted as objective because what they say is presented for "peer review". In other words, it is corroborated by others. The various...
I agree, and never have claimed that there is proof of God. I'm not sure that I will go so far as to say that it is not objective considering what the definition of subjective is. If one can eliminate the notion that such evidence is indeed subjective, then by process of elimination, the only...