What is Faith?

[Trailblazer]

G-d knows best who is a "critical thinker".
If your version of "critical thinker" means to toss away all evidence of G-d,
then I am glad not to be one.

I'll second that God knows best, and a critical thinker sees the evidence of God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No he is correct, as other critical thinkers are. You have admitted to lacking "proof" and this seems to be substantial and valid evidence that is sufficient to judge a concept true, or likley true. Your own explanations are that you lack this level of evidence, and that is the bare minimum we require. You faithful don't need evidence as we can determine from your own testimonies. You are not unique, other religious folk believe in their versions of "truth" with an equally low level of evidence.

You keep thinking that the requirement for critical thinkers should be on par with the low level of the faithful.

You make claims every time you state what you believe. That is in the defintion that was posted earlier. Evidence comes after a claim, and the degree of evidence is what allows critical thinkers to make valid assessment and conclusions. Your evidence is weak at best, and that means we thinkers defer to the logical default of disbelief.

Your standard is well below the norm for court and critical thinkers. So you are correct that your weak evidence is good enough for you, but we don;t care. It's irrelevant. It shows us how little respect you have for reasoning and truthful understanding. Like other theists you want to believe what you want to believe, and you justify it to yourself. This is why all the diverse theists on these threads have different beliefs. Vritical thinkers are vastly more uniform and that is because we respect reasoning and follow the evidence.

Well, the logical position of disbelief is strong universal skepticism and that includes the disbelief in evidence and rationality, but you don't do that.
I mean as a strong universal skeptic I can spot with you use a belief and you don't recognize it as such. Not that you are wrong, because there is no evidence for than and no objective rational standard for that.
Basically you are believer like that rest of us. You just have your version of it.
The problem is this: Nobody can give evidence for evidence. Or truth for truth. Or any other meta-evidence/truth/rationality.

So here is how in works in practice. You state your core beliefs about how to evaluate your experience and you check for coherence.
How is that? Because all the words you value so much are cognitive and in effect all you are saying is how they make sense to you.
The same with me or Trailblazer. I am not unique, she is not unique and neither you.

So actually start reading some actual skepticism and learn the limits of your own thinking and not just everybody else's. Special pleading works for nobody and that include all of us.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'll second that God knows best, and a critical thinker sees the evidence of God.

Yeah, I don't think at all about that anymore, because you can't think God into existence and you don't see evidence because you can't see it. You think it as it is cognitive.
I feel God as it makes me cope.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If there is a hell, I will be there. Not from being evil, but through refusing to live with any being who would send others to hell.
not god, not loving, not supporting, or just, not educating, not guiding - condemning those not educated or cared for to hell? not god - not a being I would want to exist next to.

if hell exists, I have faith that god does not exist.... at least not anything loving, just, or praiseworthy.

Sounds like you've already done your time in hell. I hope you somehow find your way to heaven

 

[Trailblazer]

No he is correct, as other critical thinkers are. You have admitted to lacking "proof" and this seems to be substantial and valid evidence that is sufficient to judge a concept true, or likely true. Your own explanations are that you lack this level of evidence, and that is the bare minimum we require.

I said: "You could not be more wrong. The claims are not the evidence. The evidence is what supports the claims."

No, he is incorrect since the claims are not the evidence. Claims and evidence are completely separate.
This is not about my level of evidence, a claim is not evidence. Do I have to illustrate this to you?

Baha’u’llah’s Two Bold Claims

All of which leads us back to Baha’u’llah, who made two very bold claims. First, he declared he was God’s messenger for the next one thousand years, having the same divine authority, the same Holy Spirit, the same divine power, as Moses, Christ, Muhammad, and the other founders of the major world religions:

In the East the light of [God’s] Revelation hath broken; in the West have appeared the signs of His dominion. Ponder this in your hearts, O people, and be not of those who have turned a deaf ear to the admonitions of Him Who is the Almighty, the All-Praised. Let the Breeze of God awaken you. Verily, it hath wafted over the world. Well is it with him that hath discovered the fragrance thereof and been accounted among the well-assured. – Baha’u’llah, Tablets of Baha’u’llah.

This station, by itself, makes the Baha’i Faith the youngest of the major world religions.

Baha’u’llah made a second and even more challenging claim. He declared he was the promised world messiah foretold in all the prophecies, in all the holy books, of all the religions of the world – the one promised to come on the Day of Judgment, the Day of God, the Time of the End, the End of the World, to establish the kingdom of God on Earth.

Baha’u’llah declared this period in history as the Day of God, the Time of the End. His mission is nothing less than the establishment of this glorious kingdom – the unification of the entire human race into an all-embracing, spiritually mature world civilization based upon divine principles of justice and love, and whose watchword will be unity in diversity.

With this second claim, Baha’is believe that all of the religions of the world have been consummated and fulfilled with the coming of Baha’u’llah.

https://bahaiteachings.org/what-did-bahaullah-teach?

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims. Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His mission and works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with 106 the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

You faithful don't need evidence as we can determine from your own testimonies. You are not unique, other religious folk believe in their versions of "truth" with an equally low level of evidence.

I cannot speak for other religious believers but Baha'is have a high quality of evidence, as noted above.

You make claims every time you state what you believe.

I make no claims. I only state what I believe. Baha'u'llah made the claims and I believe His claims. You call yourself a critical thinker and you cannot even understand plain English? Insisting that a belief is a claim only shows you are not a critical thinker.

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
claim means - Google Search

Claim: to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it: claim

Belief:
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"

2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
https://www.google.com/search

Belief:
the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true:
His belief in God gave him hope during difficult times.
Recent scandals have shaken many people's belief in (= caused people to have doubts about) politicians.
belief

An acceptance that my belief is true is not a claim that it is true.
I believe that my belief is true. I never claimed that my belief is true.

As nouns the difference between claim and belief is that claim is a demand of ownership made for something (eg claim ownership, claim victory) while belief is mental acceptance of a claim as truth regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence.

What is the difference between claim and belief? | WikiDiff

Baha'u'llah made a claim to be a Messenger of God so he claimed ownership of the title Messenger of God.
I am making no claims because I have nothing to claim.

The psychology behind this game you are playing is that you want to turn my beliefs into claims so you can say that I have to prove my claims are true, but it won't work since I am not claiming that my beliefs are true.

Your standard is well below the norm for court and critical thinkers.

My standard is not on the norm for court because religion is not law, thus the evidence requirements are different.
You just committed the fallacy of false equivalence.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.

False equivalence - Wikipedia

My standard is on par with critical thinking since I used critical thinking to come to my conclusions.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, I don't think at all about that anymore, because you can't think God into existence and you don't see evidence because you can't see it. You think it as it is cognitive.
I feel God as it makes me cope.

Nobody SEES evidence of God. I was being facetious.

 

[F1fan]

G-d knows best who is a "critical thinker"

Really? Demonstrate your idea of God exists, and then that it knows anything including what you claim above. I’m not convinced.

If your version of "critical thinker" means to toss away all evidence of G-d,
then I am glad not to be one.

More snarky remarks that suggest you are caught with your religious pants down. Pity.

Critical thinkers can make claims and show their work.

 

[F1fan]

Well, the logical position of disbelief is strong universal skepticism and that includes the disbelief in evidence and rationality, but you don't do that.
I mean as a strong universal skeptic I can spot with you use a belief and you don't recognize it as such. Not that you are wrong, because there is no evidence for than and no objective rational standard for that.
Basically you are believer like that rest of us. You just have your version of it.
The problem is this: Nobody can give evidence for evidence. Or truth for truth. Or any other meta-evidence/truth/rationality.

So here is how in works in practice. You state your core beliefs about how to evaluate your experience and you check for coherence.
How is that? Because all the words you value so much are cognitive and in effect all you are saying is how they make sense to you.
The same with me or Trailblazer. I am not unique, she is not unique and neither you.

So actually start reading some actual skepticism and learn the limits of your own thinking and not just everybody else's. Special pleading works for nobody and that include all of us.

Didn’t I read a post of yours saying you believe in some sort of God?

 

[Trailblazer]

I've done so many times and no doubt will again soon. But why bother? We don't speak the same language in that area.

No, you have never done it so now you are just deflecting and creating a diversion because you cannot come up with one. I know this drill only too well. When asked for actual evidence of their assertions about my fallacies the atheists fold.

But I have sure pointed out all the fallacies that atheists commit. In fact, one reason I know so many of the fallacies by heart is becaue atheists commit so many of them. Live and learn.

What is an example of diversion fallacy?

This fallacy consists in diverting attention from the real issue by focusing instead on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first. Examples: Son: "Wow, Dad, it's really hard to make a living on my salary." Father: "Consider yourself lucky, son. Why, when I was your age, I only made $40 a week."

Red Herring : Department of Philosophy - Texas State University​

And I answered you: "Anybody qualified to evaluate evidence and the claim that it is said to support." Yes, you are referring to evaluating evidence. How does that elude you?

Baha'u'llah made a claim. Baha'u'llah presented evidence to back up His claim. Whether you think it is evidence or not is not the subject at hand. It is what He offered as evidence since He made the claim. We evaluate the evidence that Baha'u'llah offered in order to determine if His claim is valid.

Do you think it's possible to call something evidence for a claim without evaluating it and finding it to be evidence for that claim? This is what I mean by us not speaking the same language here.

Baha'u'llah does not have to evaluate His own evidence in order to call it evidence.
If a prosecutor has a certain amount of evidence, but he does not have to evaluate the evidence to call it evidence.
Later, after the evidence is presented in a court of law, the jury evaluates the evidence to determine if it is sufficient for a conviction.

Baha'u'llah offered the evidence and we evaluate what He offered as evidence in order to see if it is sufficient for His claim to be a Messenger of God.
We accept or reject His claim based upon the evidence that He offered.

No. I have no evidence in support of that. Neither do you. What you offer as evidence doesn't support that claim.

So, you have rejected Baha'u'llah's claim based upon the evidence that He offered and I have accepted His claim based upon the evidence that He offered...
Now, can we all take our toys and go home?

You don't know what a claim is. That sentence was a claim.

I said: "I made no claims." That is not a claim. That is my position. I do not claim a position, hold a position.
A claim is what the definition says it is and I am not making a claim.

There's another claim. Regarding my reading comprehension skills, more evidence that there is a communications problem here.

I said: "I believe His claims are true." That is not a claim. That is my belief.
A claim is what the definition says it is and I am not making a claim.

Wrong word. Same spelling and pronunciation, but a different meaning.

More deflection.

Yes, that's the word. It still boggles the mind that you can't connect that definition to your claims.

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

I made no claim because I never asserted that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger, I only ever said that I believe that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.
I never asserted it since I cannot prove it. If I had asserted it that would be a bald assertion and I do not commit such logical fallacies.

What is "bald assertion?" Well the name says it all, doesn't it? It's stating something without backing it up.
Logical Fallacy Lesson 4: Bald Assertion | Rational Response Squad

I do back up my beliefs with evidence but I never assert that my beliefs are true.

It's the same evidence - messengers.

It is not the same evidence because leprechauns and pink unicorns have no Messengers. Only God has Messengers.

There is no reason to think that if leprechauns and pink unicorns that they could be observed.

There is no reason to think that if God existed, God could be observed.

Likewise with leprechauns and pink unicorns. You've never observed one, right? That's how we know that they exist in an undetectable state.

God also exists in an undetectable state since God chooses not to be detected.

 

[Trailblazer]

Critical thinkers can make claims and show their work.

Oh? I have never seen any of their work.

 

[F1fan]

Oh? I have never seen any of their work.

Your religious blindspot is very effective in filtering out what you don’t like. That is part of your non-rational mental mechanism that can decide improbable ideas, like messengers of God, are true.

Critical thinkers have explained their thinking process very well, and sometimes you even agree. But the more cornered you become in your beliefs the less rational you become, and you often make strong claims that you later admit was an error. This emotional response is common among people, and we see your conversions change dramatically. You seem to be consistently absorbed in the moment and lack an ability to stand back and self-reflect.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your religious blindspot is very effective in filtering out what you don’t like. That is part of your non-rational mental mechanism that can decide improbable ideas, like messengers of God, are true.

Critical thinkers have explained their thinking process very well, and sometimes you even agree. But the more cornered you become in your beliefs the less rational you become, and you often make strong claims that you later admit was an error. This emotional response is common among people, and we see your conversions change dramatically. You seem to be consistently absorbed in the moment and lack an ability to stand back and self-reflect.

I said: "Oh? I have never seen any of their work. "

This is not your work, it is just a continuation of your bragging about how great your thinking process is, how you 'believe' that my beliefs are irrational, and what you 'believe' about my personal qualities and abilities.

You are the pot calling the kettle black. Your atheist blindspot is very effective in filtering out what you don’t like.

You are the pot calling the kettle black. You seem to be so consistently absorbed in looking at me that you have no time to look at yourself.

 

[osgart]

Faith isn't applied to a scientific process. That would be a misapplication of faith. Faith is having confidence in someone or something. Faith is applied in a spiritual sense to the character of a God, or to the qualities of something recognized in virtues. Faith is applied also to one's own character; having faith in one's self that there are things that can be done, and principles of character that can be relied on. Faith is applied to known values. Faith is also applied to spiritual qualities and principles. It takes a certain kind of faith to discover and learn anything. Knowledge at one time was not a given, rather people had faith in their abilities to discover new knowledge.

Spiritual refers to abstract phenomena involving life as far as I can tell. Spiritual matters are about how one chooses to live their own lives and relate to others, and if God then their God.

Assumptions must be made for things to work in science. You must assume that existence is orderly, intelligible, and follows logic. Logic is rules that humans invented to make sense of reality. There are limits to all of this. Abstract principles of math are used to be applied to physical phenomena. Science is used to discover patterns and regularities in nature, also if there is cause and effect.

No one should apply faith to science, faith is applied elsewhere. There are scientists who've been religious and made grande discoveries, I don't see how faith impedes science; only if you misapply it to science does it become a hindrance. It's either you know or do not know in science. Logic must be tested and physical evidence must result and be demonstrated. I don't think that many religious people have any problem with that.

How can you have a spirit vs. science debate? They each apply to their own territory. When one crosses over into the other's territory than each can be called out as being either true or false, or controversial, or more input needed.

 

[101G]

Evidence is anything that you see

Correct, Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:2 "For by it the elders obtained a good report." Hebrews 11:3 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

we humans was MADE in God's own IMAGE, that was to come. the proof, or Evidence is in us every time we see ourselves in the mirrow. for an IMAGE cannot exist without a SOURCE, and the SOURCE is GOD. Faith is starring us in the FACE.

101G.

 

[101G]

understand, our bodies are not us, our bodies are just objects to manifest the spirits that is in the body. a body is simply an OBJECT, and objects is made up of compounds, compounds are made up of molecules, and molecules are made up of ATOMS, which are made up of protons, nutrons, and electrons, and they are made up quarks. so out bodies is another evidence of things not seen.

101G

 

[101G]

Faith isn't applied to a scientific process. That would be a misapplication of faith. Faith is having confidence in someone or something. Faith is applied in a spiritual sense to the character of a God, or to the qualities of something recognized in virtues.

not necessary, faith works in both worlds.

101G.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

G-d knows best who is a "critical thinker".

Any experienced critical thinker can make that judgment.

I used critical thinking to come to my conclusions.

And one who hasn't mastered critical thinking cannot.

I am not saying that God exists is true because many or most people believe in God so what I am saying is not the fallacy of ad populum.
I am saying that it makes no sense that so many people would believe in God in the absence of evidence. You call it magical thinking but most of the world's population believes God is real. How can that many people be wrong?

And here's some of that critical thought now. Commit an ad populum fallacy without saying ad populum: "How can that many people be wrong?"

Of course it makes sense that much of the world would be unskilled at critical thought. As you note, most believe in gods. The two are positively correlated.

The faith in the Messenger is justified if He is truly a Messenger of God.

Faith is never justified. It's unjustified belief by definition. Another of your claims was just rebutted.

A claim is not evidence of anything except that a person can make a claim.

Yet your belief in Baha'u'llah is based in his claims anyway.

We need faith to believe in what can never be proven

That is incorrect. All we need is sufficient evidence.

the invisible things can be clearly seen by those with spiritual eyes

Spiritual eyes? What you have is untethered imagination.

Claim: to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it: claim

Belief:
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

The belief becomes a claim as soon as one expresses it.

When asked for actual evidence of their assertions about my fallacies the atheists fold.

The evidence has been flying over your head. I generally identify two or more fallacies in each of your posts,

We evaluate the evidence that Baha'u'llah offered in order to determine if His claim is valid.

And if you find it to be so and state that, you are making a claim.

If a prosecutor has a certain amount of evidence, but he does not have to evaluate the evidence to call it evidence.
Later, after the evidence is presented in a court of law, the jury evaluates the evidence to determine if it is sufficient for a conviction.

The attorney has evaluated the evidence. He hadn't, he couldn't say what it was evidence of, and would have had no reason to introduce it in court.

I said: "I made no claims." That is not a claim.

You're wrong.

I said: "I believe His claims are true." That is not a claim. That is my belief.

It's both.

More deflection.

Nope. I had written, "Wrong word. Same spelling and pronunciation, but a different meaning." It's an expressed belief (claim) that if correct, falsifies your claim (rebuttal). Since you choose not to address it except by deflecting with that comment, I consider the matter resolved.

I made no claim because I never asserted that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger, I only ever said that I believe that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

Same thing. How many times do you want to repeat the same debunked claim without addressing the rebuttal to it?

It is not the same evidence because leprechauns and pink unicorns have no Messengers.

Sure they do. They have me among other messengers.

There is no reason to think that if God existed, God could be observed.

There is no reason to believe that if something is undetectable that it exists.

you 'believe' that my beliefs are irrational

Yes, and I have claimed that many are irrational in each of the multiple times I have identified your fallacies for you.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, because the claim made about God is that he is outside time and space and is not a physical being. Assuming that is true, it doesn't automatically follow that God couldn't interact with the physical reality, it is after all what he does according to the bible.

I was not saying that God couldn't interact with the physical reality, I think He does interact with the physical reality.
I was saying that I don't think we look at what we see (or don't see) in the physical reality, and use that as a criteria for determining if God exists.

I think the idea is the same as if we imagine that the multiverse theory is true as well, our universe and an infinite amount of other universes are created constantly, but whatever these universes are created from or in depending on how you look at it, doesn't necessarily have to be physical, we obviously don't know. So far the multiverse idea ends up in more or less in the same place as God does, no one can explain where or how all these universes would come from, merely that if it is the case, then in theory eventually a universe like ours would arise. Also given that we are contained to the best of our knowledge to this reality, we have no clue if any outside force natural or unnatural is affecting our universe, but we wouldn't be able to tell the difference, as we can't go outside our reality.

I agree that we have no clue if any outside force natural or unnatural is affecting our universe, but we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
The same holds true for God. We cannot know if God is affecting our universe, since we cannot see what God is doing, but we wouldn't be able to tell the difference if God was doing it or if it was that way without God. We simply see what we see.

Agree with you, that it is not a sound argument. God could exist and not communicate with anyone. Also, I don't think any of the religious texts claim that God directly communicate with all people and it is after all what foundation we have to talk from, everything else would be wild speculation without any rules really, so anything would go.

That's right. God could exist and not communicate with anyone.
Given the evidence we have, depending upon how we interpret that evidence, the three logical possibilities are as follows:

1. God exists and communicates via Messengers, or
2. God exists and does not communicate at all, or
3. God does not exist

No, the religious texts do not say that God communicates directly with everyone, but this atheist I was posting to did not believe the religious texts were worth the paper they were printed on. That is why he thought that God should communicate directly to everyone.

Of course it is wild speculation that if God existed God would communicate directly to everyone, but I could never convince him of that.

We don't know that, the claim is that he communicates with some people, yet we have no proof of that being the case. There are lots of people that claim that they can do this or that God answered their prayers which is also a form of communication.

Yes, some people claim that God communicates directly to them, and if that is true that means that God communicates directly to some people, but as you said we have no proof that this is the case. However, we know that God does not communicate directly to everyone, because if God communicated directly with everyone there would be no atheists.

Agree, but in order to examine the question in the first place, we can come up with scenarios that would indicate that it could be possible. But as you say it doesn't mean that God actually does it.

Fair enough.

As I said it is not easy, because we don't know everything. But if something occurs that we simply can't explain through any natural means, that would be a good start. That doesn't mean that it isn't natural, because clearly, the God of gap is an option, but I think that is our best option, given that we have no method of detecting or examining the supernatural.

I agree that our best way to know if God is intervening in this world is if we saw something supernatural that cannot be explained by as what we consider natural, at least that would be a start.

This is the issue because we have no way of verifying this, we have the people's claim that they are messengers, but no hard evidence that they actually are. Therefore it is not a valid way of examining if God is real or not, we can't rule out that these people simply made it up or somehow got convinced that God spoke to them. There are countless examples of people claiming this to be the case.

I agree with that. As I have said repeatedly there is no way to verify if a man who claimed to be a Messenger of God was actually a Messenger of God. In other words we cannot prove it as a fact. However, I think this is our best lead to God because there really no other evidence and all the world religions have a Messenger or holy man who claimed to be an intermediary who was behind that religion. These religions are in themselves evidence.

Some of us do not need verification since we have faith in the Messengers based upon the evidence they present, but those who need absolute verification of will just have to remain atheists.

 

[Trailblazer]

Faith isn't applied to a scientific process. That would be a misapplication of faith. Faith is having confidence in someone or something. Faith is applied in a spiritual sense to the character of a God, or to the qualities of something recognized in virtues. Faith is applied also to one's own character; having faith in one's self that there are things that can be done, and principles of character that can be relied on. Faith is applied to known values. Faith is also applied to spiritual qualities and principles. It takes a certain kind of faith to discover and learn anything. Knowledge at one time was not a given, rather people had faith in their abilities to discover new knowledge.

Spiritual refers to abstract phenomena involving life as far as I can tell. Spiritual matters are about how one chooses to live their own lives and relate to others, and if God then their God.

Assumptions must be made for things to work in science. You must assume that existence is orderly, intelligible, and follows logic. Logic is rules that humans invented to make sense of reality. There are limits to all of this. Abstract principles of math are used to be applied to physical phenomena. Science is used to discover patterns and regularities in nature, also if there is cause and effect.

No one should apply faith to science, faith is applied elsewhere. There are scientists who've been religious and made grande discoveries, I don't see how faith impedes science; only if you misapply it to science does it become a hindrance. It's either you know or do not know in science. Logic must be tested and physical evidence must result and be demonstrated. I don't think that many religious people have any problem with that.

How can you have a spirit vs. science debate? They each apply to their own territory. When one crosses over into the other's territory than each can be called out as being either true or false, or controversial, or more input needed.

WINNER

 

[Trailblazer]

Correct, Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:2 "For by it the elders obtained a good report." Hebrews 11:3 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

we humans was MADE in God's own IMAGE, that was to come. the proof, or Evidence is in us every time we see ourselves in the mirrow. for an IMAGE cannot exist without a SOURCE, and the SOURCE is GOD. Faith is starring us in the FACE.

101G.

WINNER