Your faith...

[Garp]

Originally Posted by Slinwagh

Can you prove otherwise?

It maybe nicer to believe in the afterlife but how does that help you deal with death?

No one can prove it one way or another. That's why it's called "Faith".

Literal definition of faith:
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

Faith is something that can by it's very nature never be conclusively proven. If you're looking for that conclusive proof then you're in for a long wait.

If Jesus was to come riding out of clouds on a burning chariot tomorrow I would no longer have a faith.


If you want to argue that faith is pointless because it's not based in hard scientific fact then you'll never be satisfied. There is nothing anyone can say or do that will ultimately prove or disprove what people have faith in.

Originally Posted by Slinwagh

However I personally have to question the accuracy of the Bible, is it not merely a collection of fictional stories passed down by world of mouth.

Yes and no.. The old testament is a the histories of a people, from the perspective of their relationship with their deity.

The structure and style of the book shows that everything from Moses onwards was written down as well as passed on by word of mouth. The claim (which is disputed by textual analysis) is that Moses wrote the first five books of the bible, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers. Textual analysis suggests there were maybe a half dozen authors of it. I don't know the truth of the matter, but I don't see it as particularly important. Just as important was the fact that they were writing down the oral history of their nation.

This same concept carries through to the New Testament documents as well: In a major story telling culture it was hard to get away with altering the past. Some exaggeration, sure, but you can't fundamentally change a story because not just you would know it.

In current days we barely even tend to know our neighbours names, let alone their histories or the histories of their family. In those days, however, it would be extremely common and any attempt to alter the past would have been met with derision. That puts us in a position that the writings of the bible are what an entire culture believes to be the truth based on their witness of events; not just what some old biddy made up for a laugh around the campfire. The histories of a nation were very important to it's people.

On a complete side note it seems to me that these day's we're determined to forget where we came from and why.

I do not see any evidence for God or Jesus. Take the virgin birth, at the absolute base level you need sperm to fertilise the egg, thus rendering the virgin birth impossible, there was no IVF etc back then. i would assume I am not to take the virgin birth literally, if that is the case does this not stand for the rest of the bible to?

A God who created the universe, by his very nature would be Omniscient and Omnipotent, right? If he is omnipotent then something like making a virgin conceive a child would hardly be a challenge to him

There are any number of creatures on this planet that reproduce asexually. Admittedly those are generally less complicated creatures than mankind but the evolutionary argument there is that asexual reproduction is great for fast population growth but poor for genetic diversity.

The scientific term for a virgin birth that occurs in a species that is capable of sexual reproduction is "parthenogenesis". The only oddity to reconcile there is that parthenogenesis always results in female offspring when the creature's sex is determined by "XY" pairings.

I need to do some investigation into the accuracy of this claim this is merely something I've dug up online from a quick query about the science of the virgin birth. I can't find corroborating evidence so it may just be weak speculation by someone. I have no idea who this "Davit Pratt" is:

Originally Posted by Davit Pratt, April 2002

There is some evidence, however, that natural parthenogenesis does occasionally occur in humans. There are many instances in which impregnation has allegedly taken place in women without there being any possibility of the semen entering the female genital passage [2]. In some cases it was found either in the course of pregnancy or at the time of childbirth that the female passages were obstructed. In 1956 the medical journal Lancet published a report concerning 19 alleged cases of virgin birth among women in England, who were studied by members of the British Medical Association. The six-month study convinced the investigators that human parthenogenesis was physiologically possible and had actually occurred in some of the women studied [3].... ... It is possible that some cases of human parthenogenesis involve self-fertilization rather than true virgin birth, as there are cases of sperm being produced in women by vestigial, usually nonfunctional, male reproductive glands known as the epoöphoron (parovarium) and paroöphoron, which correspond to the seminiferous tubules of the testicles in males. In some instances, the magnetic influence and nervous excitement occasioned by attempted sexual intercourse may rouse into activity the latent, rudimentary male sex glands so that they secrete semen, resulting in impregnation [6].

But again, a virgin birth is not exactly going to be challenging to an all powerful God who created the very universe

The Virgin birth is never going to be a good point to start the basis of faith on. I have faith the Virgin Birth occurred because I have faith that my God and Creator exists, not the other way around

I am not trying to belittle your faith so please do not take offence.

You can insult my faith or belittle it all you like, I still won't take offense. I might feel sorry for you under such circumstances, but I wouldn't be offended

Faith is the strangest thing. That seemingly rational and intelligent beings would choose to believe in something there is no proof of. As absurdities go it probably seems akin to those that still believe the world is flat and are busy scurrying around trying to produce their own "scientific" proof to explain what physicists demonstrate.

[Chuckles]

Originally Posted by Garp

No one can prove it one way or another. That's why it's called "Faith".

You can very easily disprove most religions with science - Evolution.

[Garp]

Originally Posted by Chuckles

You can very easily disprove most religions with science - Evolution.

I'm sorry but that's just not true. I'm a believer in evolution, but that doesn't mean God didn't kick start the process, or nurture it along the way, or create the very environment which was necessary for evolution to occur.

Evolution neither proves nor disproves the existence of God.

[Slinwagh]

I said...

I do not see any evidence for God or Jesus. Take the virgin birth, at the absolute base level you need sperm to fertilise the egg, thus rendering the virgin birth impossible, there was no IVF etc back then. i would assume I am not to take the virgin birth literally, if that is the case does this not stand for the rest of the bible to?

You said...

On a complete side note it seems to me that these day's we're determined to forget where we came from and why.

A God who created the universe, by his very nature would be Omniscient and Omnipotent, right? If he is omnipotent then something like making a virgin conceive a child would hardly be a challenge to him.

You then go on to say....

There are any number of creatures on this planet that reproduce asexually. Admittedly those are generally less complicated creatures than mankind but the evolutionary argument there is that asexual reproduction is great for fast population growth but poor for genetic diversity.

The scientific term for a virgin birth that occurs in a species that is capable of sexual reproduction is "parthenogenesis". The only oddity to reconcile there is that parthenogenesis always results in female offspring when the creature's sex is determined by "XY" pairings.

I need to do some investigation into the accuracy of this claim this is merely something I've dug up online from a quick query about the science of the virgin birth. I can't find corroborating evidence so it may just be weak speculation by someone. I have no idea who this "Davit Pratt" is:

You then quote this a a source, I have no knowledge or reason to question it.

There is some evidence, however, that natural parthenogenesis does occasionally occur in humans. There are many instances in which impregnation has allegedly taken place in women without there being any possibility of the semen entering the female genital passage [2]. In some cases it was found either in the course of pregnancy or at the time of childbirth that the female passages were obstructed. In 1956 the medical journal Lancet published a report concerning 19 alleged cases of virgin birth among women in England, who were studied by members of the British Medical Association. The six-month study convinced the investigators that human parthenogenesis was physiologically possible and had actually occurred in some of the women studied [3].... ... It is possible that some cases of human parthenogenesis involve self-fertilization rather than true virgin birth, as there are cases of sperm being produced in women by vestigial, usually nonfunctional, male reproductive glands known as the epoöphoron (parovarium) and paroöphoron, which correspond to the seminiferous tubules of the testicles in males. In some instances, the magnetic influence and nervous excitement occasioned by attempted sexual intercourse may rouse into activity the latent, rudimentary male sex glands so that they secrete semen, resulting in impregnation

So there is possibly a medical explanation of the possibility that "a virgin birth" for want of a better phrase can take place, does this not itself render the likely hood of "God" being responsible for the virgin birth very remote?

[Garp]

Originally Posted by Slinwagh

So there is possibly a medical explanation of the possibility that "a virgin birth" for want of a better phrase can take place, does this not itself render the likely hood of "God" being responsible for the virgin birth very remote?

Nope, see my response to Chuckles and evolution.
If something is a very remote possiblity but could still have happened, there is nothing to say God didn't kickstart the specific process.

I'm sure that sounds like a fairly weak kind of reponse, essentially I could do that with anything you say, if we only look at things from that angle.

A belief like that wouldn't satisfy my cynical mind. Then I start delving into the ideas from other sections of the bible, like the Messianic prophesies that clearly state the Messiah would be coming from David's line, the clear genealogy presented in the bible that demonstrates how Jesus is of David's line (and with the genealogically obsessed Jewish race, such claims would never have lasted if it wasn't true) and how he went on to fulfill over 400 prophecies made over 700 years before his birth..

It's like with a criminal investigation. Very rarely does one single piece of evidence conclusively explain anything, it's a combination of all the pieces that give you the full picture.

[Slinwagh]

Originally Posted by Garp

Nope, see my response to Chuckles and evolution.
If something is a very remote possiblity but could still have happened, there is nothing to say God didn't kickstart the specific process.

I'm sure that sounds like a fairly weak kind of reponse, essentially I could do that with anything you say, if we only look at things from that angle.

A belief like that wouldn't satisfy my cynical mind. Then I start delving into the ideas from other sections of the bible, like the Messianic prophesies that clearly state the Messiah would be coming from David's line, the clear genealogy presented in the bible that demonstrates how Jesus is of David's line (and with the genealogically obsessed Jewish race, such claims would never have lasted if it wasn't true) and how he went on to fulfill over 400 prophecies made over 700 years before his birth..

It's like with a criminal investigation. Very rarely does one single piece of evidence conclusively explain anything, it's a combination of all the pieces that give you the full picture.

The evidence for evolution is far more compelling than that of God.

[Garp]

Originally Posted by Slinwagh

The evidence for evolution is far more compelling than that of God.

You choose to believe that the trillion to one chance of precisely the right amount of energy being present to cause the big bang and not result in either matter flying apart too fast for cohesion, or just all collapsing in on itself because it didn't fly away fast enough?

That not only did we get just the right amount of energy causing the big bang, enough of the relevant matter combined in the right quantities to create the massive nuclear fission reaction that is the sun.

That not only did the sun form in an appropriate matter, but the right amount of matter came together at a suitable distance from the sun to be able to form a stable orbit.

That not only did the matter come together there it was of an appropriate composition to create the relevant primordial soup and gasses essential to the sustenance of life?

That not only did life get created, but it grew to be capable of sentience?

That not only did this all occur, but it was by complete "chance"?

And you say I have faith?

[Matblack]

Originally Posted by Garp

You choose to believe that the trillion to one chance of precisely the right amount of energy being present to cause the big bang and not result in either matter flying apart too fast for cohesion, or just all collapsing in on itself because it didn't fly away fast enough?

That not only did we get just the right amount of energy causing the big bang, enough of the relevant matter combined in the right quantities to create the massive nuclear fission reaction that is the sun.

That not only did the sun form in an appropriate matter, but the right amount of matter came together at a suitable distance from the sun to be able to form a stable orbit.

That not only did the matter come together there it was of an appropriate composition to create the relevant primordial soup and gasses essential to the sustenance of life?

That not only did life get created, but it grew to be capable of sentience?

That not only did this all occur, but it was by complete "chance"?

And you say I have faith?

Well its either that or the biggest Chinese whisper in the history of the planet

MB

[Belmit]

We're looking from a biased viewpoint though. As the lottery winners of the universe there's an entire 'rest of the universe' of spent tickets out there.. but someone has to win if all the combinations are drawn. Yes, the chances are slim but our numbers came up.

[Chuckles]

Originally Posted by Garp

Nope, see my response to Chuckles and evolution.
If something is a very remote possiblity but could still have happened, there is nothing to say God didn't kickstart the specific process.

Why the need to make the situation so complex? For the majority time within human existence, we have been unable to explain one of the most ultimate questions eg "Where do we come from?". This was always explained by creationism.

Thankfully, our advances now allow us to explain this using science backed up by evidence. There is no need to bolt on superstition and non-empirical hyperbole when the facts are there in black and white.

Furthermore, if religion and evolution can coexist, why do authority figures within religion try to shelter it, particularly from the young, and seek to descredit it? The reason is simply to maintain their power and influence which is become smaller and smaller as more people learn the truth from an education which is no longer influenced by religion.