Faith is a strong conviction in a belief, idea, or even a person... there is nothing that says the thing you have faith in is absolutely true.


Quite the contrary actually. How the heck is it reasonable to say there is nothing more complex in the universe? (Don't answer that was rhetorical)

Please don't use absolutes when you speak on a topic like this, shows ignorance and a bit of arrogance

Honest question: Is Jack allowed to just flippantly say things like "evolution is just a theory, and has little scientific backing" in serious discussion? Especially in a non-evolution based topic?

I used it as an example of a topic which many people would say is science and therefore use as evidence that faith and science are conflicting. As it isn't good science, it isn't proof of science and faith conflicting.

I don't see anything in the rules against that.

1. I mean that "faith" is "blind devotion to a belief that has no logical proof."

2.
I didn't say it was impossible for God to exist. Hard-line reason rules out the possibility of an omnipotent God, but there is still possibility for a non-omnipotent God.

... "2. Be Reasonable. The world does not revolve around you and your opinions."

Saying evolution has little scientific backing is like saying the World Cup isn't very popular: you'd be demonstrably wrong and the only place people wouldn't immediately think you're a complete idiot is in the United States.

PM me and demonstrate how I'm wrong, please. Others are welcome to as well. I don't want to derail the topic, we can start another one if you want.

Yes you do, or you wouldn't be bringing it up. And we've had more than enough evolution topics started by people who support it, and they always end with us linking to a qualified biologist debunking whatever it is you read on AnswersInGenesis. If you want to start that again, then YOU can start a new topic showing how delusional the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is.

I already explained why I "brought it up", you were the one that blew things out of proportion and kept whining about how I mentioned evolution.

This is intriguing. Because you are saying that reason alone can decide whether or not something exists or not. It's delightful to see such irrational comments from one who fanatically support 'hard line human reasoning'. Although the burden of proof is on you, allow me to simply say anything you say 'rationally' cannot prove or disprove the existence of an omnipotent God. In essence, you are trying to say something you cannot prove at all, but trying to pass it off as a proof.

Allow me an example. The premise is that God is omnipotent.
God is proven to not exist.
God can be proven to not exist and still exist. (But God is omnipotent, and thus capable of 'anything'.)
Therefore, it is impossible to know that God exists or doesn't.
Thus, there are no way of rationally, nor empirically proving the existence of a God.

Rationally, I have proven that you cannot know. Stop trying to say as if you know. Follow some real philosophy, starting with Socrates.
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It is not a God if it isn't omnipotent. Otherwise, there are simple ways of being a God. God is synonymous of prominent, powerful, and prolific.
Oh, it defines me. I must be a God. We must all be Gods. Obama must be a God.

You're gonna have to explain this one.

To be honest, evolution is not a perfect concept (and indeed has been misappropriated and led to some pretty horrendous things) but it makes more sense than creationism.

Expecting anything in science to be a perfect concept shows a gross misunderstanding of how science progresses.

... this is quite literally the definition of logic. Deductive logic, if you prefer.

@CAFG
Well, it's the simple concept of 'anything is possible', to what is impossible. We try to define and limit omnipotency to our limits. That is not omnipotent. It would simply be 'potent', 'powerful', and thus not a God. There are many things impossible with Humans, such as being in two or more places at once, being in two or more times at once, and having two or more relativity. From that point on, one must require a new set of logic which must be somehow empirically observed- but since we cannot observe omnipotency, our logic is limited to our limits. Thus trying to prove whether or not God exists is quite dumb.

Let's say you were deaf, blind, and unable to feel- but alive, and thus incapable of any empirical knowledge. Deduct to me how you can know anything can exist. You would start from where? You would start how? You cannot start a chain of reason. This is why I'm saying it is irrational. And, it is actually more accurate to say it is irrational not because of the actual reason, but trying to put it off as if he'd reasoned- when he did not.

If the discussion gets completely metaphysical, you're just going to make the silly argument that we can't ever know anything for sure. Thankfully, we don't have to postulate whether a senseless being would be able to reason something out, as we have senses and are capable of doing so. If you feel his conclusion is false, attack the links and the premises, not the structure of a deductive argument.

I assume he'll simply recite the typical "can God create a stone that he cannot lift?" paradox to give the argument that he is not omnipotent.

If you want to get really philosophical about it, you can argue that humans cannot observe anything, since one method of observation requires validation of that method. For a realist who tends to apply logic to life, reason is a useful tool.

I do not fanatically support 'hard line human reasoning'. That would make me almost as bad as a creationist. I am willing to change with new ideas, unlike so many others.

Logic disproves the omnipotent God of the Christian Bible, if taken by the exact text.
1. God is benevolent and omnipotent.
2. God has the power to destroy malevolence.
3. Malevolence exists in the world.
4. Either God cannot destroy malevolence, or he wishes not to.
5. God is either a) not benevolent, or b) not omnipotent.
And what proof do I have? Plagues upon Egypt, enslavement and torture of a race of innocent people, and cities destroyed for violating moral codes, to name a few. Not to mention the killing of millions of innocent people, and sending billions of more innocent people to eternal damnation (if the Bible is to believed).

Just think, there are so many suffering people in the world today. Millions of people don't have sturdy homes, decent food, or safe water. Babies die from malnutrition and disease, yet they do nothing wrong. Why would a benevolent God bring souls into the world just so they can suffer for a few days or weeks, not knowing anything, not doing anything wrong, and then suddenly take them back to the afterlife? Why can't he banish the ills of the world that humans are not responsible for? Why does He cause so much pain and suffering in innocent people?

Exactly my point, but I take it from a different view. It is unlikely that an omnipotent God exists, and possible for a lesser God(s) to exist. Perhaps there was a being that somehow set the universe into motion, but died when it was created. Perhaps God is a passive observer conducting an experiment, and the universe is his petri dish. We cannot know for sure.

Then take "God" by a different definition. Would the Vikings not call Thor a god? Would the Egyptians not call Ra a god? Substitute the word "deity" if you wish.

I am not going to mention how you can even state 'likeliness or not'. That is exactly what people do not get, they do not know but try to know. You don't know what is more likely, you just happen to believe so. You do not know anything, there is nothing 'for sure' about this. The more correct answer would be that you do not know at all.

And to mention 'lesser' Gods, it is pointless regarding a God that is not omnipotent. Any members of an advanced enough civilization would be considered Gods in the eyes of primitive men. They are not a God. You can define them as potent, powerful, and prolific as I have stated. Thus, we would be Gods in the eyes of the primitive stone age dwellers. In the eyes of any advanced civilization, anything less of omnipotency would be defined as simply 'powerful', or 'magnificent'- but not a God. This is to mention Ra, Thor, Zeus, Baal, whatever. They aren't Gods. They simply don't die, and they can throw thunderbolts. I don't see anything special about that.

The paradox is meaningless, for we do not know whether there exists a paradox that can be a paradox to an omnipotent God. It is only a paradox to those with limits.

Evolution WAS just a theory. Problem with 'evolution' is that whenever it gets tossed around in a buzzwordy fashion in topics relating to religion - most people think of it in its earliest form, ie. Darwinian. The concept of deep time was proposed decades before Darwin became interested in the subject, by a man called James Hutton (who pretty much created the school of Geology). It was the concept of the earths age, which undermined the credibility of the church (and other religious organisations). The bible say's the earth is 4,004 years old - why? because we added up all the ages of people since adam and... well, yeah, the earth is more than 4 and a half BILLION years old. This is what allowed Darwin to attribute a concept of incremental or gradual change in an organism. Sure, when he first published his works - most notably the Descent of Man - it was all speculation and theory, no hard science, no empirical proofs, no facts, nothing.

But it's 2011, and it is a proven fact that your genotype (genetic makeup/configuration) is all thanks to the chromosomes given to you by your parents - so your traits, your appearance, your mentality is all to a certain degree hard-coded into you at the moment of inception. How you live your life will therefore determine whether or not you get to pass on your genes to another generation and whether or not your genes are better blah blah blah.

This is true for all plants, all animals and us humans. In fact, for pretty much any living organism this is considered to be truth.

You can't just put 'evolution' on the same level as 'religion'. The one being a major scientific breakthrough of the last few generations, the latter being a disability, a crutch and a mind-numbing drain on human resources and the cause of needless war and animosity past time .

Yeah I know, I'm aware of all that. We can see bacteria evolving - there is empirical evidence etc. The point I want to make is that, misapplied, any concept can be used to cause conflict between humans. From religion we got countless holy wars and convenient excuses to go off killing people for what were really political/power reasons. From evolution we've had social darwinism, eugenics and racial genocide.

I don't necessarily think that religion is a force for "evil", if the correct things are harvested from it. British society is still to some extent based on Christian values.

Well, I respect your opinion but there are some parts of the theory of evolution that I think make far less than creationism. I'd hope you take an honest look at both ideas before casting such harsh judgement.

Now if only you had the courage to point out said parts. I'm positive we'd debunk them. But maybe you already know that?