Staredit Network

Umm that's what faith is.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity.
4.The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Note #2... "Belive that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence".

Then how can you have faith at all?
Through faith, we don't NEED to understand everything around us.

I'm not saying act like zombies, act dead inside, and be blinded to what God is telling us. He doesn't want that, he wants us to SEE him, and follow after his ways.

You know one way to make God laugh?
Tell him your plans for your life.
He doesn't want you to seek YOUR plans, he wants you to seek HIS plans.

Though he does want you to have the desires of your heart. Since when do we ever know what we truely desire?

Say we desire sex... and you pray for sex with this beautiful woman. That is the desire of your heart, so you believe.
But God knows all... he knows if he were to allow you to do so, that something could happen.
She could get pregnant, someone can get a disease, maybe she will feel emotionally bound to you and you could hurt her forever...

Whereas- if you didn't have sex with her, your desires can be fullfilled in Gods own way.

God can't MAKE you do anything, you could have sex with her if you wanted, but if you were to follow Him, you'd know that he IS giving you the desires of your heart.

Nothing can fully be understood...
And that's one of the basis' of Christianity.

Haha, ignorance is one of the bases of christianity.


Ah, the excuse for everything. If you don't get it, who cares, it's god's will, therefore it doesn't matter.

Yeah, well I don't understand how cars work, it's gods will, therefore, I shouldn't have to understand it.


Sounds like a pretty greedy person if you ask me.


No, you don't need to understand everything, but there are those who devote their whole lives to explain to the rest of humanity how things work. But you take that for granted and simply move on instead of honoring those who work so you have the knowledge.

I knew you would reply with something of this sort. Well, the 'biblical' definition of omnipotence is that God can do anything he desires to do. Some of the arguments against omnipotence are just totally plain and stupid. Can God create a spherical triangle? Duh, think - human... Humans defined triangles that is a shape with 3 straight edges that join up with an inner degree angle of 180 in flat space. So how is God supposed to make a triangle spherical when its not meant to be? God can't turn something from truth into a lie. When someone mentions that God is all-powerful, they mean God can do anything he desires to do. However, he cannot accomplish something that is impossible by definition, because that wouldn't make sense. Another more clear example is that can God make a square with 5 corners? And of course, a square is a shape that does not have 5 corners. Therefore it is phsically impossible. That is just another example in the same format as the 'spherical' triangle argument.

Back to the 'rock' theory. Many atheists use this as their core of argument.



If you are clever enough, you may have already worked out the incongruousness in that statement. They are pointing out it since an all-powerful being will always be able to accomplish whatever He sets out to do, it is impossible for an all-powerful being to fail. The odd thing about that statement is that they are saying that God is all-powerful that he can do anything - even fail. This is like saying he is so all-powerful that he became not all-powerful. Clearly seen, this is absurd. Thus, God can create a rock with tremendous mass, however, due to the fact God is all powerful, he will be able to lift it. The ability to fail is not part of omnipotence.

Hmm.. I don't really know why I'm defending God

I can easily reply to you cheeze, but... Imma wait for someone else to put their input. I don't want to hog the thread.

Your reasoning seems to be of hatred.

Actually, humans can do it too. Say it with me now.. Topology...


Maybe because you're the only atheist who plays the Christian role to see their point of view?


So you're saying that because Evolutionists have varying ideas about how things evolved, I should consider them all stupid and wrong?


I agree whole-heartedly ScrollMaker. Faith has two main meanings:
1. Belief in something
2. Benefit of the doubt; belief without logic

One thing i've learned is that almost all logical conclusions we come to we have faith (#2) in them. I'm not saying "you can't know anything for sure", I'm merely stating that we need a tiny bit of non-logical things that are so miniscule we say its 100% logic. Have you seen those "real world" shows where they sit into a chair and it breaks beneath their feet? If people were truly being 100% logical all the time, then they would have noticed that their weight would have compromised the infrastructure of the chair. Instead, we use repeated observations and inference. We see a chair; it's still standing. All chairs we have sat in do not break beneath us. This chair looks stable. With all these data, we have faith (#1; you usually say logically conclude) that the chair is steady, but you actually have faith (#2) that the chair is steady because of humanity's ignorance. In other words, we aren't omniscient.


Yes, God is "greedy". He even calls himself a jealous God . In other words, he may have infinite patience, but hes not gonna be a doormat and let the Israelites just walk all over him.

You too, my dear. See you in the funny pages.

Off topic, but still about Christianity.

Kirby sent me an answer to this question of
- In the story of Cain and Abel, why was Cain's offering looked down upon?

I Believed this too, until I re-read the Story... now I'm wondering where people made that conclusion. It makes sense! But I just wanna know where.
Kirby said something like - Cain's offering were left-overs, stuff he didn't need.

Well I started reading the story, and it doesn't say ANYTHING about Cain offering left overs.

Cain gave a portion of the fruit from his crop.
Abel gave fat portions of the firstborn lambs.

Both gave ONLY A PORTION.
It doesn't give detail as to if Cain's offering were leftovers or the bad fruit, or what not. Just a "portion". But Abel, just the same, gave only a "portion".

So again... why was Cain's offering looked down upon?

In Deuteronomy 15:19 - it talks about giving a part of the firstborn animals to the Lord... Seems it can relate to Abel..
I'm wondering if Deuteronomy 16:9 (talks about the "Feast of Weeks", and sickle to grain...) if that passage has anythign to do with the reason God didn't like Cains' offering...

Anyone know?

It isn't the "followers" of evolution that are making the judgements. The scientists who study facts, fossils, and creatures make logical theories about how they came to be that way. In Christianity, the followers all see different things. There are no facts to study and no definitive answers to any question.


That's what I was saying. Since we completely understand chairs and how they work, we can have faith in them.

God can make a rock with infinite weight and still lift it .


That's one illogical statement, yet I see it all the time on sen.
Again, for the 167th time, the universe couldn't have always existed.
See, if the universe always existed, time always existed. Time always existed = time in infinite. If time expands infinitly into the past, every thing that happened should have already happen an infinite amount of years ago.
So, when did humans come into the universe? Infinite amount of years ago.
When did they gain the ability to make computers? Infinite amount of years ago.
Even if you want to talk about specific conditions it took for humans to be able to build computers, there's no reason those same conditions couldn't have existed an infinite amount of years ago...
I mean, they had zillions of gazillions of harzillions of years to come across the same conditions...
Infinite time = time doesn't exist.

So then what... you evolutionists need a point in time (omg, lol) where time was created!
Enter big bang theory.
How sickening.

Isolated, that's not what the point of it was. It basically asks why should we consider all of these extra things?

For example, you say if time were infinte, then humans should have been created from an infinite time ago. Well, the same good be said for god; why did god not create humans infinite time ago?

So that everyone knows what we're talking about:



Drakiel: The problem with that passage is that there isn't a lot of background information on what is going on surrounding the event. Does it ever say that Abel was happy that God was happy with him? Perhaps this is an example of how God doesn't treat all people the same. It might have been a test to see how faithful Cain was to God (much like what happened to Job) and he failed the test. I sugget you go ask a priest or pastor.

How come God has given you happiness, dreams, life, free will, and a chance to go to heaven. You must have more and since you cannot have more you turn away from God. You greedy people, you disgust me.

Oh and I'll take your place:
Time doesn't exist. You can't prove me wrong.

fire and brimstone, eh?

you greedy people, you disgust me = judgemental

watch it hun...you may get caught in some hypocrisy

Nah, i'm just being like them and ignoring any proof because too proud to admit they're wrong and too proud to admit that there's a higher being than them...

Edit: WHOAH! THAT DIDN"T COME OUT RIGHT!

Here: Nah, i'm just being like them and ignoring any proof. They're too proud to admit they're wrong and too proud to admit that there's a higher being than them...

I just wanna put in my two cents here. I am totally 100% with FireKame. I am Christian myself and share the EXACT same opinions he does. Do you go to the Church of Christ FK?

I was going to reply, but I couldn't think of anything stupid enough to match what Neiji said.

Stop making the stereotype that Christianity is a bunch of yahoos who dream about fantical unicorns. One thing you need to realize, is that the statement, "The facts speak for themselves", is not true! The scientists are the ones that interpret the facts. You know how you can take words out of context, and merge them into your own belief system by just picking and choosing facts you want to hear?

Here's the easiest example: THIS VERY THREAD!!!
We pick and choose which arguments to debate against and completely ignore other valuable statements. You know you've done it. I've done it. WE'VE ALL DONE IT! No one ever responded to my statement of: " 'pi' + Occam's Razor = '3'. I love fallacies " People don't reply to it because they can't find a way to undermine it, so they ignore it. (Actually you can undermine it, but I want it to be undermined to show what's wrong with stating in the beginning of an argument: God always exists + occam's razor = Earth always exists)

A couple problems with your statement nonetheless:
1) Facts, hmm the Bible, General Relativity, microevolution doesn't prove macroevolution, truths exist, all truths are absolute truths, absolute morality exists, reliability of the Bible, pitiful attempts at trying to explain away the "resurrection", Principle of Uniformity, Law of Noncontradiction, Book: "I don't have enough Faith to be an Atheist"... need more?

2) Your main problem with the "scientists" is that there are Evolutionist scientists and Creationist scientists. Scientists aren't some higher unbiased being. If that were true, I could prove God easily. It is true that a good scientist will try to put his bias aside to get the true facts, but when evidence is interpreted they can be skewed to their own perspective of things. Einstein struggled with his own law of General Relativity. He realized that when he finished it that it would prove that the universe had a beginning. To keep a static universe, he added in a "fudge" factor to keep the universe constant. In 1922, Russian mathematician Alexander Freidmann exposed Einstein's "fudge" factor as dividing by zero while he was trying to find a way out, or to make the facts fit his truth. Einstein was still unnerved, but seeing the "red shift" in the hubble space telescope was the observational evidence he needed to admit he was wrong. (which scientists never do nowadays)


Oops, I think I went too far off a tangent and did a horrible conclusion statement. That statement is true, but, unfortunately, it doesn't have to do with the example Yes I know, I'm sad too.

What I mean to say is that commonly use "inference" many times a day. Actually, most people don't care about how they work; most people don't care how a computer works, they just know it works! When I meant "faith" in them, I mean, "Inference that the chair will comfort my bottom when I sit in them and propel me to a certain height." #1 definition of faith was to have trust in something. For example, I have faith that you're not going to make a false statement. I trust or believe that you won't lie. #2 definition of faith is inference, which is the gap for a lack of logic. Think of a coin; it has heads and tails. When we flip or coin, we say "heads or tails", not "heads, tails, or the side". From our past experiences, most people would say they have NEVER see a coin land on its third side (the circumference). It is possible that it could land on its side, but by inference and past experiences, we only say the two possible choices.
Also, for an another example, I have faith that you're not going to make a false statement. Yes, this specific phrase uses both meanings at the same time! Most people expect to be told the truth, not a lie; therefore, when you type you will not lie to me. Of course, you could be a newb and be lieing to me just to piss me off, but I don't have the knowledge or facts to know which one is true. When I spoke of the chair, I meant you use inference and past experiences to logically rationalize to yourself that the chair you sit on will not break beneath your feet. Now, this takes faith (#2 definition), because 1, you have faith (#2) that your past experiences will apply to this situation, and 2, inference is interpretation of facts between the lines, which I have shown above has some slight bias to it, or sometimes have no bias, but are still wrong. Heres a simple example of inference: If I were to write a lengthy essay about the stupidity of atheists and showing all their fallacies, you would use inference to conclude that I thought atheists are total morons. In truth though, I believe that atheists either don't want to believe it, or have not been shown the evidence that exists. Therefore, inference is not 100% logic, because you interpret, giving it faith (#2), since faith (#2) is the opposite of logic.


Cheeze, you messed up there. You merged your belief of infinite time into Christianity. When God existed, the universe didn't exist. God is intangible, which is why he is able to exist when tangible things didn't. In our philosophy, God created the universe and all the forces the nature, including time. Therefore, time didn't exist back before God created it.

The one who shut down infinite time was using a simple logic in geometry known as "inductive" reasoning if I'm correct. Deductive is where you use facts already known to prove something true. On the other hand, Inductive reasoning is to begin with the assumption that some statement is true/false, and use facts to show that the assumption is false.

Maybe the way I said it made it sound like that. What I was trying to say is that there are no correct answers in Christianity, therefore everyone has conflicting beliefs. In real life there are correct answers and good scientists are able to find these answers.


I actually thought about replying to it, but at the time I read it, it was buried under new posts. I don't see how those two Occam's Razor analogies relate besides the fact that they use Occam's Razor wrong and are incorrect.


Not all of these things were from me and not all of them are even factual.


There are Creationist scientists, but the problem with some of these Creationist scientists is that they actively try to look for facts that support creationist ideas. Real scientists look at facts and come up with theories based on the facts.


So we agree that we can have faith in chairs based on our complete understanding of them?

agh stop making the stereotype that Christianity is something based solely upon faith (2)! What do you mean that there are no correct answers in Christianity?
How is it wrong? Please explain.
You do realize the biased opinion there right? Can I not just say Evolutionary scientists try to look for facts that support evolutionist ideas? Or are you saying that real scientists are evolutionists because their perspective of life is equal to yours? (thinks about Ku Klux Klan while typing)
Are you being sarcastic, punning, or are you missing what I am trying to say? Do you mean faith as in the 2nd definition? I feel I keep going over your head. I have faith#2 that my chair will support itself, but it could break underneath me because we don't have complete understanding of them. Even if we do have complete understanding, we still don't do these gigantic thorough analyses of the chair to see if our body will compromise the structure of the chair. Because we can't know everything, we use inference, which uses faith#2, which makes our logic fallible, and the chair could break But that's not exactly bad, since most logic has tiny amounts of faith inside of them.

You can't be using faith#1 for your quote because that really doesn't make sense. I have trust about chair... I believe about the chair. You believe about the chair what... existing? being your Lord?
Faith#1: I believe about God, I believe about Science ("religious" trust)
Faith#2: I believe in God beyond a reasonable doubt. (inference, opposes logic)

I could use computers instead of chairs. I know nothing about a computer, but I do know that when I press a key on the keyboard, I have Faith#2 that when I press a key, I will see the shape of the letter on the key I pressed come upon the computer, reguardless if I understand it! Do you get it now? Inference uses faith#2 because it is fallible. It doesn't matter if we understand it completely, we usually don't understand how things work completely, but from our past experiences with it, we use inference to link it with the present. Almost all forsenic(about the past) evidence uses inference.

Edit: Oopsies.. mixed two separate texts together.. lemme fix that.
Would you be willing to listen to my supposedly true evidence to back up what I am saying? If so, what would you like to see first?

Nobody can do an extensive study and find the "right" answers. If there were right answers in Christianity, then why do so many people disagree on it in this thread. They're all Christians, yet they all have different views and not one person can successfully claim theirs is right and the others are wrong.


Hopefully you see the similarities between the false statements: We have eleven people in this room, but due to Occam's Razor we actually have ten.


I find it surprising that there would be "good" scientists who reject science on such a basic level especially if it's on the same topic, evolution. Creationist scientists can be fine if they're doing studies on something unrelated to evolution, but from all the things I've seen on evolution versus creation, the creationist scientists are usually out to prove creationism.


First of all, I wasn't the one who brought up the chair analogy. When I say we can have faith in things we completely understand, I am saying that I understand how my keyboard works and I can have faith that if I press the button it will make a letter appear on the screen. In that sense it is logical to have faith, but when dealing with religion a lot of people will choose faith when it is not logical. "I have faith my religion will allow me to go to heaven, while everyone else will go to hell." That sentence isn't based on anything. You just want or hope that it is true.


Are you going to show me the evidence that what the Bible says is factual?

Are you going to show me the evidence that Dinosaurs existed?

mu·se·um n.
A building, place, or institution devoted to the acquisition, conservation, study, exhibition, and educational interpretation of objects having scientific, historical, or artistic value.

Skipping from 69 to last post, just putting this in before I read further.
Read The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel (Student edition if you are not a good reader).
Its about an athiest trying to disprove christianity. He (And several scholars that he interviewed) delve into the facts in and out of the bible. Its a good read (I'm only about halfway through, reading on and off) and, if nothing else, it's interesting.

Just cuz of Bones, that doesn't mean anything. Prove that they existed...

Say you took a Human skull, and placed it in your room. Then I said, prove that Human skull is in your room. All I have to do is go look in your room.