Psycho-Babble Faith | about religious faith | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: faith rayww

Posted by alexandra_k on October 10, 2004, at 20:30:55

In reply to Re: faith alexandra_k, posted by rayww on October 10, 2004, at 20:13:04

> hey, I'm just happy to have someone to discuss with. Thank-you for the lesson in grammar and psychology. I find that equally as interesting.

I am happy to have someone to have a conversation with as well :-) I hope we can continue this after the thread gets redirected.

> You ask "what evidence is there that God exists?
> Look around, and do you see trees, flowers, animals, people? What about computers, medical research, and other things that have been revealed to the world in the last hundred years.

This seems like an abductive argument (an argument to the best explanation). All these things exist: trees, flowers, animals etc - and what is the best explanation for their existence? - you maintain it is god. I personally would go with an evolutionary account.

Neither of these can be 'proven'. They are rather frameworks within which more detailed specific (and often rival) accounts are worked out. The choice of what framework we adopt is a matter of faith.

These things didn't self-start. Everything bears witness there is a God. It's simple. All one needs is the faith of a child to believe. Why complicate it so?

Why is it less of a mystery that god has existed forever, or that he brought himself into being - than to consider that the universe has always existed forever or that it brought itself into being? Both are equally mysterious at the end of the day...

> You also ask, "What evidence is there the Bible is the word of God?"
> You ask Me, a Mormon? Why, (people of my faith would say) the Book of Mormon is evidence that everything the Bible says is true.

But the trouble is that the argument looks like this:

Premiss one: the bible is the word of god
Premiss two: the bible says god exists and doesn't lie etc.
Therefore god exists and does not lie etc.

But Premiss one begs the question by assuming the existance of god - which is exactly what the argument is supposed to prove. One cannot use the bible to prove the existance of god without circularity.

So we are back to faith...




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Faith | Framed

poster:alexandra_k thread:401057