Seeing is believing?

[The Parson]

Name another possible conclusion? The only two alternatives are 1) chance or 2) creator. Number 1 is not likely.

Yes, those are the two possible conclusions. As to what is "likely", well, who can say?

Aliens.

Would that be the little grey variety of aliens, or some other?

[Athanasius]

Name another possible conclusion? The only two alternatives are 1) chance or 2) creator. Number 1 is not likely.

Yes, those are the two possible conclusions. As to what is "likely", well, who can say?

Aliens.

Would that be the little grey variety of aliens, or some other?

It doesn't really matter since the answer under a purely rational examination isn't utterly compelling in one direction over the other. How would anyone distinguish between God and godlike aliens? This is exactly where faith plays into it. There's no rational, utterly compelling argument that defeats all other arguments that start at a designed creation and points back necessarily and unavoidably to the God of the bible.

And so, faith is essential.

[The Parson]

It doesn't really matter since the answer under a purely rational examination isn't utterly compelling in one direction over the other. How would anyone distinguish between God and godlike aliens? This is exactly where faith plays into it. There's no rational, utterly compelling argument that defeats all other arguments that start at a designed creation and points back necessarily and unavoidably to the God of the bible.

And so, faith is essential.

And without faith it's impossible to please God.

[CadyandZoe]

Name another possible conclusion? The only two alternatives are 1) chance or 2) creator. Number 1 is not likely.

Yes, those are the two possible conclusions. As to what is "likely", well, who can say?

All rational people.

[CadyandZoe]

Name another possible conclusion? The only two alternatives are 1) chance or 2) creator. Number 1 is not likely.

Yes, those are the two possible conclusions. As to what is "likely", well, who can say?

Aliens.

Would that be the little grey variety of aliens, or some other?

It doesn't really matter since the answer under a purely rational examination isn't utterly compelling in one direction over the other. How would anyone distinguish between God and godlike aliens? This is exactly where faith plays into it. There's no rational, utterly compelling argument that defeats all other arguments that start at a designed creation and points back necessarily and unavoidably to the God of the bible.

And so, faith is essential.

How do you define "faith"?
How is it not compelling? What do mean?

Paul argues that the existence of God is what our rationality delivers to us. He says God made himself evident to the world. He says that his divine attributes can clearly be seen from what he has made. If the natural order is NOT compelling, we have only two possibilities: 1) privation of the mind, or 2) privation of the will.

[Athanasius]

How do you define "faith"? How is it not compelling? What do mean?

We could stick with Hebrews 11:1, and the 'it' that is not definitively compelling is reason alone.

Paul argues that the existence of God is what our rationality delivers to us. He says God made himself evident to the world. He says that his divine attributes can clearly be seen from what he has made. If the natural order is NOT compelling, we have only two possibilities: 1) privation of the mind, or 2) privation of the will.

And I would agree with Paul, but also that we exist in a state of privation following the sin of Genesis 3. Anyone who lacks faith will simply turn to Paul and ask, "which of God's attributes do babies who die of cancer attest to?"

[CadyandZoe]

How do you define "faith"? How is it not compelling? What do mean?

We could stick with Hebrews 11:1, and the 'it' that is not definitively compelling is reason alone.

Paul argues that the existence of God is what our rationality delivers to us. He says God made himself evident to the world. He says that his divine attributes can clearly be seen from what he has made. If the natural order is NOT compelling, we have only two possibilities: 1) privation of the mind, or 2) privation of the will.
 

And I would agree with Paul, but also that we exist in a state of privation following the sin of Genesis 3. Anyone who lacks faith will simply turn to Paul and ask, "which of God's attributes do babies who die of cancer attest to?"

Hebrews 11:1 isn't a definition of faith as many suppose. Rather, Paul is saying that the presence of faith is evidence of the thing hoped for, the thing unseen. What what is unseen? God's approval. In other words, they can gain confidence in what they can't see: i.e. God's approval, based on what they CAN see: i.e. their own faith in action. Paul exhorts them to not throw that confidence away, since all they lack is endurance. As proof of this, Paul forms a list of people for whom God explicitly expressed his approval due to their faith. If I have faith, i.e. if I believe what he says and put that into practice, I can have confidence of his approval even if he doesn't make it explicit in my particular case.

Christians have been tricked into thinking that faith is "believing what can't be proved", which is not true. That definition of faith is foreign to the Bible. Faith is giving mental ascent to a truth claim. That's it.

I don't understand what you are saying about babies.

[CadyandZoe]

Christianity seems to me to be one of a few special propositions where the importance of collecting evidence, investigation, falsification and most other mechanisms that people commonly use to get at the truth is minimized or altogether dismissed.

One point of note is that Christianity is not falsifiable. There's no way to prove it wrong, especially as everything of note is so heavily spiritualized that everything of import that Jesus did takes place in another realm.

In my mind, that's a strike against the faith. It's set up in such a way that it can't be proved incorrect.

Before you ask, yes, Judaism is falsifiable.

So what. Falsifiability belongs to the scientific method, a discipline which is but one among many ways to discover the truth. Lots of true ideas can't be proven wrong using the scientific method.
 
For instance, I judge the New Testament accounts to be true,  not because I was there, but because I judge the witnesses to be reliable and honest. This type of reasoning is the most common, everyday use of our rationality.

[Athanasius]

Hebrews 11:1 isn't a definition of faith as many suppose. Rather, Paul is saying that the presence of faith is evidence of the thing hoped for, the thing unseen. What what is unseen? God's approval. In other words, they can gain confidence in what they can't see: i.e. God's approval, based on what they CAN see: i.e. their own faith in action. Paul exhorts them to not throw that confidence away, since all they lack is endurance. As proof of this, Paul forms a list of people for whom God explicitly expressed his approval due to their faith. If I have faith, i.e. if I believe what he says and put that into practice, I can have confidence of his approval even if he doesn't make it explicit in my particular case.

Christians have been tricked into thinking that faith is "believing what can't be proved", which is not true. That definition of faith is foreign to the Bible. Faith is giving mental ascent to a truth claim. That's it.

You've gone through some minor effort to correct a misunderstanding I haven't offered, but I suppose that's why I answered in five words or so. I've noticed that you like to "well, actually...". I'm almost tempted to discuss the definition you've provided but what could I possibly say to someone who seems to ask only rhetorical questions?

I realise this comes across a bit harsh. I'm confused as to why you responded as you did, in assuming that I was offering a popular misunderstanding. I didn't put much effort into my response for the reason already stated, but given that you seem reasonably clever I would have thought that by pointing to an example of faith the definition would be implied (or at least, no one is going to read and then simply stop at Hebrews 11:1 and go no further). Faith is more than merely giving "mental ascent"<sic>, but that is part of it.

I don't understand what you are saying about babies.

What do you think I might be saying?

[Fenris]

Name another possible conclusion? The only two alternatives are 1) chance or 2) creator. Number 1 is not likely.

Yes, those are the two possible conclusions. As to what is "likely", well, who can say?

Aliens.

So much this.

[Fenris]

Name another possible conclusion? The only two alternatives are 1) chance or 2) creator. Number 1 is not likely.

Yes, those are the two possible conclusions. As to what is "likely", well, who can say?

All rational people.

By "rational" you mean "people who think like me". And yet you don't know how other people think.

[Fenris]

And without faith it's impossible to please God.

I think that depends on your religion.

[Fenris]

So what. Falsifiability belongs to the scientific method

No. Falsifiability is a logical tool, not a scientific one. 

Lots of true ideas can't be proven wrong using the scientific method.
 
For instance, I judge the New Testament accounts to be true,  not because I was there, but because I judge the witnesses to be reliable and honest.

I don't even know where to begin with this. Your belief in the NT is not subject to the scientific method because it's not a science experiment? The scientific method doesn't apply to "ideas" but to the laws of nature? That you're saying the scientific method means things can't be proven wrong, and then you say something that you believe to be correct? That you can't "judge witnesses" who can't be cross examined? That the scientific method doesn't apply to witnesses? I could go on and on.

My point remains. Christianity is not falsifiable. That doesn't mean it's wrong. It means it's impossible to prove that it's wrong.

[Athanasius]

My point remains. Christianity is not falsifiable. That doesn't mean it's wrong. It means it's impossible to prove that it's wrong.

Do you think that if a definitive body of Jesus were found Christianity would be falsified/defeated?

[CadyandZoe]

Hebrews 11:1 isn't a definition of faith as many suppose. Rather, Paul is saying that the presence of faith is evidence of the thing hoped for, the thing unseen. What what is unseen? God's approval. In other words, they can gain confidence in what they can't see: i.e. God's approval, based on what they CAN see: i.e. their own faith in action. Paul exhorts them to not throw that confidence away, since all they lack is endurance. As proof of this, Paul forms a list of people for whom God explicitly expressed his approval due to their faith. If I have faith, i.e. if I believe what he says and put that into practice, I can have confidence of his approval even if he doesn't make it explicit in my particular case.

Christians have been tricked into thinking that faith is "believing what can't be proved", which is not true. That definition of faith is foreign to the Bible. Faith is giving mental ascent to a truth claim. That's it.

You've gone through some minor effort to correct a misunderstanding I haven't offered, but I suppose that's why I answered in five words or so. I've noticed that you like to "well, actually...". I'm almost tempted to discuss the definition you've provided but what could I possibly say to someone who seems to ask only rhetorical questions?

I realise this comes across a bit harsh. I'm confused as to why you responded as you did, in assuming that I was offering a popular misunderstanding. I didn't put much effort into my response for the reason already stated, but given that you seem reasonably clever I would have thought that by pointing to an example of faith the definition would be implied (or at least, no one is going to read and then simply stop at Hebrews 11:1 and go no further). Faith is more than merely giving "mental ascent"<sic>, but that is part of it.

I don't understand what you are saying about babies.

What do you think I might be saying?

That faith is more than mental assent. It isn't.