Miss_Tery

yeah, but i'm not talking about specifics. vp says i require a different level of proof and say it's because "theories" are by their nature "best guesses". "belief" is a whole different animal.

 

Many things, but not everything. Some parts of the Bible are crystal clear and meant to be taken quite literally.

 

Maybe some of the moral precepts.

 

It can be, yes. But I also think that it can vary from person to person. Some people take what they believe at face value and are never open to any other options. Others, like myself, believe what we believe, but are open to other arguments. Perhaps the latter of the two are a small minority, I don't know.

I guess one could say that the difference between a belief and a theory depends on the commitment level of the individual and the reason for that commitment. On a level playing field, Creationism is just another theory. I'd argue it makes more sense than anything else I've seen, but that doesn't mean I think we should stop looking for answers.

 

No, belief is not a whole different animal. I look at the body of proof that I see and I believe that there is a God and taht he sent his Son down to die for my - and your - sins. I am not asking for you to believe that same thing, because that is between you and God. Present me with a different set of facts, and I am sure I would revaluate my position based on them. But right now, I don't see it. You asked repeatedly in another thread to scientifically prove the supernatural things about God, and discount it precisely becasue they cannot be proven. I am simply asking you to be consistent. If you want rock solid proof of all things before you believe in them, that is fine - but you want to require that from religion, but not from science.

 

>>If you want rock solid proof of all things before you believe in them, that is fine - but you want to require that from religion, but not from science.

I think their is some confusion over the difference between a "hypothosis" and a "theory," here, for my tastes.

Theories are developed, improved, changed, altered, or discounted, based on the collection of evidence presented. The end result of the theory is not supposed to be initially determined.

First of all, nothing is rock solid. Everything is up to change or revision based on new evidence. The theory of relativity, for instance, will like never be "proven 100%," just due to the size, no matter how much we use its principles or divine from it. To do that, you'd have to know all, and no human does, at least not one walking around right now.....


Faith, on the other hand, is faith. Creationism is faith. Its based on conclusions given without supporting evidence, so its not a theory. Its faith.

For instance, as HB pointed out, you don't have to take Genisis literally. You can then, of course, believe God created all things, and believe in Evolution. Or you can take it literally, and discount any evidence that counters that belief. Doesn't make your, or my, beliefs a "theory."

 

That is exactly my feeling as well.

 

so what are the facts that support your belief in god? my position has remained consistent -- i don't bother with science when religion is involved, because the two don't mix. but since you seem to be asserting that god is a logical conclusion from the facts available, i'd love to hear how you got there. i suspect it'll involve more faith than logic.

science has a ton of holes in it, no doubt. but it acknowledges them and strives to figure them out. it doesn't simply say "this is the way it is, case closed" as religion has done for ages.