[killergrrr]

The answer is what is fact?

[Alty]

the answer is what is fact?

The answer is a question?

[Tj3]

I'm going to pipe in.

I believe in God, but I don't believe that the bible is the word of God, it's just a book written by man, that's it.

I don't believe in organized religion, I don't attend church, I don't read the bible, but I do believe in God. So, were do I get my belief from? What is my truth?

My beliefs are personal, from things that I have experienced but cannot prove. It's very possible that the experiences I had were not God related, but I believe that they were, and therefore I believe in God.

I don't think God created the universe, I think he may have helped but that science also had a hand in it.

I don't believe in miracles, if I ever see one then of course I'll change my mind, but up until now, I've never seen one.

Am I right? Is my belief true? To me it is, but obviously most people do not agree with my views, so what is true, who is right?

What is the validation for your beliefs?

[NeedKarma]

However, you have faith that she will continue to follow the historical precedent. You cannot be certain of it, but based upon what you do know, you have faith that it will continue. So you have faith based upon truth.

Yep, all true.

[classyT]

John 14:6
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
(KJV)

This is a definite, exclusive statement. Jesus did NOT say "a way" "a truth" "a life". You either believe it or you don't, but for anyone who believes the Bible, it is indisputable and it is absolute.

I totally agree with you Galveston! There are many though, who believe their truth is as good as mine (mine is based solely on the Bible) give me some ways to show them that the Bible CAN be believed. I think the Jew alone should convince people that the Bible is absolute truth.. also prophecy. The Bible is so accurate that it is scary.

[Alty]

What is the validation for your beliefs?

I don't need to validate my beliefs to you. If I was claiming my belief as fact, then I would have to validate, but I know that I just believe, I don't claim that God is indeed a fact.

You are the one that claims that God is fact, so what is the validation for your beliefs?

[Tj3]

I don't need to validate my beliefs to you. If I was claiming my belief as fact, then I would have to validate, but I know that I just believe, I don't claim that God is indeed a fact.

No one ever said that you had to validate your beliefs to me or anyone else. If you believe something to be true, then there must be a reason or else that belief, is by definition without reason or not rational.

You are the one that claims that God is fact, so what is the validation for your beliefs?

I would not be able to put all the reasons for believing God is a fact in one message, but I did start several times providing evidence for one of the reasons on another thread. Here is one reason (reposted message from another thread):

----------------------------
As you well know, and as I established very early on in this discussion we have only two options, and that is that God created all that there is, or that it came about naturally. I have asked a number of questions now to which neither you nor your atheist friends could provide a plausible answer. If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is onbly once answer. God created and thus God exists. For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God. And there are many many more proofs that could yet be posted. The usual respond to these issues from non-Christians are insults, ad hominems, and ridicule - but no answer. That is in and of itself an admission that no answer for a natural explanation exists.

EYE : How about the eye. Can anyone give a plausible explanation as to how the eye came to be?

DNA : In every living or previously living cell, we find an operating system (O/S) program written which is more complex than any MAC or PC. In addition to the program, we find that every cell has the built in capability to read and interpret this programming language. And this goes back to the simplest, and, according to evolutionists, most ancient type of cell in existence.
If one found a PC with Windows O/S on it, or even a simple handheld with Windows CE O/S on it, it would automatically be taken to be proof positive of the existence of a capable and intelligent advanced designer. Do any atheists have a plausible explanation for how this advanced programming language, along with reader/interpreter came to be?

SIMPLE SINGLE CELL :
How did the simple cells come to be created?

POND SCUM : Pericles claimed that the answer to the question abive was that the single cells came from pond scum, which is in and itself a form of life - how did it come to be?

AUSTRALIAN BRUSH TURKEY : An interesting animal. It does not sit the eggs to incubate them, but rather creates a compost pile to provide the heat, which must be maintained at aorund 33 degress. The eggs are laid down at the precise depth and in a circle where that exact heat will be maintained. The turkey does not lay the eggs right away, but waits until the compost pile has reached the necessary temperature. The is requires that the brush turkey understand heat and decomposition, as well as how the heat radiates and be able to calculate the precise depth and pattern at which the necessary heat occurs. And it has to understand that this is all required to hatch chicks. To have gained this knowledge by chance would be impossible because there are too many variables to all the brush turkey to figure out the linkage between heat and hatching eggs and then precisely what heat is required and how to obtain it. The existence of God and his creation of this animal explains this.

MACAWS : Macaws are birds that feed on poisonous seeds, and in order to live, after they eat, they must eat a certain type of mud which neutralizes the poison.
How did this evolve? What is the natural explanation for this? The existence of God explains it.
----------------------------------------

[NeedKarma]

No one ever said that you had to validate your beliefs to me or anyone else.

You did indeed, in post #23. You wrote:

What is the validation for your beliefs?

[Tj3]

You did indeed, in post #23. You wrote:

That was a question. I trust that you understand the difference between a question, and a requirement.

[NeedKarma]

That was a question. I trust that you understand the difference between a question, and a requirement.

Do you always speak condescendingly to people?

[Credendovidis]

I don't need to validate my beliefs to you. If I was claiming my belief as fact, then I would have to validate, but I know that I just believe, I don't claim that God is indeed a fact.
You are the one that claims that God is fact, so what is the validation for your beliefs?

Spot on Alty!! You clearly stated that you BELIEVE that, and what you BELIEVE should always be respected !

But not with Tj3, who intolerantly refuses to accept that other people have other ideas about "God", and that these other ideas have identical validity to the idea Tommy has himself.

That is : until someone can provide OSE for any specific idea claim on "God".
But that OSE will never be forthcoming, as it does not exist.
Next to that : belief and OSE are impossible to match anyway.

Tommy BELIEVES in his Christian version of "God", no problem.
You BELIEVE in your Deist version of "God". No problem neither.
But Tommy claims that what he BELIEVES is "true", "true" as in factual.
But when Tommy is asked to support his BELIEF, and is asked to why his views are more valid than your version or any other version, Tommy can only come up with some pseudo OSE by using arguments based on evolution, and than suggest that it is OSE for his views on "God".

Of course that is not correct. He knows it, you know it, I know it, almost everyone here knows it.
The only proof for the existence of "God" is direct OSE for the existence of "God"
The only proof for the Christian version of "God" is direct OSE for the Christian version of "God".
NOTHING ELSE WILL DO !!!

Only Tommy refuses to accept that. Tommy's idea of "true" and "truth" seems to be quite different to the ideas of those who live with ratio, logic, knowledge, understanding, and tolerance.

For any intelligent person the words "true" or "truth" refer to the property of being in accordance with the actual state of affairs.
And as the word "actual" refers to reality, it should refer to OSE as its only guideline.

Unfortunately in the religious field the words "true" or "truth" are used in and out of season to SUGGEST a level of accuracy, and in effect are used to provide some BOGUS VALIDITY to personal interpretations that are at best only covered by Subjective Supported Evidence.

You accept your views as BELIEF. You respect other (and others) views.
Tommy however insists intolerantly that his views are factual, refuses to accept that other ideas are of equal validity, and seems to be ashamed for what he only can BELIEVE but can not can provide OSE for.

What a nice display of the difference between the linguistic meaning and the religious unsupported interpretation of the words "true" or "truth"!!

:rolleyes:;):p:);):rolleyes:

.

.

[classyT]

Cred,

You refuse to even consider you may be WRONG. Let me ask you this... what IF you are wrong. What if there is a God... what happens then?

[michealb]

Then we are wrong. What if the true god is Zeus then we are all wrong. Man has thought of so many religions in the time we have been here how can you dismiss any of them without dismissing all of them.

So I don't live my life in fear of ifs there are just to many.

Besides if you read the history of heaven and hell in Christianity you find that it is was only added when Christianity started to loose favor when other religions at the time offered that service. So I find it really hard to fear something that got added on as value added service to Christianity when it losing favor. That's just me though.

[asking]

Do you always speak condescendingly to people?

Milk is coming out my nose. :)

[asking]

. . . we have only two options, and that is that God created all that there is, or that it came about naturally.

Fair enough.

. . .If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is onbly once answer. God created and thus God exists.

This is not a logical argument. By what means did "god" accomplish any of these things? If you cannot answer in detail how god did these things, then it is you who have no argument.

Science DOES have explanations for all the things you list. But the important point is that religion cannot account for how god works. That's the whole point of faith. You, TJ3, can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't pretend to dabble at logic and scientific argument and then duck out with a faith based argument at the critical juncture. With science, you are either in the game or you are out.

Demanding a mechanistic argument from science (which is correct to do) but not demanding a mechanistic argument from the alternate hypothesis (god) is not a scientific argument. It is the opposite of science, logic, and rigor. So while I don't question your faith, you are "out" when it comes to making a rational argument.

[classyT]

Then we are wrong. What if the true god is Zeus then we are all wrong. Man has thought of so many religions in the time we have been here how can you dismiss any of them without dismissing all of them.

So I don't live my life in fear of ifs there are just to many.

Besides if you read the history of heaven and hell in Christianity you find that it is was only added when Christianity started to loose favor when other religions at the time offered that service. So I find it really hard to fear something that got added on as value added service to Christianity when it loosing favor. That's just me though.

What? That is simply not true.

[michealb]

What part are you questioning?

[asking]

I think she means the bit about heaven and hell being added on later. I'm curious about that too. Can you elaborate?

[classyT]

What part are you questioning?

That heaven and hell are an add on... I have to fix dinner for my kiddies but I will be happy to show you scripture to prove otherwise.

[michealb]

If you do have scripture you would be getting it from the New Testament. Which was written several hundred years after Christianity was formed. So that wouldn't be evidence for Christianity had it in the beginning.

I'll look it up and get back with you on a source.