: : : I did that earlier when I quoted from Romans that the invisible things of God are clearly seen from the visible things which are seen.: : And this is logical induction, based on causality.
: : To quote Ennos Wolthius: "It must be clearly understood that such a statement of faith cannot be subjected to the rigorous proof of experimentation or logic."
: : You agree with that, or you did yesterday.
: : If you say that cause implies effect; thus the Universe implies a Creator, you are trying to apply logical ideas to a matter of faith; you are contradicting Wolthius; and contradicting yourself.
: : So, is Romans wrong, or is Wolthius wrong, or are you just skimming over a contradiction without noticing it?
: No contradiction. Romans is right. The evidence is clear.
: Wolthius is right. It is impossible to explain it "logically" to those whose logic is not Bible-based. I know -- another statement of faith.
The Bible is not logical. What you're saying is is "I can't explain my faulty attempt at logic to someone who doesn't share my faulty view of what logic is".
If the Bible is logical, try proving it wrong. If you cannot falsify the Bible, then the Bible is not logical. No ifs, no buts, it simply isn't logical.
(snip)
: : Abandon this logic! Faith is not logic and never will be; you cannot use concepts like "causes" and "evidence" and "proof" to justify your belief; as they are logical precepts. Ultimately, you believe or you don't; trying to use logical precepts to prop up faith is like trying to use red to describe blue.
: : There *is* no *evidence* for your faith; there is only the faith itself; if you have the faith, you believe; if you don't, you don't.
: : Physical this and logical that are merely distractions from your faith, not props for your faith. If you truly have faith, then you have faith regardless of where you are or what you see.
: : Any attempt to drag logic into your faith merely weakens your faith and clouds your mind; anyone attempting to "prove" God exists is merely deluding themselves; you cannot use any physical object to prove the existence of a God worthy of the name.
: WOW! You've really got it backwards! God clearly states in Romans that I CAN use physical to back up spiritual. Part of His design of the physical is to point us to Him.
What does God state this in? - the Bible.
How do we know that the Bible is infallible? - because the Bible says so.
You cannot provide any independent evidence; neither can you falsify the Bible. Any belief of the Bible as the word of God is simply that; a belief; and can never be logical. Your reasoning is circular. And has a hole the size of a lorry in it.
And let's look at the Bible. If, as Wolthius says, it is not possible to apply logic to faith, then there can be no absolute "proof" of God.
If the Bible is what you claim it is; the word of God, it constitutes absolute "proof" of God. Either the Bible is not absolute proof of God and you are wrong, or it *is* absolute proof of God and Wolthius is wrong.
At least, according to what is recognised as "logic" by the human race, it is.
You might have your own personal brand of logic in which black is white; but I'm talking about the generally accepted working-from-first-principles sort of logic that science is based on here.
: : This means that attempting to disprove evolution is in fact damaging to your faith; you are trying to use logic to disprove a logical theory and also use logic to prop up the non-logical; fuzzy thinking, not faith.
: : As I said at the beginning; do you believe? If you do, any physical evidence (or lack of) is irrelevant. If you don't, any physical evidence (or lack of) is irrelevant.
: : Myself, I settle for "maybe, but we can never know one way or the other". As a scientist, I recoil from certainties and definite statements; honest doubt and questioning is my preferred state.
:
: But God says we CAN know for sure.
Where does God say it?; in the Bible. You or Wolthius, which is wrong?
: And as a scientist
You are a scientist? Which branch, and why don't they teach you anything in the way of formal logic?
: I assert that is is a relief to know that not everything is fuzzy -- there is a rock solid basis for belief, and it doesn't contradict science.
The key feature of a good scientist is that they maintain an open mind to every part of their theory. There are no absolutes in science; anyone who thinks there are is just making simplified assumptions for the sake of simplicity.
: These are just some of the verses which state an Absolute God, and He assures us that we MAY KNOW Him.
Be convinced by a truly circular argument, and there is no argument by which you can be unconvinced. But this is not the hallmark of an open mind; and it is not the hallmark of a rational person.
Gideon.
None.
