Is faith a reliable path to reality?

[Angry Ukulele Girl]

Hi there!

This is my first post
This is according to Hebrews 11:1
How exactly can "confidence in what we hope for"
and an "assurance about what we do not see"
be a reliable path to reality?
For example,
Would it be advisable to approach my bank account balance in such a way?

Thanks!

[fredonly]

Occam's razor has this point 'The simplest explanation that explains all the facts is the one to be preferred'. My point is that Mark as the original and Luke based on Matthew does not explain all the Facts - there are contradictions and omissions that cannot be explained, only ignored.

This is either ignorant or dishonest, and is why I am unimpressed by the Authorities.

There's not enough evidence to definitively explain all the facts, and I disagree with your judgement of the authorities. The evidence for Marcan priority (that Matthew and Luke had Mark's written Gospel in front of them) is strong, and better accounts for the "triple tradition" than alternatives (some apologists argue for the priority of Matthew, but they seem motivated to defend the tradition that the author was a disciple). The "double tradition" (material in Matthew and Luke, but not Mark) is suggestive of an additional shared set of material as a common source (labeled Q) but it's form and content can't be established by the evidence. Robert Stein writes:

"It is probably best to say that besides Mark, Matthew and Luke also possessed and used various written and oral traditions in common, and these now appear in their Gospels as the Q material."... It also seems clear that along with Mark and the Q material, Matthew and Luke possessed other oral and written materials overlapped some of what they found in Mark and their Q sources...[but] it is impossible to reconstruct them with any certainty.

Stein also suggests that multiple overlapping sources (potentially oral and written), redaction by Matthew and Luke, and scribal errors could account for all the differences. But it's impossible to definitively determine the specific cause of any similarities or differences. I'll add my personal opinion that Matthew and Luke probably made stuff up, as well. So I think Occam's razor should indeed be applied when it comes to proposing sources beyond Mark and Q, not because we should assume these are the only sources, but because there's not sufficient basis to identify the contents of any other sources.

[John17_3]

[Replying to Angry Ukulele Girl in post #1]

Hi.
This is a very thoughful question.
I hope the thread is not too old for a new response.

Hebrews 11:1 reads in Greek
, -

The Greek word is hupostasis, which means, a support, substance, steadiness, hence assurance.
Usage: (lit: an underlying), (a) confidence, assurance, (b) a giving substance (or reality) to, or a guaranteeing, (c) substance, reality.

HELPS Word-studies
5287 hypstasis(from 5259 /hyp, "under" and 2476 /hstmi, "to stand") properly, (to possess) standing under a guaranteed agreement ("title-deed"); (figuratively) "title" to a promise or property, i.e. a legitimate claim (because it literally is, "under a legal-standing") entitling someone to what is guaranteed under the particular agreement.

For the believer, 5287 /hypstasis ("title of possession") is the Lord's guarantee to fulfill the faith He inbirths (cf. Heb 11:1 with Heb 11:6). Indeed we are only entitled to what God grants faith for (Ro 14:23).

The text can therefore be read:
Faith is the substance (reality), or guarantee, or title deed, or assurance of the things hoped for; the evidence, or proof of things we cannot see.

In other words, one having faith has evidence, that is strong enough to be proof - the reality, or guarantee, like the title deed to the thing that has not yet been realized.
The thing not yet realized, is therefore as though it is realized.

How confident are you, that you will get the money in your bank account?
A number of things can go wrong, to prevent that expectation from being a reality.
With faith however, the assurance that the promises of God cannot fail, is more real than any guarantee of getting the money in our bank account.
Hence, the Bible says, 'But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.' Hebrews 11:6

It is also important to note that God is the one that gives this faith. Galatians 5:22
I hope this is helpful.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Angry Ukulele Girl in post #1]

Hi.
This is a very thoughtful question.
I hope the thread is not too old for a new response.

Hebrews 11:1 reads in Greek
, -

The Greek word is hupostasis, which means, a support, substance, steadiness, hence assurance.
Usage: (lit: an underlying), (a) confidence, assurance, (b) a giving substance (or reality) to, or a guaranteeing, (c) substance, reality.

HELPS Word-studies
5287 hypstasis(from 5259 /hyp, "under" and 2476 /hstmi, "to stand") properly, (to possess) standing under a guaranteed agreement ("title-deed"); (figuratively) "title" to a promise or property, i.e. a legitimate claim (because it literally is, "under a legal-standing") entitling someone to what is guaranteed under the particular agreement.

For the believer, 5287 /hypstasis ("title of possession") is the Lord's guarantee to fulfill the faith He inbirths (cf. Heb 11:1 with Heb 11:6). Indeed we are only entitled to what God grants faith for (Ro 14:23).

The text can therefore be read:
Faith is the substance (reality), or guarantee, or title deed, or assurance of the things hoped for; the evidence, or proof of things we cannot see.

In other words, one having faith has evidence, that is strong enough to be proof - the reality, or guarantee, like the title deed to the thing that has not yet been realized.
The thing not yet realized, is therefore as though it is realized.

How confident are you, that you will get the money in your bank account?
A number of things can go wrong, to prevent that expectation from being a reality.
With faith however, the assurance that the promises of God cannot fail, is more real than any guarantee of getting the money in our bank account.
Hence, the Bible says, 'But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.' Hebrews 11:6

It is also important to note that God is the one that gives this faith. Galatians 5:22
I hope this is helpful.

It is never too old to discus any theist apologetic, apart from them being long - debunked, mostly, and. a wonderful example of how faithbased thinking works (illogically) so as to take 'evidence' and totally skew it to fit the faith.

I might start with faith in things unseen, which does not mean based on evidence but NOT based on evidence.

However, trying to be fair and take the best view, I suppose you were appealing to a sliding scale of evidence - based credibility.

Like your bank account analogy. Or how confident the sun will rise tomorrow, or that your car will start?

Pretty confident, as we know how these things work or are used to them reliably repeating. This is science or technology at least and the 'we can't be 100% sure' is not valid argument and never was. But we forever get it presented.

The materialist default is that things work without a god being necessary, so what evidence is there for a god, rather than not? Unknowns and unexplaineds for this reason also fail because of the materialist default - natural (no god needed) is the more valid explanation even if we don't know what it is.

But Faithbased theism always thinks that God is the default until 100% disproven.

That is not the way evidence and logic works, and they never, ever, understand or accept that.

But unknowns and origin arguments as well, actually as reversed burden of proof are useless arguments, anyway, as they only get one to a creator, but don't say which one it is. So the Greek meaning of Faith and Bible - quotes are useless as well. The only really valid argument is about the validity of any particular Holy Book, the god and the religion. Intelligent creation is actually useless.

[John17_3]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #253]

It is never too old to discus any theist apologetic, apart from them being long - debunked, mostly, and. a wonderful example of how faithbased thinking works (illogically) so as to take 'evidence' and totally skew it to fit the faith.

Can you explain what you mean by "faithbased thinking" please.

I might start with faith in things unseen, which does not mean based on evidence but NOT based on evidence.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.
However, faith, as used in the Christian Greek scriptures, and defined at Hebrews 11:1, was written in the first century, which is almost 2000 years prior to the modern use of the term faith.

The Greek word the ancient writer used - , English, elegchos means a proof, or test, and involves a showing, or exposing (1651 elgx properly, to convince with solid, compelling evidence, especially to expose (prove wrong, connect)) - evidence.

The writer used this term in defining faith as "the evidence of realities".
This kind of faith does not exist apart from evidence.
Perhaps you are defining faith in a different way? Can you clarify please. Thanks.

However, trying to be fair and take the best view, I suppose you were appealing to a sliding scale of evidence - based credibility.

Like your bank account analogy. Or how confident the sun will rise tomorrow, or that your car will start?

These can be used as examples, provided that the one using them understands that the evidence is part and parcel with faith - thus the conviction.

Pretty confident, as we know how these things work or are used to them reliably repeating. This is science or technology at least and the 'we can't be 100% sure' is not valid argument and never was. But we forever get it presented.

What you are describing here, is evidence.
Faith however, comes into play, when it involves what you don't know.

For example, in the film "Spirit Untamed", not sure if you watched it, Lucky's mom knew how to ride a horse, and perform on a horse, but she needed faith in order to do those stunts, because the jumps she will attempt are not realized. They are not realities.
However, she has the conviction she will make the jump. She has faith.

The materialist default is that things work without a god being necessary, so what evidence is there for a god, rather than not? Unknowns and unexplaineds for this reason also fail because of the materialist default - natural (no god needed) is the more valid explanation even if we don't know what it is.

Does the materialist have the faith you are referring to, since the materialist believes that things work, although not knowing why they work, or what is behind them working?

Is ascribing the cause to nature with no evidence, not the same as ascribing the cause to a god, with no evidence?

For example, one would consider it illogical to claim that a vehicle or house can naturally come about without a designer.
Yet, the naturalist claims that objects of far more intricacy came about naturally, without a designer.
It requires faith to believe that, because there is no evidence for it.

One who says there is, relies on the faith, you are referring to.

• Experts think that the first step towards life was simply a molecule that was capable of self-replicating.
  
  Exactly how DNA came into existence is still a mystery. Conventional wisdom suggests that RNA-based life eventually switched to DNA to take advantage of its stability, which makes it better at storing genetic information. But so far, there is little evidence about how this could have happened.
  
  ...in recent years, increasing numbers of experts have renounced the RNA world hypothesis and, with it, the idea that DNA evolved from RNA. Instead, some have put forward the theory that RNA and DNA formed at around the same time. Recent experiments at Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich, Germany, have shown that the subunits of DNA could have formed spontaneously and been present in the primordial soup, suggesting that the first DNA molecules could have formed at a similar time to RNA.
  
  Others suggest that the idea that pure RNA or pure DNA formed spontaneously is unlikely. This is because single strands of RNA or DNA match up with complementary nucleotide building blocks as a first step to copying themselves. But the paired RNA or DNA strands then bind together so tightly that they cant separate without help from sophisticated enzymes, preventing them from making any new RNA or DNA.
  
  As if all these confusing theories arent enough, some experts reject the idea that any nucleic acid formed before proteins, instead favouring a metabolism-first hypothesis with amino acids appearing spontaneously in the primordial soup and eventually forming peptides, self-replicating proteins and ultimately self-sustaining metabolic networks, with nucleic acids turning up later.
  
  And despite all this speculation about how nucleic acids, amino acids, and even proteins might have spontaneously appeared and begun self-replicating, these theories still dont explain one of the most important aspects of life as we know it: the genetic code.
  
  So for now, we mostly just have speculation.

What do you call a belief that is held based on numerous speculation?
How is the faith you are referring to defined?

But Faithbased theism always thinks that God is the default until 100% disproven.

Is this a personal view you came up with, or is this what you have experienced? Can you please give me an example, since I have not seen this, and I probably do not understand what you are really saying.

That is not the way evidence and logic works, and they never, ever, understand or accept that.

I agree. The way I understand evidence, is that it is a body of facts that lead to a conclusion. That conclusion may or may not be true, but the conclusion does not invalidate the evidence.

You probably are aware of this, since oftentimes based on evidence, people are wrongly convicted, and we also know that many theories were based on evidence, but these theories were wrong, and had to be discarded, based on new facts.

The Bible says, "...God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:19, 20
What can be perceived from creation, is evidence of a divine creator.

Of course, others looking at this evidence, speculate that undirected processes in a primordial soup, and other unguided processes are what resulted in the things we see in our earth.
They also believe that somehow, life emerged from chaos.

The evidence is interpreted differently. Who is right?
I don't believe speculation has any place in validating evidence. I am sure you agree.

But unknowns and origin arguments as well, actually as reversed burden of proof are useless arguments, anyway, as they only get one to a creator, but don't say which one it is.

How do you figure?
This is not something I have heard before, or know to be true.
The Bible in no uncertain terms says this:

Have you not known and have you not heard, that God to eternity is LORD JEHOVAH, who created the ends of The Earth? He is not weary and is not fatigued by labor, and there is no searching of his understanding!

Isaiah 40:28

Thus says LORD JEHOVAH God who created the Heavens, and stretched them out and spread out the Earth and everything in it, and he gave breath to the people upon it, and spirit to those who walk in it

Isaiah 42:5

So the Greek meaning of Faith and Bible - quotes are useless as well.

Not to half the world, and the other 35% that listen to the Bible read to them, even if they are skeptical.
You may be speaking of the minority of individuals who have made up their mind to be closed minded about what they do not know, and do not want to know.

However, agnostic, open-minded atheists, Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus, gang members, drug dealers, gun smugglers, politicians, and the list goes on, all appreciate Bible quote, and explanation for these.
They are open-minded. Many of them seeking answers, and searching for truth.

It is not expected that all the world will to be open to truth, since to love truth, also requires giving up other loves, which some people find hard to do.

The only really valid argument is about the validity of any particular Holy Book, the god and the religion. Intelligent creation is actually useless.

Thank you for expressing your feelings.
I am sure you know that everyone does not agree with you, and so your statement is not true, but applies only to you, and a number of other people with your mental outlook.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'll try to keep this simple.

The god - claim before we get onto any religious claim, is that a god exists and this is almost always a god that created everything. What is the evidence for that belief?

Aside from the various D (intelligent Design) claims, which are disputed, there is nothing. You may disagree, but I can tell you there is not. I don't doubt we shall be discussing that. We don't know - for sure - how everything was made. And not knowing how does not mean 'it has to be an intelligent creator', but 'we don't know'.

To maintain that 'a god' (never mind which one) without good reason, and to insist that is the default that has to be totally disproved, is Faithbased thinking, and is logically invalid. This applies to many other claims, such as Yeti or Bigfoot, Nessie, Flying saucers and crop circles (made by UFOs or humans), ghosts or indeed, gods.

I have found that the Theist claim tends to have to show that anything other than a god (intelligent creator) is "Impossible" (or at least the less likely explanation) and this a god has to be the only (or preferred) answer.

There, the burden of proof falls on the god claim not even to show that a god does exist, but that any other explanation is not possible, or at least not credible.

Abiogenesis is not proven, but to say it is 'Impossible' will not do. There is at least a mechanism; a hypothetical explanation of how it could happen. At worst, it is a possible explanation and that deflates the 'Impossible' claim that makes a god credible, or even the more probable explanation, because Creation (intelligent) has no mechanism. It has no logical credibility, nor really any good evidential support. To maintain belief in a god (intelligent creator) without a valid case is irrational, and to propose it as a firm belief (not just more likely) is faithbased thinking.

Over to you. But the elephant waiting in the wings is 'which god?'

With origins (Cosmos, Life, consciousness' (the Big Three) it still doesn't get us to any particular god, religion or Holy book. And that is really all that matters, because a god that did not intervene (did not care about us) is neither here nor there. It doesn't matter if anyone believes in it or not. It is religious belief; organised religion, that concerns us, as that impacts our life, thinking and society, and That (not a possible creator) is the only discussion that really matters, and i have just given my reasons why I (and I believe atheist thought in general) think the same way.

[John17_3]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #255]

I'll try to keep this simple.

Simple is always better.
Sometimes though when persons say "I'll try to keep this simple" they usually mean "I'll try to make this simple for me."
I don't know if that is the case here, but I guess it does not really matter.

The god - claim before we get onto any religious claim, is that a god exists and this is almost always a god that created everything. What is the evidence for that belief?

Evidence that God is, can be seem in the design in creation; the reliability, authenticity, and practical value of the scriptures; personal experience in relation to what is known about God.

Aside from the various D (intelligent Design) claims, which are disputed, there is nothing. You may disagree, but I can tell you there is not. I don't doubt we shall be discussing that. We don't know - for sure - how everything was made. And not knowing how does not mean 'it has to be an intelligent creator', but 'we don't know'.

Almost everything is disputed, but that does not hinder persons from believing.
Why do you for example, believe in disputed things, and why do you say there is evidence for these things?
Does the fact that someone does not agree or believe something mean there is no evidence for it?

To maintain that 'a god' (never mind which one) without good reason, and to insist that is the default that has to be totally disproved, is Faithbased thinking, and is logically invalid.

Okay, thanks for explaining.
I thought it was a made up word, but was not certain.

I do not know of anyone who maintains that God is, without "good reason".
If such persons do exist, their thinking is not based on faith. That's not what faith is, as explained in my previous post.
That is gullibility, or believing blindly, in my opinion.

Have you met such persons, or is it the case, you accuse persons of not believing based on evidence, because you don't accept the evidence?
I believe you are aware that in science, there are disagreements, and various conflicting theories, so let me ask you this.
Do you consider the scientist that have conflicting theories, and disagreements, on interpretations, as "not having evidence"?

This applies to many other claims, such as Yeti or Bigfoot, Nessie, Flying saucers and crop circles (made by UFOs or humans), ghosts or indeed, gods.

What about "speculation about how nucleic acids, amino acids, and even proteins might have spontaneously appeared and begun self-replicating", or "genetic material or life itself arriving on earth from outer space"? Does it apply to these?

I have found that the Theist claim tends to have to show that anything other than a god (intelligent creator) is "Impossible" (or at least the less likely explanation) and this a god has to be the only (or preferred) answer.

I have found that those whom have come to the conclusion that the universe was created, di not do so, on the basis of competing against other beliefs, or ideas, but based on the evidence found in the ancient documents that existed hundreds of centuries earlier than any "alternative explanation" on life, creation, etc.

So, contrary to the view that the theist have a "god of the gaps" policy, it seems to me persons who reject the idea that anything besides the beliefs of modern scientists, or believers, in Naturalism, and Scientism, is impossible, are the ones who are promoting the terms "the less likely explanation", or the only preferred answer.

Naturalism (philosophy)

• In philosophy, naturalism is the idea that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe. In its primary sense, it is also known as ontological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, pure naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism. "Ontological" refers to ontology, the philosophical study of what exists. Philosophers often treat naturalism as equivalent to materialism, but there are important distinctions between the philosophies.
  
  For example, philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles. These principles include mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties accepted by the scientific community. Further, this sense of naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature. This stronger formulation of naturalism is commonly referred to as metaphysical naturalism. On the other hand, the more moderate view that naturalism should be assumed in one's working methods as the current paradigm, without any further consideration of whether naturalism is true in the robust metaphysical sense, is called methodological naturalism.

Providing assumptions required for science

• According to Robert Priddy, all scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that cannot be tested by scientific processes; that is, that scientists must start with some assumptions as to the ultimate analysis of the facts with which it deals. These assumptions would then be justified partly by their adherence to the types of occurrence of which we are directly conscious, and partly by their success in representing the observed facts with a certain generality, devoid of ad hoc suppositions." Kuhn also claims that all science is based on assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions a paradigm comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation. For naturalists, nature is the only reality, the "correct" paradigm, and there is no such thing as supernatural, i.e. anything above, beyond, or outside of nature. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality, including the human spirit.
  
  Some claim that naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists, and that the following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method:

There, the burden of proof falls on the god claim not even to show that a god does exist, but that any other explanation is not possible, or at least not credible.

I think that anyone holding the "belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality" - Scientism, are the ones who have the burden of proof, of demonstrating that anything outside their view is impossible, and that answers can be found nowhere else other than their system of beliefs.

I do not believe anyone has to prove God to anyone other than themselves, since the choice of whether one believes or not, lies with each individual.
According to Jesus Christ, "For God so loved the world that He gave the only begotten Son, so that everyone believing in Him should not perish, but should have eternal life. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life. Whoever rejects the Son will not see life. Instead, the wrath of God remains on him."" John 3:16, 36

I don't find anywhere in the Bible that says theist need to prove anything to non-believers.
I appreciate that this is not what God requires, since no one can make anyone believe anything.

To give an example, I do not believe in the theory of evolution, as I, along with thousands of scientist, philosophers, medical practitioners, educators, etc., see no evidence for it.
I would not ask you to prove it to me. Nor would, I expect you to stand before a scientist who does not believe it, and try to prove it.

Abiogenesis is not proven, but to say it is 'Impossible' will not do. There is at least a mechanism; a hypothetical explanation of how it could happen.

So you accept a hypothetical of how something could happen, or be possible, even though there is no evidence it could.

I find that interesting, because here you have experts, suggesting "that the idea that pure RNA or pure DNA formed spontaneously is unlikely", and you are willing to believe it "could happen, but yet, you are not willing to accept that the universe could have been created by an intelligent designer.
Very interesting.

What is the difference between the two - believing that something could happen, even though there is no evidence it could, and believing that something could be, even though - according to the claimed - there is evidence it could?
There is no difference, is there.

At worst, it is a possible explanation and that deflates the 'Impossible' claim that makes a god credible, or even the more probable explanation, because Creation (intelligent) has no mechanism. It has no logical credibility, nor really any good evidential support. To maintain belief in a god (intelligent creator) without a valid case is irrational, and to propose it as a firm belief (not just more likely) is faithbased thinking.

Over to you. But the elephant waiting in the wings is 'which god?'

With origins (Cosmos, Life, consciousness' (the Big Three) it still doesn't get us to any particular god, religion or Holy book. And that is really all that matters, because a god that did not intervene (did not care about us) is neither here nor there. It doesn't matter if anyone believes in it or not. It is religious belief; organised religion, that concerns us, as that impacts our life, thinking and society, and That (not a possible creator) is the only discussion that really matters, and i have just given my reasons why I (and I believe atheist thought in general) think the same way.

Thank you.
I said what I had to say on this.
I acknowledge your opinions, but do not see anything new, here. Just a confirmation of what I said above.

If you have any new questions, feel free to ask, and i will try to answer them.

[TRANSPONDER]

You seem to bre sufferring from the Theist mindset again - if nobody can show how tis or that happened, it meand 'we don't know' It does not mean a god - and even then not saying which god.

Your efforts to try to poke holed in Abiogenesis theory are pointless because it is conceded that it is a hypothesis, (to say the least) and even if it was conceded that te start of RNA/DNA could possibly happen, that does Not leave a god as the default.

No, you will not find this - or anything else that is logically or rationally valid in the Bible :roll For that, you need logic. To prefer the Bible to that is to abandon logic. Wic some do, but I say 'If so, never claim to be logically or rationally valid again'.

It is the same with Cosmic origins and consciousness, none of that does a thing to validate a creator, only a lack of compelling evidence one way or the other. And that's before we even get to Which God?

To point to an intelligent creator is faitbased thinking, without a valid evidential case, never mind the particular god.

If you have any other (or valid) points to make, feel free.

[fredonly]

[Replying to John17_3 in post #256]

I think that anyone holding the "belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality" - Scientism, are the ones who have the burden of proof, of demonstrating that anything outside their view is impossible, and that answers can be found nowhere else other than their system of beliefs.

Scientism is philosophically naive, but metaphysical naturalism is not which I assume you recognize, since you gave a description of it.

Regarding abiogenesis vs divine creation of life: neither of these can be defended on evidence. Abiogenesis certainly doesnt serve as evidence for naturalism, but naturalism certainly entails abiogenesis. Some forms of deism (an indifferent creator) also entail abiogenesis, and some theists acknowledge it is at least possible. My main point is that the mere fact that abiogenesis hasnt been proven does not undercut metaphysical naturalism, and it doesnt serve as evidence a theist can use to justify belief in a God, or in the Bible.

Do you agree that belief in metaphysical naturalism can be rational?

BTW, I've read Alvan Plantinga's book, "Warranted Christian Belief", and I accept his argument that Christian belief is rational, if
God exists and he gave proper functioning humans a "sensus divinitatus". I haven't seen another complete justification.

[John17_3]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #257]

You seem to bre sufferring from the Theist mindset again - if nobody can show how tis or that happened, it meand 'we don't know' It does not mean a god - and even then not saying which god.

Can you point out where I said anything that comes close to your last statement?

Your efforts to try to poke holed in Abiogenesis theory are pointles because it is conceded that it is a hypothesis, (to say the least0 and even if it was conceded that te start of RNA/DNA could [pssibly ha[[en that does Not leave a god as the default.

May I ask, why you keep repeating this thing about "it does not mean a god" or "leave a god as default" as if the person you are talking with currently, said anything, or indicated anything like that?
Is this something you repeat each time you talk to someone that believes in God?

Did you read my post carefully?
With regard to poking holes in Abiogenesis. That's not my efforts. The persons doing that are scientists. I am only quoting them.
Are you saying you do not like scientists to point out facts, which is evidence?

It is the same with Cosmic origins and consciousness, npne of that does a thing to validate a creator, only a lack of compelling evidence one way or the other. And that's before we even get to Which God?

You seem to have a question about which God. Are you asking a question, or are you saying something you normally say, because you believe it is a valid point?
I can address that, if it is something you are querying.

To point to an intelligent creator is faitbased thinking, without a valid evidential case, never mind the particular god.

Would you rather repeat this, rather than address any responses to it?

If you have any other (or valid) points to make, feel free.

I thought I made some valid points which you did not respond to.
Is there any reason why you did not answer any of my questions?

For example, I thought this was a valid point:
Do you consider the scientist that have conflicting theories, and disagreements, on interpretations, as "not having evidence"?

Also, this:
So you accept a hypothetical of how something could happen, or be possible, even though there is no evidence it could.

I find that interesting, because here you have experts, suggesting "that the idea that pure RNA or pure DNA formed spontaneously is unlikely", and you are willing to believe it "could happen, but yet, you are not willing to accept that the universe could have been created by an intelligent designer.
Very interesting.

What is the difference between the two - believing that something could happen, even though there is no evidence it could, and believing that something could be, even though - according to the claimed - there is evidence it could?

This one also:
Concerning the things that are "logically invalid", such claims as, Yeti or Bigfoot, Nessie, Flying saucers and crop circles (made by UFOs or humans), ghosts or indeed, gods, I wanted to know What about "speculation about how nucleic acids, amino acids, and even proteins might have spontaneously appeared and begun self-replicating", or "genetic material or life itself arriving on earth from outer space"? Does it apply to these?

You never answered to or responded to any of these.
Are you sure you want me to feel free to make any other valid points? You aren't saying you won't respond to them, are you?

[John17_3]

[Replying to fredonly in post #258]

Scientism is philosophically naive, but metaphysical naturalism is not which I assume you recognize, since you gave a description of it.

Regarding abiogenesis vs divine creation of life: neither of these can be defended on evidence. Abiogenesis certainly doesnt serve as evidence for naturalism, but naturalism certainly entails abiogenesis. Some forms of deism (an indifferent creator) also entail abiogenesis, and some theists acknowledge it is at least possible.

My main point is that the mere fact that abiogenesis hasnt been proven does not undercut metaphysical naturalism, and it doesnt serve as evidence a theist can use to justify belief in a God, or in the Bible.

May I ask why you feel the need to make this point?

Do you agree that belief in metaphysical naturalism can be rational?

I think this would be similar to a question like, "Do you think medical practice is rational?"
If one practices medicine, I would not expect that because they do not take the tools used by a motor mechanic into their workplace, that makes them irrational.

In other words, I would not expect something that is "foreign" to a practice, to be required as a practice.
Science has limitations.
It is not Scientism.
It has to stay within the bounds it can reach, if it is to be rational.

BTW, I've read Alvan Plantinga's book, "Warranted Christian Belief", and I accept his argument that Christian belief is rational, if God exists and he gave proper functioning humans a "sensus divinitatus". I haven't seen another complete justification.

I think Alvan Plantinga is a reasonable man.
Those who believe mankind's senses are limited to what they "think they know", are not being reasonable, in my opinion.

Actually, this is a good point, which links back to the topic of the thread, and its question - Is faith a reliable path to reality?