Choosing a faith

So you're saying that lack of scientific evidence is evidence. Where is the scientific evidence for abiogenesis. Evolution explains how we physically evolved. What is the scientific evidence for the arrival of sentience in that process. I'm inclined to think that most likely physical evolution occurred without intervention but for the sake of argument how would we know if there was intervention that altered the process gradually over hundreds of years. Fine, but then why do these processes exist at all? Outlining processes just tell us what happened, it doesn't tell us why it happened.But the no-god cause is just conjecture as well. Says you. There is considerable opinion amongst scientists that contend that there is a theistic option. Firstly I agree that science has done a great job of discovering how things happened. I agree,(other than that I contend that the anthropic principle points towards a cosmic intelligence, and I know you disagree), there is no direct scientific evidence for such an intelligence. Just as there is no direct scientific evidence for a 100% materialistic toot cause for all these processes.

Sure science discovered it the principle but still can't explain the incredible mathematical odds of it being that way. Sure it's what makes it possible but how is that relevant? But the multiverse isn't known to exist. This is just another case of science of the gaps.

If it is ok I don't see a point in carrying on in this vein. Stile and Ringo have gone back to the point that I wanted to make when I started this thread.
I find the belief in a world with only materialistic roots to be unfathomable where as you and AZPaul3 hold the very opposite view and as Percy says we have covered this ground before.
Thanks for the discussion.

On many levels I agree with that. That was my point in bringing up the golden rule. It is common to all major religions to start with.The Golden Rule is Common to All Religions - Norman Rockwell Museum - The Home for American IllustrationAlso as we can see in Stile's post above you don't have to adhere to any particular religion to accept that as a world view.From a Christian perspective I am largely in line with Rob Bell's book "Love Wins"
He starts off with this."Several years ago we had an art show at our church. I had been giving a series of teachings on peacemaking, and we invited artists to display their paintings, poems, and sculptures that reflected their understanding of what it means to be a peacemaker. One woman included in her work a quote from Mahatma Gandhi, which a number of people found quite compelling.
But not everyone.
Someone had attached a peice of paper to it. On the piece of paper was written: 'Reality check: He's in hell'.
Really?
Gandhi's in hell?
He is?
We have confirmation of this?
Somebody knows this?
Without a doubt?
And that somebody decided to take on the responsibility of letting the rest of us know?Of all the billions of people who have ever lived, will only a select number make it to a better place, and every single other person suffer in torment and punishment forever? Is this acceptable to God? .....Can God do this, or even allow this, and still claim to be a loving god?"Rob then goes on to totally debunk that notion of God and contends that "Love Wins".Yes as a Christian I believe in a certain doctrine, but I also believe that truth can be found in a multitude of other faiths including atheism. As I sai earlier I often found myself in some cases of agreeing with Chris Hitchens over the Christians he was debating.So yes, we ultimately do make up the god we believe in however, that does not mean we have to disregard reality.

Firstly I like to thank you for bring the thread back to my original point before I gotten off track and back on old territory. I'd say that you are in line with what God wants than are many people of all faiths. Yes, I believe that the love that you want to spread is from God, but what matters is that is you are responding to His still small voice. At many levels this is more Christ like than Christians who do loving thins to stay on the right side of God as they believe ultimately that they will benefit. Not to worry. If we live our lives based on self giving love the next world will take care of itself. That may disqualify you as a Christian but it doesn't mean that you aren't living a Christ like life. I agree. As a Christian however, I do appreciate understanding the source of that love. (I know that is belief and not knowing.) Preach it brother. Can I gat an amen? Jesus is applauding whether you know it or not.

Which is why I am so pleased that Stile got the thread back on track.AbE please see my post #69

Edited by GDR, .

I accept that you could well be right. Howver I just don't see it that way.It turns out as I get older I'm still just me. The cells in my body have been recycled numerous times. However, I'm still just me.The older I get the more I feel as much more than just my body. I certainly can't prove this. There are those who seem to have out of body experiences but I don't put a lot of stock in that but maybe there is something there.Also I think taht we are called to live the life that Stile outlined in his post and that there is meaning and purpose in that. It isn't just about survival of the fittest. We have been able to rise above that. I would also add that it isn't just humans that are capable of putting the other before the self.In the end I have faith that we are to care for the other, for all non-human life and for the planet which does give us an ultimate meaning and purpose.

I think the problem Phat is that maybe you are focusing on the wrong thing. You and I are theists and understand the world in the light. We believe that we have a creator God that love us and wants us to love all that he has created. As far as others are concerned our job is not necessarily to convert them by debate, but maybe influence them to accept Christ's call on our live which is simply to love others as we love ourselves and to care for all of creation.I'd suggest reading Matthew 25 and see that the sheep had no idea that the loving things they were doing were actually done to/for Jesus. No mention of any theology. He even mentions at one point in the Gospels that it was one of the hated Roman centurions who was the most faithful and don't forget it was an outsider, a Samaritan, who was the neighbour and to whom He was referring when He told His fellow Jews to go and do likewise.You might read Stile's post and substitute him into the place of the Samaritan, or you might substitute in a Muslim.I suggest that you look at your posts and the responses as a discussion and not as a debate where you are trying to score points.

I'd say that it is universal but ignored more often than not.

I look at it this way. It's been a long time since I read it but I enjoyed Dawkis' book "The Selfish Gene" In it he coined the word "meme".We both can see examples of cultural memes. If a driver let's another driver into traffic it plants a meme and increases the possibility that the 2nd driver will do the same thing for someone else. However he also might not. He/she has the freedom to do that.I see the still small voice of God being a God meme. It's a seed planted universally in our hearts/minds to do the loving thing. However we are certainly not robots and we are free to completely ignore it, and it seems that more often than not we do. Sure the loving thing to do isn't always clear and we also have intelligence and we do the best we can with it.Christianity does provide an answer as to the point however, that is meaningless to you and most others here. Maybe the secular point is that it does establish a more contented harmonious world and that is point enough. And again...can I get an Amen. That is really well put so thank you! Man I wish I had said that and that I had the ability to write as well as that.

Not at all. A politician might go into a room and make a specific point. Everyone universally hears it that doesn't mean that everyone has to universally accept it.

II don't get your point.

I'm not equivocating at all. I am merely saying that the still small voice is universally given to all, but at the same time everyone universally is free to reject it.

Of course there is......... It's in the Book

I didn't mean that response to be taken seriously. If you play the link you can see it was meant as humour.It was dragging us back into done before debates that you and others complained about so it was an effort to keep us from going off track.