Choosing a faith

Do you really that I would think otherwise. Your views IMHO claiming that science can answer all philosophical questions such as the teapot example. That is SofG. I suppose that can be a problem but have you ever heard of it actually happening the scientific world when someone stopped researching and just claimed that goddidit.?I would contend that science should impact our theology but not the other way around.

Firstly it has been an evolving belief. I consciously decided that coming to a conclusion about what and why are we here seemed like an important endeavour.However, the deeper I got into it the more my views evolved and continue to do so.Essentially though I am convinced that Christianity, in a general sense, represents reality. I say in a general sense is because it isn't like scientific answers such as 2+2 always = 4.

There are no scientific evidence for what I believe either other that for the fact I contend that the world of science points towards design and IMHO that requires a designer. However, I concede, though it is in reference to science, it is not evidence. It is simply my conclusion based on what we do know. Agreed, people always need an excuse to justify their violent actions. Just read the OT.

There is zero evidence that we are not the product of an external intelligence. Essentially the only evidence that you and virtually everyone else on this site allows for is scientific evidence.

Certainly it's a grey area. I am very close to being a pacifist but I do agree that there i such a thing as a just war. IMHO WW II and possibly the first Iraq war, (as Hussein had invaded Kuwait), but the 2nd Iraqi war wasn't, nor was Viet Nam. I remember that when I was in the air force thinking that I liked being on the C130 Hercules as we didn't have weapons on board unlike the guys on my course that went on to the fighters, although being in my 20's there was an attraction to going really fast. (I reaslize that there is a degree of hypocrisy involved as we flew missions in support of the fighters.) I'm not looking for certainty as I know that it isn't there to be had. It is what I believe and put faith in.

Thanks

We see a rock rolling down a hill and I contend that someone pushed it while you say that it just happened due to soil erosion or something. We can then look for someone who could have done it and we could look at soil conditions. Assuming there is no evidence for either scenario I just go on believing that it was pushed, and you go on believing that it wasn't.

Thanks

Wow, bright guy. However it makes the point that it is plausible that the laws of the universe do not need a cause. However he goes on to say that it doesn't explain the existence of particles in the first place. Also of course if his explanation is plausible, (which I agree it is), then other explanations are also plausible.Also his talk is about the physical universe and doesn't explain the emergence of consciousness.He also says, (in the question period), that there is a limitation to science as we live in a single universe. He mentions the multi-verse in saying that if that is the case then science won't be able to investigate them. That takes me back to that front page headline in Scientific American which asks the question: "Is an Entire Universe Silently Woven Into Our Own". If that is the case then is it possible that an interwoven universe impacts the world we live in here? Then I would wonder if the connecting point between the two might possibly be through consciousness.It also takes me back to the question of which god that I started with. In addition to theism I might add that the atheistic position, as I understand it, involves making us gods in the sense that right and wrong are simply human constructs, which could well make that position of being one of the available gods.At any rate thanks, although like one of the questioners said, my head is spinning.

I watched it right through. Please see my reply to Tangle.

I believe that I do. I'm just saying that some of the conclusions drawn from science around here are simply plausible conclusions, such as observing that morality is naturally infectious. (which I agree with), but then claiming it is scientific that there is nothing more involved.

I certainly always knew that I can't know the truth but I can conclude what I believe to be true. ...and so should our religious beliefs.

There could well be both footprints and erosion. The point is simply that we can choose to believe one or the other.

Sure, but posters here claim that because there is no evidence that there is a god as evidence that there isn't. Bit of a double standard possibly? I would disagree as I contend that there is such a thing as philosophical evidence.In addition it is suggested that morality has come about because of personal interactions alone, or something like that), which is strictly from observation. In that scenario, the observation could just as easily lead to the belief that the facility for that to happen came from an external moral intelligence. Neither view is scientific or evidenced.AbE Wow! I am caught up.

Absolutely. I do believe that it is both when it comes to morality in a culture. Both through an external moral consciousness and through normal human contact.You've finally nailed it.