Quote (ritesofpasage)
First point: we have the ability to overcome faith by investigating everything.
Counterpoint: The bible says to investigate everything. And we do not want to overcome our purpose but we should discover it.
Romans 12:2"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God."
Faith does not mean no questions. It means purpose. You believe in your purpose and function. It does not mean stupidity it is knowledge of self and relationship to god. You renew your mind to not be stagnant and strengthen your faith.
Second point: Science reveals that there is no design.
Counterpoint: What is DNA a design all living things share. What is the law concerning life we all are bound in this plane by our natural cycles of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen. We operate under the same limits of this. What is the design of creation. We are created for a purpose. Diversity makes life thrive division of labor in our ecosystem. Do you not believe we are in an ecosystem.
Third point: Losing faith is natural as well.
Counter point: Losing faith is not natural. That which is lost by living things in the aging process are physical but spiritual things are built in the aging process. Faith is the default setting of the human mind for a purpose. It was set there to build. Everything evolves for it's survival. Faith has evolved to enable survival of courage. Like encouraging. Faith provides support. Without faith we do not explore. Without exploration we do not grow. Faith is not the enemy of understanding. Faith is knowledge of self and wisdom to discern purpose and function which produces a multidimensional understanding. It is not simple. Saying I believe in God is saying I acknowledge my nature, purpose and function. I see the difference between why I was made and other things and I understand my way.
This thread is about providing evidence of God's existence. You have provided no evidence. You have simply made abstract claims that fit your beliefs. Allow me to sum up the argument I have quoted:
I_Guy: we can overcome faith through investigation.
You: faith and investigation are not mutually exclusive. Faith is purpose.
I_Guy: science reveals that there is no design.
You: DNA, the laws of life, creation and the ecosystem are all designs/designed.
I_Guy: losing faith is also natural.
You: losing faith is not natural. We lose things physically through aging but gain spiritually. There is a reason we have evolved faith. Faith has evolved for the purpose of human courage. We cannot explore or, by extension, grow without faith. Acknowledging belief in God is acknowledging human nature and the nature of one's self. I can discern between my creation and the creation of something or someone else and from that I may understand my purpose.
So now with what you said simplified, others can see that no evidence has been provided. You have asserted many things (of which a large chunk have been proven false by science) and provided no evidence whatsoever to back them up, and you have also presented arguments based on false premises. I will debunk a few of your claims:
"faith and investigation are not mutually exclusive. Faith is purpose."
Faith is, by definition, belief with a complete lack evidenciary justification. Claiming false evidence also fits under this definition because false evidence is not evidence at all. By definition faith and PROPER investigation are mutually exclusive. Your personal faith may let you know of a purpose you feel is pre-ordained, but being as there is no evidenciary support for what you believe, faith itself is not purpose for everyone.
"DNA, the laws of life, creation and the ecosystem are all designs/designed"
This is blatantly false. The most likely current theory of how DNA came about, and this has been tested time after time without any failures, is the theory of abiogenesis, a process by which amino acids form naturally in given environments and form chains. DNA is a complex amino acid chain. Scientists have even gone as far as setting up an environment in which RNA has been observed naturally evolving through such processes. The "laws of life", by which I assume you mean the natural laws that all matter and energy follow, are mere abstractions. Yes, they have been created... by the very scientists that conceptualized them. They do not exist in any physical form. Creation, in the sense that you believe in it, doesn't likely exist, so I'm not even going to speak on that. The ecosystem, much like DNA, has a perfectly natural (as in scientifically reasonable/not supernatural) explanation that has, and will continue to be explained by science, much of which contradicts the very essence of belief in a supernatural deity that created and controls everything.
"losing faith is not natural"
If we break down the meanings of "faith" and "natural" here in order to restate this, here is what we get:
"losing belief in what is not supported by evidence is not akin with science."
Anyone of sufficient intelligence can see the inherent contradiction in this statement.
"We lose things physically through aging but gain spiritually."
Some people do claim to gain a sort of spiritual awareness with age. Some of the people included in this group are even well known ex-atheists, including scientists. However, many people, including myself lose a sense of spirituality with age. This is also the case for many of today's leading atheists. There have been well-known priests and preachers who have become atheist. As a matter of fact, I would contend that religious folks are becoming atheist at a faster rate than atheists are becoming religious.
"Faith has evolved for the purpose of human courage."
On the contrary, as an atheist, it is my lack of faith that has helped me gain courage far more than when I was a faithful Christian. I now understand myself far more than I ever did when I was a Christian, and I am in more tune with reality and logic than I have ever been. I was very self-conscious as a Christian and Christianity, in large part, had to do with my self-consciousness. I am now an atheist and, though I am not trying to make correlation become causation, I am telling you that my self-confidence is much higher now. This has nothing to do with God or spirituality. It has to do with me finding out how to use my logic to become more confident. I am no longer afraid to attribute this confidence to myself like I was when I believed in God. Back then I felt the need to attribute all of my greatest features to God. That, if anything, detracted from my courage and my confidence.
"We cannot explore or, by extension, grow without faith."
This is an abstract statement even after I have summarized it. Could you please explain this? What do you mean by grow? In what way can we not grow without faith? If I understand what you mean, then I will say that I have "grown" as a person since becoming an atheist in many ways.
"I can discern between my creation and the creation of something or someone else and from that I may understand my purpose."
Purpose is subjective. That's the beauty of being free mentally of the concept of a God. There is no pre-ordained purpose. The beauty is that we get to choose what our reason for existing is. We may not have the free will that many people think we have, but there is still no outside force attributing a meaning or purpose to our lives.
Quote (abanks47)
like i told i-guy i meant to write to me. and those are proof and evidence to me.
That's up to you, which is fine with me, but I want to ask you, are you truly ok with accepting that? Consider this for a second. You are accepting that, while the evidence you turn to in order to support what you believe isn't up to standard, and you acknowledge this, you say that your personal standard is, in essence, lower than everyone else's standard. So you are willing to accept this?
