Not true. Most of the founding fathers were Christians, Renaissance Christians, but Christians nonetheless. Some were deists, but the majority were Christian. Those are just the facts.
Jefferson is widely considered a deist but that is false. He did have deistic tendencies at different times. But his own letters bare out that in the end he was Christian. Perhaps not the greatest example of one, but in the end his own letters bare out that ultimately, in the end he identified as Christian.
[quote="Drew1411, post:218, topic:268570,
Do you believe in evolution?
Or rather, has a chance to be correct.
If possible, it would depend on the god.
I think the better question is, can faith be 100% rational? My answer would be no.
Fun article.
Let me be more specific as you didnāt answer the question. Do you believe humans arrived onto the earth as Adam, with Eve being created from his rib bone? Or do you believe Humans are descendants of Apes?
Do you agree the earth is 4.5 billion years old?
Yes, but so does what people term faith. Thatās a distinction without a difference the way you put it here IMO.
Iām going to assume you meant āitās possibleā? And we havenāt talked about specific gods. I am talking belief in God in general.
This gets to my point. First, no human is 100% rational 100% or the time, so if 100% is your measuring stick everyone everywhere fails. Second, it seems you are using ārationalā to effectively mean ādeductiveā. It is my position that those are not the same and should not be used as equivalents.
Again, you cannot āproveā anything outside your own consciousness exists to 100% certainty. I canāt prove that you have a mind, even though I assume it through interaction. Because this is not how humans practically react it does not make sense to hold that as the bar of ā100% rationalā. I would posit that rationality can and does exist in the face of uncertainty - sometimes deep uncertainty. I donāt think that is a foreign concept or a stretch.
Agree the earth is possibly billions of years old.
Disagree man came from apes.
My spirituality is enhanced by scientific discovery, not lessened.
It reinforces my belief in an intelligent designer/sustainer.
There are odds when it comes to the lottery. There are no odds when it comes to godās existence.
How many people believe in god in general? Maybe Iām not being clear. The majority of people who believe in god, believe in a particular religion. Itās almost impossible to separate the idea of god and religion. Craig is a Christian so his argument for the existence of a god is really the existence of God. He cannot separate the arguments and still be a Christian.
We are talking about the argument, not the person.
Thatās irrelevant if we all operate under the same conditions.
But again, we operate with that as a given otherwise, where would we be? If we needed absolute proof that we all have minds then the world would end. If we expect the same in order to believe in god, life will still go on.
With that said, you have more evidence that someone has a mind than for the existence of god.
But it doesnāt matter how many people believe in a particular religion. An argument that belief in a God is rational has to come before anyone can even talk about specific religion.
Even your point about WLC is mistakenāthe arguments he makes for the existence of a supreme being do not hinge on a specific religion.
Put another way, belief in a God must be rational as a necessary precondition for belief in Christianity to be rational. The reverse is not true. Craig knows this, as do pretty much all philosophers and even scientists. I hear all the time in conversations āI believe in God but Iām not religiousā.
Ok, yes. I am trying. One of the questions I have been driving at is: what is the definition of rational, and does rationality require deductive proof?
I think we are talking past each other.
1 Like
I appreciate the clarification, although not sure what that belief is based on scientifically.
This does not seem to align to the previous points regarding evolution or any scientific discovery about the origin of the universe.
Appreciate the honesty.
But this isnāt a belief in a god. Itās a belief in a being that created the universe, some super intelligence. It doesnāt need to be divine or even supernatural. Once you label that god, you enter the supernatural and the divine. Itās a being that defies all natural laws (which means there are no natural laws). That is not rational. It canāt be.
Is he not a Christian? If his arguments do not ultimately support a Christian god, then how could he still be a Christian? Why would he be a Christian?
In the case of god, proof would be a start.
I wouldnāt think evolution was true, if this were my understanding of it (which this was my understanding of the topic after the fundamental Baptist school teaching of evolution. They actually brought in the Hovinds for a course on the topic). We didnāt evolve from gorillas or chimps. It was a separate line of development.
Once I researched the topic from sources that were accurately describing the process, the whole thing made sense.
Iāve seen you post some stuff from answersingenesis.com. they do not describe evolution. They describe a totally botched understanding (IMO, they have been corrected on it so many times, that the conclusion I come to is that they are dishonest) of the topic that is easier for them to defeat.
I see. Your trouble is with the label āGodā. My position is that any being that created the universe - and ergo created the natural laws - is by definition supernatural. I mean, having created the natural universe what else would you call it? I call this āGodā. You call it a āsuper intelligenceā. We can argue over labels or just accept that weāre talking about the same thing.
See above. The theistic debate has to begin with what we are going on about. Only after can it drill down to a religion or several. If we canāt even agree on definitions thereās not much point in debating other things is there?
1 Like
But thatās our point. We all (at least something approaching all) operate on faith. It is pretty much a starting point before we ever take our first measurement of ārealityā in the name of science.
1 Like
Not exactly. Faith fills the gap; a rational conclusion does not. If you ask, āhow do you know 100% that others have a mind?ā I answer, ā I donāt.ā The believerās answer for those gaps is God.
A debate which cannot prove god exists. It cannot even define what itās trying to prove.
Sigh.
Ok man. I would have hoped it was been obvious since my second post in this thread that the terms āproveā and ārationalā are nowhere NEAR synonymous. That has been one of the central points. If your definition of ārationalā is āyou must prove itā, then you canāt accept numerous things you already accept in life. I assume you consider yourself a rational person.
This is getting irritating because we are obviously talking past each other and without a starting point thereās no conversation.
Almost nobody lives life agnostic about it as they fall in and out of love, have children and raise them, say good bye to loved ones for the final time, etc. Itās a nearly universal leap of faith. And thatās ok.
No biggie. Going to move on from this point at least.
I didnāt write must be proven; I wrote cannot be proven.
Fair. That actually has no bearing on my argument though. I am asking you your definition of rational. What must a position have to be considered rational?
It must be trying to prove something that can be proven. Since godās existence cannot be proven, believing in his existence cannot be rational. The argument can be reasonable and appear rational up to the point that the conclusion is drawn. Itās essentially a leap of faith.