On the circularity of faith

[stretched]

Quote w:
“What makes you think this is an abuse?”

* Some desperate, earnest seekers, struggle to find this god. They endure pain in this struggle. Is god playing games at their expense?

Quote w:
“There has to be both confusion and clarity; or one would have never known clarity.
I say God does not place confusion in the way of those seeking Him. He merely allows it.”

* Yes I hear you. I agree. But I could ask, if at the expense of losing souls to eternal damnation, “Why does he allow it?”

Quote w:
“And, what is your point?

* If you could choose any one of 30 000 denominations, which one would you choose, and why? They all claim the truth. Don’t you feel this truth may be just a tad dodgy? As opposed to one unified Church?

Quote w:
“I say this is a sweeping statement. The *practice* of Christianity has lead to confusion.”

* Segue.

Allcare.

 

[Jenyar]

The bottom line is that there “is” great confusion, reflected via the silly number of offshoots. Every second Christian thinks the Church they attend have it wrong, so they start their own church. The big trend presently seems to be “Bible Based Teaching” churches. Oops, aren’t you all using the same Bible? So it’s not confusing, god just created people confused. OK. What’s that? The devil you say? OK.

That's a generalization, and you know it. Everybody may be using the same Bible, but everybody has their favourite parts; there are parts they like, parts they understand, and often parts they don't pay any attention to. Not all Christians are as knowledgeable as they would like to think - and of course you'll always have people who want to be "more right" about an issue. The practice of baptism is one example. Does anybody disagree that we should be baptised? No - there's nothing "confusing" about it - but today everyone has an opinion on whether it should be done as a child or as an adult, and everybody claims divine authority for their interpretation.

And by arguing about it they miss the point.

People vary in the amount of faith they have, and even the apostles often advised people to act "according to the faith they have". Remember, you have a broad spectrum of people in a church - from new believers with no religious background, to third and fourth generation Christians - and from all walks of life and degrees of experience. Some, like you, have been burnt by someone's "faith", and others never had much reason to doubt theirs. Naturally they come into conflict, just like you and I might have had some conflict had we been in the same church. Whether we could come to an agreement would have little to do with the Bible, and almost everything to do with us.

It never amazes me that everyone forgets (or ignores) that the Catholic church was the first and earliest church, and therefore probably closer to the original intentions and truths behind Christianity. The split happened after 1500 years of solid Catholic Christianity. But besides that, no other world religions are as split apart as is Christianity. Simply put, you can say “all churches teach essentially the same message.” I can say, “then why so many different churches?”

The same reason as everything else: Because there was a need for so many churches (whether that need was justified or not).

The world is a big place. If all schools teach the same information (where science and history agrees), why are there so many schools? Why are there so many teachers, who often disagree with each other? To put it simply: that's life; get used to diversity. You don't need 100% agreement to learn to think for yourself, and if you don't learn to think for yourself you'll be tossed from opinion to opinion. If you don't make up your own mind at some point, you'll doubt everything - and not just religion. And it won't be an excuse to blame your own wavering on the the apparent "confusion" of some collective hypothetical ideal.

Fair comment dude. I genuinely think you are admirable in your approach, and I always appreciate your self honesty.

Same here. You're easy to talk to.

 

[Adstar]

Water.

I used to be a part of a church i was born into a religious family. Once i read the Bible i knew that church was false and i left it. I did go looking for a "true" denomination but after spending some time looking i never found one that conformed to the bible. I came to the understanding that i did not have to belong to a denomination to be a follower Of The Messiah Jesus. It seems to me that every denomination wraps a lie up in a thousand truths Some have more lies than others but they all seem to have an inbuilt stumbling stone. It seems to me that the world has set up a thousand partial truths designed to sabotage the message of Jesus to make it to no effect.

Quote from water:
In other words, you've been making the conscious effort to avoid all reductionisms.

Reductionisms??? Umm new word for me. Do you mean reduced truth? Do you mean joining in fellowship with people who have taken some truths and removed them? Well I suppose yes. But it is not reductions that offend as much as twisting the Word and adding lies of tradition to it.

My world view is basically this. The world is satan's playground and he has full reign to do what he can to deceive all mankind. i believe satan has set up hundreds of religions and denominations all designed to lead people away from the truth into deception

Quote from water:
But why?

I do not know(speculation below)
Because God has allowed satan to do it. The world is the book of job written large. satan is allowed to put as many lies out as he wants and his servants have been producing tons of the stuff for years and regurgitating the old stuff too. But the truth is that only those who agree with the lies, who agree with the twists, will follow them. satan only leads people away from God who do not want to be with God. Think of satan as Gods filter

Quote from water:
What do you think Satan did that?

I do not Know (speculation below)
Satan wanted to be the equal of God, he is out to prove God is not infallible by sabotaging his creation and bringing as many beings into rebellion against God as possible. He wants to show the heavenly host that God is a failure and is not justified to be the One and Only God of all existence, But God knew all of satans moves before he ever made them. God allowed satan to do what he did to catch him in his own cunning. God has overcome satans challenge through the injection of the Messiah Jesus into creation, to demonstrate Gods overcoming wisdom to the heavenly host. All we are waiting for now is for the final number of human followers of the Messiah Jesus to be reached. Once that is achieved then the Messiah will return and establish his kingdom.

Well i believe one must know themselves, have good self knowledge, to have a relationship with God.

Quote from water:
Yes. Easier said than done. Much easier said.

Yes it takes time and it can be a very difficult process it does not help if people think too highly of themselves (most do). By the way that’s not a personal attack against you water Its a general observation about most people and from my own experience of the process.

I believe that one needs to accept what one is. In effect be a peace with ones self while not being in agreement with ones faults. One has to accept that one is forgiven. They also have to forgive themselves. In that way they can forgive the faults in others.

Quote from water:
You know, when I read this ... it all seems so simple to you.

If I give you the impression that it was easy for me then let me assure you it was not. Even when God is helping you. But perseverance with yourself will increase your perseverance with others. In the end you will be a greater blessing to others. Fruit trees that bear much fruit are the ones that where pruned most thoroughly.

Quote from water:
If you could only live in my mind for an hour! You'd run!

What is it that you think I would run from? PM me if you do not want to talk about it here.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

PS: You know Jonah ran from God but God never gave up on Jonah.
Through the troubles of Jonah God softened his heart. Some people think that the book of Jonah was about Gods dealings with the people of Nineveh, but it was all about Gods dealings with Jonah

 

[Jenyar]

Some desperate, earnest seekers, struggle to find this god. They endure pain in this struggle. Is god playing games at their expense?
...
Yes I hear you. I agree. But I could ask, if at the expense of losing souls to eternal damnation, “Why does he allow it?”

Those who let their search for God stop at the threshold of "denominations" never looked further, into the gospel, which is clear enough. I'm sure you have a pretty good idea what it's about, at least superficially. Maybe your definition of God doesn't allow it to be true, who knows. But seeking God is a lifelong pursuit. He's not someone you "find" and "define", and then move on with your life with this supposedly perfect knowledge. The struggle to learn, and the relative pain of having to discard cherished preconceptions and comforts, is the sacrifice one makes for gaining knowledge. If you've been to school or university, you'll know that knowledge doesn't come cheap - and you could even say the more worthwhile the knowledge, the harder you have to work for it mentally and physically. But like exams, the trials pass, and the rewards come in due time. With faith, you have the added pressure (and pleasure) of having to learn on the move - in practice - like an apprenticeship... a discipleship. In the end it has more to do with what (and who) you wish to know, than where you enroll.

It never amazes me that everyone forgets (or ignores) that the Catholic church was the first and earliest church, and therefore probably closer to the original intentions and truths behind Christianity. The split happened after 1500 years of solid Catholic Christianity.

I just wanted to address this as well. It's not entirely accurate to say the "Catholic" church was the "first and earliest" church, since the Great Schism effectively divided the original church in two: "Orthodox" (seated in Constantinople) and "Catholic" (seated in Rome). Neither is it honest to say they had a "solid" history. Actually, if you want to judge according to innovation, the Orthodox church seems to reflect the earliest traditions more closely, although in reaction to Roman Catholicism it has become more "defensive". And, as with all things Western, we should be aware of our own bias towards specifically western traditions. I'm sure the link I gave will give you a greater understanding of the complex issues involved. I have also found a good overview of the main Christian denominations (the site omits the 'charismatic' and 'non-denominational' churches, who focus more on personal/spiritual experience and authority rather than tradition).

 

[MarcAC]

Which religious assertion of 'God' would you like to have a contradiction for?

I'll randomly choose the Christian One.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat,

Would you like a cookie now?

Only if it exists... I'm not too fond of those fantasy cookies.

Crunchy Cat,

Since I am a tricky constructivist bastard (hee hee hee), I have foreseen all this, and nimbly avoided any definitions -- to see how people would respond.

Personally, I do not have an ex positivo definition of God; all along, I am working on an ex negativo definition of God, ie. what God is not. It seems that the ex negativo approach leads right to God!

This ex negativo approach is, I hope, visible through all the arguments I make here.

You tricky constructivist spastard. lol. Keep on working on that ex negativo
definition... I would be interested to see the result. Ooh I want to do one
myself while I have a chance. Here goes. 'God' is not real.

What truth? Is "truth" a thing that can be found? Can we get into the car and drive somewhere, and there find "truth"?

Now you're putting me in the bastard seat I see. I'll give it a definition whirl
(it's a tough one). Truth is information absent of interpretation or mis-aligned interpretation.

Yes, the traps of ex positivo definitions.

If evidence existed for 'God's existence then the traps of ex positivo
defintions could be avoided alot easier.

Everywhere. Hence it cannot be neatly located.

Everywhere is the easiest place to find. Strangely, 'God' doesn't appear to be
there.

Well, if they put their trust in a skydaddy or some such ...
See, if they are not sure who they put their trust in, then they should not be surprised that their trust is "broken".

You can see in everyday communication that people have a strong tendency to be very lax in communication. They say something, and assume that the person that was meant for has heard and understood them; few make the effort to check if they have actually been heard.

When it comes to spiritual matters, this lax approach to communication backfires, and "trust is broken" and as a result, people say there is no God.

Regardless of broken trust, an individual can still choose to trust
unconditionally.

You mean "Why doesn't God appear in the form of a handsome young man to go out with me for a cup of tea (I don't drink coffee)?"

I say God always interacts with us in ways we understand, in ways that are meaningful to us. This, however, may be nothing of an extra-special and super-spectacular kind, but very plain and mundane things -- things that we, in our pride and materialism, think to be impossible to be acts of God. We like to insist that what God is has to conform to *our* ideas of what God is; whereby our ideas of God are based on a particular understanding of achievements and characteristics of ourselves.

Like, we would accept that a comet or a tsunami is an act of God, but most would be reluctant to accept a stray cat coming to your house to be an act of God.

Sure tea then. It doesn't really matter what 'form' would be chosen...
handsome young man, old hag, a deer, a ball of photons... What would be
more meaningful then communicating with the 'creator of existence' over
a nice hot cup of tea?

Crunchy Cat,

And? I don't mean to be cynical. But what am I to do with those theories? Will they make my life better, make me any happier? Can I take them out for lunch, cuddle with them, write them poems?
Science is supposed to make human lives better. But while it cures some diseases, eases others, it also promotes relativism. How is human life to be worth anything to anyone, if it is to be viewed merely as a chemical soup?

Oh I don't know maybe they can be used to enhance communication, improve
transportation, improve health, explore the universe, improve quality of life,
create opportunity... just some ideas.

I have seen you struggle with the notion of human value in various
discussions. Maybe this is the core issue that more than any other needs
to be addressed. What do you value in life that depends on people? Answer
that and you'll have something to work with.

Crunchy Cat,

But this is arguing strawmen. Take any religious assertion about God, keep it per se, and it can be refuted. But this doesn't mean that the religious assertions are wrong or ultimately falsifiable.

If an assertion has no supportive evidence and plenty of contradictory evidence then it is false.

What is wrong is the reductionist approach that was used. God, as well as any other phenomenon, is always to be understood holistically -- for what it is; reduce it to a few characteristics and they should be easy to refute or found meaningless. This doesn't render said phenomenon meaningless though.

The only problem is that the phenomenon as what is it, in its wholeness, remains obscured to us. We can get closer and truer to it though, if we make an effort to not indulge in reductions of said phenomenon. Hence my ex negativo approach.

That's just it... what phenomenon? Just a shred of supportive evidence... ex.
negativo is not going to provide this.

 

[MarcAC]

No, prediction A becomes 'null' and a new prediction is made based on B observations.

Hence the term "explanation" B. Thus, the pointlessness of your "No".

No, the scientist never suspended his knowledge about anything. His prediction was null based on the observations.

Based on existing "knowledge" there is prediction A. Prediction A may be regarded as an integral part of that "knowledge" (or belief if you wish). Suspension of "knowledge" simply means you don't say you "know" until you see evidence.

The theory in which he based his prediction must have been tested to a certain degree of accuracy in the first place. We must therefore ask how the observations made an already tested theory produce null results.

Thus suspension of "knowledge".

All of this based on existing knowledge.

Another obvious thing not worth stating.

No, what you did, again, was fail to understand the obvious.

What I understand is your ability to synthesise people's arguments and argue against your synthesis in some botched attempt at insulting people's intelligence - indeed I am not capable of that.

Now the obvious question is what is "knowlege"?

 

[MarcAC]

And by arguing about it they miss the point.

So true.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I'll randomly choose the Christian One.

Christianity is a favorite of mine as some of the chapters are so poorly written that they contradict themselves. Genesis is a great example:

GENESIS 1:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


GENESIS 2:

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed... And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.


ANALYSIS:

Assertion: 'God' created man (and woman) in Genesis 1 and 'God' created man and woman in Genesis 2.
Contradiction: Genesis referrs to a single man and woman being created and existing in Genesis 2. This contradicts the actions in Geneis 1.

Assertion: God intended for man and woman to multiply in Genesis 1 and man and woman to live forever in Genesis 2.
Contradiction: The planet is not big enough to sustain unbound procreation of immortals.

 

[ellion]

Christianity is a favorite of mine as some of the chapters are so poorly written that they contradict themselves. Genesis is a great example:

GENESIS 1:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


GENESIS 2:

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed... And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.


ANALYSIS:

Assertion: 'God' created man (and woman) in Genesis 1 and 'God' created man and woman in Genesis 2.
Contradiction: Genesis referrs to a single man and woman being created and existing in Genesis 2. This contradicts the actions in Geneis 1.

Assertion: God intended for man and woman to multiply in Genesis 1 and man and woman to live forever in Genesis 2.
Contradiction: The planet is not big enough to sustain unbound procreation of immortals.

you might find this thread interesting too.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44860

 

[Crunchy Cat]

you might find this thread interesting too.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44860

Cool beans. Thanks Ellion.

 

[stretched]

Quote J:
“But seeking God is a lifelong pursuit. He's not someone you "find" and "define", and then move on with your life with this supposedly perfect knowledge.”

* I am aware of this, but in my opinion the spiritual connection is a “discovery”, and when discovered, is permanent and real. The colours and textures of this discovery do vary, as surely as the wind blows.

Quote J:
“I you've been to school or university, you'll know that knowledge doesn't come cheap - and you could even say the more worthwhile the knowledge, the harder you have to work for it mentally and physically. But like exams, the trials pass, and the rewards come in due time.”

* The knowledge which comes with due effort, if one applies honesty, could be finding faith, or losing ones faith.

* Thanks for the links, things are never as cut and dried as even Id like to believe. But the more I peruse early Church history and politics (and I have for a long time), the more I come to believe that what we know as Christianity, has been irrevocably changed from what it was, or was meant to be.

 

[Jenyar]

I am aware of this, but in my opinion the spiritual connection is a “discovery”, and when discovered, is permanent and real. The colours and textures of this discovery do vary, as surely as the wind blows.

If by that discovery you mean faith, I fully agree.

The knowledge which comes with due effort, if one applies honesty, could be finding faith, or losing ones faith.

There is always an amount of faith involved, because even "honest" seeking does not preclude you from believing one "educator" and disbelieving another. Like it or not, finding knowledge is a selective and subjective process - we simply can't walk all paths. The hermeutic of suspicion would have us believe we must, before we can come to any conclusions - but that's also a path we take, a thing we beleive. In the end, our lives will be a testament the decisions we made, rather than the things we think we lost or found along the way.

Thanks for the links, things are never as cut and dried as even Id like to believe. But the more I peruse early Church history and politics (and I have for a long time), the more I come to believe that what we know as Christianity, has been irrevocably changed from what it was, or was meant to be.

Good, and I hope you put it into perspective. The church is not an artificial human endevour, somehow elevated above the rest of human enterprise. (Maybe it is in the eyes of God, but we're not God.) You are simply noticing the effects of sin. Everything has been irrevocably changed from what it was and meant to be, ever since the first sin. Maybe you're more aware of it in the church because its possible to measure it against what it was and ought to have been. We still have Christ's words, and the epistles of his apostles to the first church. Against that backdrop it's easy to see where we (and they) fell short.

But you must also understand that our message and our testimony is not the successes of mankind in general, or the church in specific, but God himself. In the first place, we admit His success in bringing our failures to light, and in the second place, we admit His success in forgiving those failures and reconciling people with Him. He has made it possible to focus on His kingdom rather than the kingdoms of earth - including the various churches.

 

[ellion]

I say this is a sweeping statement. The *practice* of Christianity has lead to confusion.

it was a sweeping statement, venting my frustration really.

not so much the practice, i think it is the teachings that have been attached to the works of christ. when i think honestly about it i know this is how it has to be.

 

[water]

stretched,

* Some desperate, earnest seekers, struggle to find this god. They endure pain in this struggle. Is god playing games at their expense?

I don't think so. It usually takes effort and struggle to achieve something, or to develop character. Just like it takes effort to become a good athlete.

* If you could choose any one of 30 000 denominations, which one would you choose, and why? They all claim the truth. Don’t you feel this truth may be just a tad dodgy? As opposed to one unified Church?

Denominations are only a problem if people matter more to you than God.


* * *


Crunchy Cat,

You tricky constructivist spastard. lol. Keep on working on that ex negativo
definition... I would be interested to see the result. Ooh I want to do one
myself while I have a chance. Here goes. 'God' is not real.

To each his own. As you define God, so He will be to you. Make yourself an image of Him, and then live with it. If it pleases you.

Now you're putting me in the bastard seat I see. I'll give it a definition whirl
(it's a tough one). Truth is information absent of interpretation or mis-aligned interpretation.

Sure. And who is in the position of making such truth statements?

If evidence existed for 'God's existence then the traps of ex positivo
defintions could be avoided alot easier.

Khm. You don't have a definition of God.

Everywhere is the easiest place to find. Strangely, 'God' doesn't appear to be there.

In the forest, you see only trees, but you don't see the forest.

Regardless of broken trust, an individual can still choose to trust unconditionally.

Sure. But what is your point here?

Sure tea then. It doesn't really matter what 'form' would be chosen...
handsome young man, old hag, a deer, a ball of photons... What would be
more meaningful then communicating with the 'creator of existence' over
a nice hot cup of tea?

Oh, but we are. He's just not human, so we can't have the same kind of conversations as we do with humans.

Oh I don't know maybe they can be used to enhance communication, improve
transportation, improve health, explore the universe, improve quality of life,
create opportunity... just some ideas.

But what for? Why those enhancements and improvements?

Edison, Tesla and co. struggled ... so that now, we can watch ... reality TV?
Well, this is some shitty distribution of values.

I have seen you struggle with the notion of human value in various
discussions.

In more than one way, yes.

Maybe this is the core issue that more than any other needs
to be addressed. What do you value in life that depends on people? Answer
that and you'll have something to work with.

I'm not sure I have an answer to this yet.
Do you have any suggestions?

But this is arguing strawmen. Take any religious assertion about God, keep it per se, and it can be refuted. But this doesn't mean that the religious assertions are wrong or ultimately falsifiable.

If an assertion has no supportive evidence and plenty of contradictory evidence then it is false.

Like?

What is wrong is the reductionist approach that was used. God, as well as any other phenomenon, is always to be understood holistically -- for what it is; reduce it to a few characteristics and they should be easy to refute or found meaningless. This doesn't render said phenomenon meaningless though.

The only problem is that the phenomenon as what is it, in its wholeness, remains obscured to us. We can get closer and truer to it though, if we make an effort to not indulge in reductions of said phenomenon. Hence my ex negativo approach.

That's just it... what phenomenon? Just a shred of supportive evidence... ex. negativo is not going to provide this.

It seems you don't understand the ex negativo approach.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat,

To each his own. As you define God, so He will be to you. Make yourself an image of Him, and then live with it. If it pleases you.

I define 'God' as a man-made fantasy. It neither pleases nor displeases me.

Sure. And who is in the position of making such truth statements?

Not who, what. Reality asserts nothing but truth. Our interpretation can
get us closer or farther from it.

In the forest, you see only trees, but you don't see the forest.

Then you do have a definition of 'God' that you're holding out on.

Sure. But what is your point here?

Unconditional trust in 'God' (i.e. faith) is not circular.

Oh, but we are. He's just not human, so we can't have the same kind of conversations as we do with humans.

More ex. positivo deinition there. You're definately holding out.

But what for? Why those enhancements and improvements?

Edison, Tesla and co. struggled ... so that now, we can watch ... reality TV?
Well, this is some shitty distribution of values.

To enable people to be all they can be? To promote survial? To learn and explore?

In more than one way, yes.
I'm not sure I have an answer to this yet.
Do you have any suggestions?

Think about what brings moments of pleasure in your life and work your
way ouy from there.

Like?

See one of my recent posts in this thread about contradictions of 'God's
actions and intentions in Xian Genesis.

It seems you don't understand the ex negativo approach.

[/QUOTE]

The statement implied that applying ex. negativo to *nothing* is going to
lead to *nothing*.

 

[cole grey]

Assertion: 'God' created man (and woman) in Genesis 1 and 'God' created man and woman in Genesis 2.
Contradiction: Genesis referrs to a single man and woman being created and existing in Genesis 2. This contradicts the actions in Geneis 1.

Assertion: God intended for man and woman to multiply in Genesis 1 and man and woman to live forever in Genesis 2.
Contradiction: The planet is not big enough to sustain unbound procreation of immortals.

#1)God creates man and woman.
God creates man and then woman.
There is no reason to interpret these statements as contradictory. These are two descriptions of the same thing described on specific and non-specific levels.

#2) If we co-operated with each other there is no reason to think we wouldn't have figured that problem out. Perhaps we would all be living in sweet, happy, human-hives that would make urban China look like rural Montana.
You say you don't like fantasies, yet you construct your arguments with them. - EDIT - not dissing all of your arguments with this statement, just this one.

 

[(Q)]

I was talking about scientific findings that are results of insight, not of one-way induction (as it is usually done).
Any theory that has ever been refuted.
Where shall we start? That the atom cannot be divided any further?
Had Einstein not suspended his already existing Newtonian knowledge, he could have not come to the findings in relativity that he did.
Or are you saying you can logically derive relativity from Newtonian postulates?

Perhaps we shouldn't discuss science as it does not appear to be something you're familiar with.

 

[(Q)]

Hence the term "explanation" B. Thus, the pointlessness of your "No".

B is not an explanation - it is an observation. Thus, the pointlessness of discussing anything about science with you.

Suspension of "knowledge" simply means you don't say you "know" until you see evidence.

Shall I provide a link explaining the scientific method or can you find it yourself?

Thus suspension of "knowledge".

Someones knowledge or suspension thereof have nothing to do with the results of an experiment.

indeed I am not capable of that.

Au contraire, you seem perfectly capable of insulting everyones intelligence, I've seen it time and again.

Now the obvious question is what is "knowlege"?

Isn't knowledge that which you've read in the bible?

 

[MarcAC]

Firstly, when did Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 get so short?

Please be clear when referencing the sections of the Bible.

Assertion: 'God' created man (and woman) in Genesis 1 and 'God' created man and woman in Genesis 2.
Contradiction: Genesis refer[]s to a single man and woman being created and existing in Genesis 2. This contradicts the actions in Genesis 1.

What actions?

You're using science here - be clear will you?

Assertion: God intended for man and woman to multiply in Genesis 1 and man and woman to live forever in Genesis 2.
Contradiction: The planet is not big enough to sustain unbound procreation of immortals.

This looks like something Cris would post (take it as you will).

What do you understand by "live" and "die" as referenced?

Some side questions (possibly not worth consideration)...

From which section do you infer "unbound procreation" such that you have kids 'til there's not room to perform the initial act (forever)?

How does "fill" and "subdue" amount to "and stay stuck to until there are so many of you that there's not enough space for even bacteria to flourish" even if you see the opportunity (solar stystem) to fix this?​

And rather obviously...

How many human immortals can the planet support (of course we must consider earth resources, how long man's been around for, and the knowledge he would gain so as to use them to his advantage)?​

Educate me please...