Quote:
|
Originally Posted by joeydb
That's one way to state it. Faith is only applicable where knowledge is incomplete.
All I was trying to say is that atheists have no basis to feel superior to those with faith in a creator. There are plenty of invisible and unexplained phenomena in nature. Our knowledge will always be the smallest fraction of what is necessary given the scale of the universe.
The answer must exist. It is binary -- true or false. The answer to "What is the result of the next coin flip?" also exists: heads or tails. Who's going to be right? It is a prediction before the event, and history thereafter. One opinion is not superior to the other until more information comes to light.
How many people are still seriously advocating for the flat earth hypothesis since Magellan's crew completed their circumnavigation of the globe? How about the earth-centric view of the solar system? Kepler's discovery eventually put an end to that too.
We are not likely to get more information then we have. Christians believe we have the information we need already, from Christ himself. Others don't believe that and so may draw the opposite conclusion from their opposite premise.
|
two very fine, well thought out posts.
i'll challenge you on one aspect which is the idea that lack of proof means that evidence for both sides is equal. i'd argue that an extraordinary proposition requires extraordinary proof and the lack of such evidence supports the idea that it isn't true.
if we're discussing bigfoot, does the fact that doubter's can't "prove" it doesn't exist to the satisfaction of believers mean both sides of the argument have equal standing? or are we allowed to consider that a breeding population of large land mammals would leave behind some irrefutable evidence (skeleton's, droppings, etc.) and the lack thereof supports the idea the idea that bigfoot is bunk?
i know a supernatural entity might not leave behind such traces. but why does the lack of "proof" lead to the conclusion that both sides could be right? there's a higher burden on those making the truly extraordinary claim to prove their case.
i don't begrudge anyone their beliefs. i know a lot of great thoughtful, kindhearted, christians. you seem like one of those. but i don't characterize my thoughts on god as "faith" (as a later poster suggested) anymore than i would my thoughts on gravity. both are unseen forces and really pretty extraordinary claims. but only one has observable evidence that supports it.