I'm not sure what you mean by broadly but my statment means I can't say "I think God exist but I'm not sure" and still have faith. That to me wouldn't be a faith but agnotiscism.
You can have doubt. Mother Theresa had doubts. I have doubts. The Bible is chock full of doubts from believers. It doesn't mean you embrace the doubt...but I find those whose faith I admire the most are those that are able to entertain their own doubts and speak honestly enough to say, "God, where are you if X is going on???"
But what is a little faith? Does it mean that its not something I think about often or does it mean that I am a skeptic? As I said in my reply to MadMax my own view is that if you are uncertain about the existence of a divinity that would mean you don't have faith but are an agnostic. Let me be clear I don't think that religion in science are in conflict except in the most shallow view of either. Religion is a way of understanding but it is fundamentally different than science. It doesn't mean one is superior to the other but that they address different things. Science helps us understand how the material universe works but it doesn't give us meaning.
But in the end isn't what makes them admirable is that those doubts are overcome by belief. Is there a point to calling yourself a Christian, Muslim or Jew if you aren't certain about the existence of God? (actually I take being a Jew back since an Orthodox Jew once told me that you could still be a Jew, in the religious sense, even if you didn't believe in God as long as you follow the rules.)
I don't think I'm arguing with your premise all that much....just saying that there are still seasons of doubt.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EKHstR6ndus&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EKHstR6ndus&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Interesting thought I had last week (and eventually was able to resolve). In Islam, God does not exist in The Creation. This is exactly why science can't prove or disprove God. It only has rules from the creation in its arsenal of powers, whereas proving the existence of God would require an amount of knowledge that we will never attain. It also confirmed another thing for me - how the Prophet said that the Quraan is a string from the heavens to earth. Makes so much sense. Science is trying to find a string to the "heavens" when the best way is to actually send one from the "heavens" to earth. Science is just taking stabs in the dark IMO - but it is still worth pursuing. I stumbled into this whole concept (on which there's tons of great reading) when someone asked why God can't create a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it. Muslim answer here in case you're interested: <object width="384" height="313"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rRT_qNN7Pvw&hl=en_GB&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rRT_qNN7Pvw&hl=en_GB&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="384" height="313" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object> Smart dude btw. If anyone's interested in Islam, he is great at explaining things. His perspective is refreshing, even for me (I don't like "explainers" ).
Seriously, for your sake, I hope you were joking. Two common scientific methods, deductive and inductive reasoning. In the first case, you start if with something absolutely true, such as 1 + 1 = 2 (which btw, actually has it's own proof, believe it or not) then logically build from there. Examples of such sciences include mathematics. In the second approach, you acknowledge the impossibility of a deductive proof from lack of knowledge, working theories, ability to control the experience and what have you, so you draw conclusions based on observations, and do your best to attempt to measure the error. Examples of such sciences include statistics, though every science uses it. Where do you see such steps taken in religion? Where was either the deduction or induction? Where were the absolute truths and/or observations. The only way you can conclude that science and religion are equally logical is if you accept the premise of that god exists. And guess what, garbage in garbage out. No matter how logical your remaining reasoning (a good chuckle by me here) based on that huge leap of faith, your conclusion will be invariably wrong. Shirley you can't be serious. Once again, I am dumbfounded. Do I really have to tell you that the burden of proof rests upon you to prove the existance of god? People don't believe in something not because they have proof it doesn't exist. They don't believe something because there is no evidence it exists. Hence the burden of proof ALWAYS rests upon the side claiming the affirmative. Believe it or not, that's how it works in a court of law too. And no, I can't prove there is no god. But knowing that you can't either logically deduct or induct the existance of god, I am 99.999999 infinitely repeating 9's % certain that if there is a god, it doesn't exist as you described. That is good enough for me.
Thanks, was not sure of this. I guess what confused me is the Jesus PBUH bit.. I have to admit I wouldve assumed that Jesus PBUH's status in Christianity would give me the idea that God does exist in the creation though?
Hope everyone who wants religion banned enjoyed having Thanksgiving off! We'll see you on Christmas as well. :grin:
Ah yes, the old "join us, we have cookies!" angle :grin: <embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:southparkstudios.com:153539" width="480" height="400" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" flashVars="autoPlay=false&dist=www.southparkstudios.com&orig=" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" allownetworking="all" bgcolor="#000000"></embed>
