Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
Line 72: Line 72:  
I did not intend for this to turn into a debate about Creationism, I merely wanted to highlight what I see as tenuousness in the criteria of deciding between supernatural explanations of events, or if I may make an extension of this idea, religions themselves. Upon what grounds may a Christian say that Islam is false, yet Christianity is true? Or that a cult such as Scientology is explicitly false?
 
I did not intend for this to turn into a debate about Creationism, I merely wanted to highlight what I see as tenuousness in the criteria of deciding between supernatural explanations of events, or if I may make an extension of this idea, religions themselves. Upon what grounds may a Christian say that Islam is false, yet Christianity is true? Or that a cult such as Scientology is explicitly false?
 
[[User:Paddyduffy|Paddyduffy]]
 
[[User:Paddyduffy|Paddyduffy]]
      
There are no grounds to make such claims. These are matters of personal belief, not objective knowledge. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:45, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 
There are no grounds to make such claims. These are matters of personal belief, not objective knowledge. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:45, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
Line 78: Line 77:  
I'd imagine the vast majority of users of this site would disagree with you there. A follower of a religion believes what he does because he thinks it true. I assert that he does this based on false premises.
 
I'd imagine the vast majority of users of this site would disagree with you there. A follower of a religion believes what he does because he thinks it true. I assert that he does this based on false premises.
 
: [[User:Paddyduffy|Paddyduffy]]
 
: [[User:Paddyduffy|Paddyduffy]]
      
I understand that most of the people on this site would disagree with me, but I understand the difference between faith and empirical knowledge. Faith does not provide "truth" in the way that most of the users here would claim it does, but that does not render it invalid or wrong. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 18:52, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
 
I understand that most of the people on this site would disagree with me, but I understand the difference between faith and empirical knowledge. Faith does not provide "truth" in the way that most of the users here would claim it does, but that does not render it invalid or wrong. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 18:52, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
    
:Faith provides that truth which can only have a supernatural source, such as the existence of sin and the means of salvation.  [[User:SarahFan|SarahFan]] 10:49, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 
:Faith provides that truth which can only have a supernatural source, such as the existence of sin and the means of salvation.  [[User:SarahFan|SarahFan]] 10:49, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
An event that is truly supernatural could not be used to prove the existance of a specific God. To prove it was a supernatural event would mean to falsify EVERY natural explanation and would therefore require knowing everything including the knowledge that there is nothing left to know.
 +
Religions that tolerate other religions are admitting that they may be wrong and the God they worship might be a fake. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 12:26, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
401

edits

Navigation menu