Themis wrote:Actually you are incorrect. Faith is not evidence. I notice you can't even articulate how faith is evidence. This is because it is not. Faith is belief followed by action. James deals much better with what faith really is. I suggest you start there. Now faith can be based on evidence, and I would call this a good faith, but faith can also be based on little to no evidence, and may even have plenty of evidence against a certain belief/s. This would be a blind faith. Now what evidence do you have for your faith that is superior to those who have a different faith in regards to their God.
Your explanation is a pretty confusing one to me, Themis. James isn't defining faith so much as defining how faith relates to salvation--faith without works is dead isn't meaning faith isn't in existence so much as without works faith is ineffective. Anyway, i'll jsut have to disagree. I don't think I attempted to articulate how faith is evidence, but you seem to think I can't even do it. I'm not sure what you're wishing to argue based on that.
What so difficult about understanding the definition of faith which is belief and action to gather. Faith is not evidence, because it does not need any in order for people to have faith in something. This is certainly true with religion. Saying faith is evidence is worse then meaningless, it only causes confusion, which is obvious that you are confused.
stemelbow wrote: What is evidence that makes up faith?
Would you call someones faith that is based on no evidence faith?
its personal experience with the divine.
This would be just the evidence you are basing your faith on.
If spiritual experience comes from God then it is evidence that is faith. I know that's an if, but since I can't show my personal spiritual experience to another, its only evidence for me, and my faith.
Of course it's a big if. This means ones faith is based on little good evidence and could be fairly called blind faith. Don't worry I had this as well, and those in other religions practice it just as well as us LDS. What makes it worse for us is that we have so much EVIDENCE against our faith
hatersinmyward wrote:the activities and physical structures of every planet in our solar system prove our solar system runs in a cycle.
how pluto will some day be like uranus: pluto is a hunk of ice, so it will attract the most simple element in the cosmos hydrogen. hydrogen is the first element on the periodic table, 1 proton 1 neutron. uranus is almost pure hydrogen but has a solid ice core. pluto is moving closer to the sun along with every other planet in our solar system.
how uranus will one day be like neptune: uranus's hydrogen composition will attract more complex gas elements making it a lot like neptune. which is composed of complex gasses. neptune is moving closer to the sun along with every other planet in our solar system.
how neptune will one day be like saturn: the complex gasses in netune's atmosphere will attract wondering sub atomic particles and plazmas making neptune much like saturn. neptune is moving closer to the sun along with ever other planet in our solar system.
how saturn will one day be like jupiter: saturn is made up of plazmas. saturn's rings are situated in order. the inner rings are light solid elements and the outer rings are the heaviest. mass attracts mass. saturn is moving closer to the sun along with every other planet in our soar system.
how jupiter will one day be like mars: jupiter is radioactive and shrinking. it is a big violent mess because elements are being made and the excess is being sent out as radiation. when it is done radiating it will be solid excess waste sent off into space. leaving a relatively stable planet like mars.
how mars will one day be like earth: mars has an ice cap and a lot of surface ice but no polls because it doesn't have a moon yet. ozone and other gasses are in the ice cap that has yet to melt.the spectrograph of the asteroid belt is almost identical to the composition of earth's moon. as mars moves closer to the sun the astroid belt will move closer to mars giving it a moon and polls. giving mars the ability to sustain life.
how earth will one day be like venus: venus has iron deposits on both ends just like earth. earths. earth's moon is moving away from the earth explaining why venus has no moon but yet polar iron deposits. as the earth gets closer to the sun the atmosphere will burn up. why venus doesn't have an atmosphere.
how venus will be like mercury: venus will condense as it gets closer to the sun, all of its valcons will spit out the core. venus is moving closer to the sun just like every other planet in our solar system.
mercury will hit the sun in creasing the sun's mass and sucking every other planet in much faster when that happens.
the sun: when mercury or if a large enough dense object or asteroid hits the sun the suns density will suck the planets into it.
all of these planetary traits have been researched and confirmed.
I have bolded the statements which might be considered factual. Everything else you've written is a cargo-load of nonsense. Please consider the possibility that the pseudo-scientific sources you've been perusing to educate yourself are absolutely full of crap.
what you didn't back up: uranus's composition, saturn's plazma composition or the placement of its rings, neptune's compostion, mars's surface ice, composition of the astroid belt, every planet is moving closer to the sun, or the iron deposits on opposing sides of venus.
that's just a few.
check those and get back at me.
or say you checked them and make an ass of yourself.
It's interesting to see you argue with hoops about not reading the Bible to literally, yet I think you are doing just that with Hebrews. :)
If a members tells you they believe the church is true, and that they are active in church and keeping the commandments as good as other active believing members, and they tell you they have not had any evidnece spiritual or physical that the church is true, would you say they are just a believer, or would you consider them to have faith? Would you also think that one can have faith in something without any evidence?
Themis wrote:What so difficult about understanding the definition of faith which is belief and action to gather.
Hey, Themis. I explained why I was confused by your post and what your saying is not squaring with what I explained.
Faith is not evidence, because it does not need any in order for people to have faith in something.
I'm Old Testament sure what you mean by this. Are you saying people who have faith don't have evidence? or is that just your assumption?
This is certainly true with religion. Saying faith is evidence is worse then meaningless, it only causes confusion, which is obvious that you are confused.
I'm merely confused by some of your statements and posts. I'm not confused generally speaking.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote: I'm Old Testament sure what you mean by this. Are you saying people who have faith don't have evidence? or is that just your assumption?
No, I am saying that faith is not dependent on evidence. One can base their faith on evidence or they can have faith insomething without any evidence. Evidence is not necessary in order for one to believe and act on something(faith). This can include religious beliefs. So to say faith is evidence is incorrect.
My last post may make more sense. Perhaps you could respond to those questions.