Posts by Gerald Rivera3

geza said:Gerald Rivera3 says: if there were actual evidence for everything religion claims, it wouldn't even be called faith anymore; it would just be science or maybe history.
See, every single religion has this core foundation that just can't be proven—like the resurrection of Jesus, or how the Message was whispered directly into Muhammad's ear, and stuff like that, but people just swallow it whole because someone told them that's just how it is, and if they don't, they're headed straight for hell

geza: Why do you, Gerald Rivera3, and most other people immediately try to shrink the definition? The question here was about FAITH AND EVIDENCE; if we're only talking about religious belief, then sure, the topic is missed. But you really have to realize that every scientific breakthrough starts with the FAITH that something actually can be discovered or uncovered... so, you're basically flipping cause and effect here. A perfect example of what I'm getting at would be Watson and Circus, who simply BELIEVED they would eventually figure out the structure and the logic behind the DNA molecule, because before they actually pieced the molecule together by "playing around like kids," they had no clue what it actually looked like: THEY JUST BELIEVED! It's the exact same thing with religious FAITH in the existence of God. You just need to prove that faith, or disprove it. Right now, the situation is totally stuck regarding the configuration of patterns that show the outlines of proof for God's existence in a creative sense. Once that's proven, religious FAITH will transform into scientific Truth!
So why all the emphasis and the misunderstandings over FAITH AND EVIDENCE? FAITH COMES BEFORE PROOF, and proving God is actually pretty simple for humans if you're just looking at His attributes, considering those two gentlemen are only about 2,000 years away!

Sure, faith comes before proof, that's true, but depending on how things turn out (or the path you take to get to that proof), the whole structure of that faith can change. People might even walk away from it entirely if the proof turns out to be impossible. Take your example—what would have happened if W. and C. hadn't managed to piece that molecule together (maybe because they believed it looked slightly different)? They would have had to admit they were wrong and either drop their "belief" or tweak their "faith" so it could actually lead them to the final proof.
But in a religious context, faith doesn't precede proof, because trying to prove God (in the way W. and C. used "faith") is basically blasphemy. You aren't supposed to go hunting for proof of God, because when it comes to the dogmas that serve as the bedrock for every religion, there's no room for debate. That's why modifying a religious faith is just unthinkable.
Honestly, I don't think I've ever heard believers from any religion admit they were mistaken or say that their religion needs some kind of overhaul—and I'm talking about the fundamental pillars, the dogmas, not just the usual shifts between denominations like Catholic or Protestant....
That's why faith backed by proof and faith without proof are two completely different animals.

Look, if there were actual, hard evidence for every single claim made by any religion, we wouldn't even call it faith anymore; it would just be science or maybe history, you know?
Every single belief system out there has this foundational core that simply can't be proven—like the resurrection of Jesus, or how the message was supposedly whispered directly into Muhammad's ear, and all that stuff—but people just swallow it whole because someone told them that's just the way it is, period, and if they don't, they're headed straight for hell 🙂... I mean, that's just how the logic goes, I guess.