[monster]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I understand your premise; the truth is I once believed the same thing you're stating. Nonetheless, I've recently been exposed to the idea by some scientists (Daniel Denett for example) that if god exists, he is still within the observations of science. Science isn't anything, really, other than what we can conclude/understand based on phenomena we are capable of detecting. This is why I say perhaps we can take a scientific viewpoint on the 'god question.' Of course, the only answer we have right now is "I don't know."

So if you don't know, how can you come to the conclusion that God is within the observations of science?

Originally Posted by Vexx

You're diluting the word "faith" to cover so much that you're venturing into solipsism. You have "faith" that anything you see, hear, feel, think, or experiment on actually has tangibility using that smeared definition.

"Faith", in order to have any meaning at all, specifically means the belief in something without any tangible evidence. It *feels* true to you. That's not the meaning of science. In science, as an example, the Theory of Relativity holds sway, but the INSTANT a piece of verified evidence refutes it - its going to be toast, thrown out if it can't be modified to incorporate the new information (or like Newtonian physics, held to be still useful for certain domains, just incomplete). Faith does not use that protocol.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I was associating faith with religion, not science.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Who died and made you the sole authority on what Christianity is? It's not like persecution can't be justified biblically, either. They're "saving souls". Or something like that.

Nobody died to make me the authority on Christianity. I'm sorry if I've somehow led you to think that way. God, through the Bible, is the sole authority on Christianity. And the Bible never justifies a Christian who persecutes others.