> If you believe in a supernatural God - one that can, say, turn water > into wine - then there's never going to be any logical proof that > such an entity exists.
I agree. Proof however is not the same thing as evidence that may support a particular theory. At least in the case of Christianity, a cornerstone of that faith is based on the existence of a real, living person. Thus, it's not illogical to seek proof of his existence and/or collaboration of the events of his life. Likewise if someone chooses to search for evidence that the great flood occurred, or the Exodus occurred, that certainly doesn't mean they lack faith. They may never find it, or there may even be evidence to the contrary. But such search for knowledge of what is true or not need not reflect one's level of faith. > Thus if you're looking for verification then you must not have faith, > since if you did you'd know that your search for verification was in > direct conflict with the whole concept of faith. Actually this idea of blind faith is a relatively modern idea. It wasn't something that played much into the religions of old, and is an interesting phenomenon in that is comes both from the fundamentalist religious right as well as from the non-religious left. Nor is blind faith something the Bible pushes as expected of us. The word "faith" as it is translated from the biblical texts would more accurately be translated as "commitment". That is, Jesus does not chastise believers for lack of faith as we define it, but for their failure to follow through and live up to the ideals of what he preached. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:308381 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
