It was a fake image that prompted the concern:
Chris Gale and Barnard Van Loggernberg had commented on the image. Barnard in sublime praise of the God who made all things, and Chris with a reference to the erroneous understanding promulgated by our contemporary propogandists of atheist thought that “A belief is based on what you have been told and what you personally hold as true. A belief doesn’t need to be supported with factual evidence in order for it to exist and be powerful. In short, beliefs are not facts.”
A belief which does not rest upon evidence is nothing more than a dream. Our belief, and consequently our faith, in God rests upon the evidence of demonstrable historical facts not least of which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The multiverse hypothesis rests upon a quirk in our present ephemeral understanding of the physics of our universe which requires as a sine qua non that the other objects cannot be observed or detected, hence neither a proof nor a negation of the hypothesis is possible, We may therefore understand that there can never be found any evidence for the hypothesis, and therefore it is merely a dream.
It should not be difficult to spot the errors in the images….
The source is acknowledged, but to follow the link is not recommended.
Brig McLean made two comments:
Barnard Van Loggernberg: How do you start a sentence with ‘fact’ and finish it with ‘I believe’. None of what you say is ‘fact’. Facts rest on documented, repeatable evidence. Believe what you like, that’s your right, but honestly, don’t foist it on the rest of us. Your god is your crutch. Nothing more.
Coco: I’m sorry, what? There are ‘demonstrable historical facts’ for Christ rising from the dead? Is there really? Really?!!!! Please, do share, because this is a revelation!!!
Coco really can only reply in the following terms:
Brig McLean Who moved the stone? is a book written by a British journalist examining the evidence both for and against the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. I suggest that you read Frank Morison’s work before you say anymore. Morison was also convinced, as you appear to be, that there was no good evidence. Examining it led him to quite the opposite conclusion.
Brig McLean There are many who claim that we who believe the truth are attempting to foist our beliefs on others, whilst at the same time expecting to have the right to foist their own beliefs (or unbeliefs) on any one else who happens to disagree with them. I hope that you are not such, being open to honest enquiry. As for the suggestion that facts rest upon documented, repeatable evidence, that is hardly the true. William the Conqueror’s ascension to the crown of England is well documented, but certainly not repeatable. The falling of a tree in the forest near your home is unlikely to be either documented or repeatable but the evidence for it is present until it have been removed by the foresters.
Chris Gale replied, seeking support from the new definition of faith, with:
Hi Coco. Thanks for posting.
You said…
“A belief which does not rest upon evidence is nothing more than a dream. Our belief, and consequently our faith, in God rests upon the evidence of demonstrable historical facts….”
Definition of ‘faith’:
“strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof”.
I rest my case.
Coco replied:
Chris Gale, you have faith every time that you sit down upon a chair. Do you not believe that the chair will not collapse under your weight? The modern apologists of atheism have successfully, so it seems, promulgated an new definition of faith, which is at odds with what faith really is, but which perfectly well suits their own purposes. Perhaps one more example will suffice: Ask your bank manager for a loan. If he is willing to give you credit, then he believes (credo) that you will repay him. He has faith in you, that faith is based upon evidence: your credit rating.