Which Faith Do You Follow?

[Theland]

https://youtu.be/ymajOjVQPm4

I like the quote in this video from G.K. Chesterton.

Do you agree?

[1ozzy]

The biggest leap of faith in the video was in the closing comments.
"Please make a tax deductible donation"

[vetuste_ennemi]

Can't remember Chesterton on taxes. He did do the telegram (to wife?): "In Market Harborough stop where ought I be".

[waterboatman]

None whatsoever!

[-Talbot-]

The nearest thing to a faith for me is Football.

[Maydup]

Thats not a link I am going to click on, but to answer your question my faith is in nature, and in good nature.

[cockatiel1]

Christian

[beso]

I don't follow a faith because I am a rational person.

[10ClarionSt]

None. Don't believe in fairy tales. As I've said before, religion should be legally classified as a pastime/hobby, where there is no obligation from anyone or favours, or laws in relation to religion. If you want to do religion - fine, but do it in your own time without any statutory help.

[Baldric]

The only faith I have is in me and mine.

[maggiebee]

I'm a Christian.

[Old_Geezer]

The quote he is attributed with isn't quite there. They believe anything is possible as conjecture, until proof/testing sorts out the probable from the impossible.

One needs little in the way of faith to trust the maths and consider possibilities. And scientists have already considered looking for evidence of multiverses and what to expect to see in our universe if ours have collided with another. The chap on the video seems economical with the truth, and heavy with the subtle mocking of science.

[ummmm]

None.

[anneasquith]

Christian.

[Rockrose]

none and no

[beso]

The video is lame. The presenter is smug and ignorant.

He conveniently avoids addressing the issue of the origin of a highly complex God which would clearly require a structure for it to be formed within, returning us to the original question of the origin.

Adding a God doesn't help explain anything. It just creates far more difficult questions with no answers.

[Theland]

Beso - God has no origin - eternal.
It's "either / or," anything else is a cop out, head in sand etc.

[Gromit]

The whole premise of the video is a lie.
If you don’t believe in god, you are an atheist - and if you are an atheist, you believe in the multiverse theory.

But athesists don’t automatically believe in a multiverse, and hardly anyone belives it as true. I have never seen an atheist on AB counter with a multiverse argument.
So the video accusing atheists of being hypocrits because of their blind leaps of faith is rather disingenuous and untruthful.

[Theland]

Gromit - That is a valid and important point.
I can only suppose that the most renowned of atheists, Richard Dawkins, is a believer in the multiverse, and by default some kind of spokesman for atheism.
But I take your point.

[beso]

Theland //God has no origin - eternal. //

You are content with an eternal God. Then why demand that the Big Bang has an origin? Clearly an unreasonable double standard.

The Big Bang singularity was a single pixel of intense formless energy. The passage to the complexity we now see in the universe can be derived using a few simple laws.

An eternal God requires beginning with the most complex structure imaginable yet provides no explanation for for the source of that complexity. Quite a ridiculous notion really.

[beso]

Theland //It's "either / or," anything else is a cop out, head in sand etc.//

Indeed, you have your head in the sand.