Equating science with faith

True. False. It is not accepted "as a matter of faith", it's accepted "as a matter of empirical experience". Again, true. Again, false. Scientists don't take it for granted, they take it because repeated empirical experience shows this to be the case.If we're going to define faith as 'belief in continuation of empirical experience and validation', then we no longer have faith in God. Since we do not have empirical experience and validation of God.You (or Paul Davies) can call a rock a tree all you'd like. But a rock will never be a living thing simply because you're calling it a tree.

I do not walk across my room based on belief. I walk across my room based on empirical experience.I do not type on a keyboard based on belief. I type on a keyboard based on empirical experience. No. It is not 'because I believe what my senses tell me', it is because I have previous empirical experience that can be re-tested and re-validated. If I suddenly went blind and lost my sense of sight, I would still assume the room existed. Therefore my assumption is not based on 'believing what my senses tell me'. My assumption is based on repeatable, empirical experience.These assumptions are based on empirical experience. The are not 'based on belief', therefore they are not faith by your own definition. False. Studying based on assumptions is not faith.Studying based on assumptions is mandatory (we all need to make assumptions).
Studying based on assumptions that are based on belief is faith.
Studying based on assumptions that are based on empirical experience is not faith, it's science.If you want to define "belief" to be the same as "empirical experience", then you cannot have belief in God, as we do not have empirical experience of God.Since there is a great deal of difference between 'belief' and 'empirical experience', it's best to use different words for clarity.

I do not have any assumptions I do not have doubts of.Even assumptions like:-I exist
-I can make observations of the reality I exist withinI have doubts of both those assumptions.I doubt that I actually do exist, I have no way of knowing, really. But I do have empirical experiences of existing, and those empirical experiences have yet to falsify this assumption.
I doubt that I actually can make observations of the reality I exist within. But I do have empirical experiences of making oberservations of the reality I exist within, and those empirical experiences have yet to falsify this assumption. Why not? I do have doubts about my ability to think. Yet I also have thoughts I feel I can rely on, based on empirical experience. Not based on belief. I'm not sure if I have thoughts. Empirical experience leads me to assume I do.I'm not sure I actually breathe or that I'm "living". Empirical experience leads me to assume I do.I do not know these things by "my own faith in myself". I know these things because of my empirical, repeatable, verifiable experiences. I do not take assumptions blindly. I take assumptions based on empirical experience. If I am unable to base it on empirical experience, then I do not take that assumption.It is not faith, it is empirical experience. I do have doubts of all my assumptions (including "I exist"). Yet I continue to study because my empirical experiences have yet to show even a small issue in those assumptions.I assume I exist because I have empirical experiences regarding my existance.I assume I exist within a reality because I have empirical experiences regarding a reality.I assume my computer is within that reality because I have empirical experiences regarding my computer being within that reality.I do not assume God is within that reality because I have no empirical experiences regarding God being within that reality.Empirical experiences are repeatable and verifiable tests. Repeated and verified by any means that are possible. As soon as it cannot be repeated or verified, by any method, it is no longer considered an empirical experience.All of my assumptions are based on empirical experiences by this definition (including "I exist").God is not based on empirical experiences.God is based on faith. Faith is not based on empirical experiences.

Why do you have this need to make faith equal to empirical experience?The whole point of faith, the strength of faith, is to assume something without the need for empirical experience.Why are you trying to tie faith down with the restrictions of science?Faith is supposed to be infinite, isn't it?
Faith is supposed to be unending, isn't it?
Faith is supposed to be unrestricted, isn't it?Empirical experience is restricted. It requires repeatable and verifiable tests.Faith does not have this restriction.Why do you want to demean faith?God is not an empirical experience. This does nothing to absolutely show that God does not exist.Sure there are people like me who only think empirical experience has any real meaning to reality. Sure there are people that will say you believe in fairy tales. Sure some poeple will say 'faith is a failed system'. But you obviously don't think faith is a failed system, so why do you care what these people think?Why are you so concerned with what these people think that you'll re-define the only unique attribute of your thought process right out of existence?I think it's great that you're able to make assumptions based on faith. I think having a variety of people use a variety of different ways to come up with new ideas is the most efficient way to identify brand-new phenomenon.But don't try to lie and say that faith is the same as science. Faith is different from science for a very important reason. Faith is different from science because it is not bound by the same strict rules. When you attempt to say faith is the same as science, you then bind faith by the same restrictions as science.That is a very dishonest way to live a life. It deemans faith, and confuses those who don't understand science.Please, for the sake of keeping faith a special thing of it's own, stop trying to say that faith is the same as science.
Once you learn that faith is not science, you can apply faith and make use of it's strength in areas that are applicable.Areas of science are not applicable.

You keep saying so. But it's not true. I've shown you it isn't true. I have no faith in the world or my observations. I have tentative empirical experiences. Not tentative faith, whatever that might mean. This is blatently untrue. I can empirically experience the air, I can test what levels of oxygen and nitrogen and other molecules are present in it.I cannot empirically experience God. I cannot test what levels of oxygen or nitrogen or other molecules are present in God. Why would you say they are the same thing? So with empirical experiences, we have tangible things that are tangible to anyone and everyone.With your 'faith', we have 'tangible' things that are not quite tangible to anyone and everyone. You say I am blind to the 'tangible' part of faith.This is a key difference between empirical experiences and faith. The truth is, you're killing faith by attempting to equate it with empirical experience.

I don't believe you. I don't think existence is the name of God. There's no reason to think so and you certainly haven't provided one.And now we're back to:

quote:

---

I cannot empirically experience God. I cannot test what levels of oxygen or nitrogen or other molecules are present in God. Why would you say they are the same thing?

---

That's a nice story. But the scientist is incorrect. At least, there's no reason to think he is correct, anyway.And now we're, again, back to:

quote:

---

I cannot empirically experience God. I cannot test what levels of oxygen or nitrogen or other molecules are present in God. Why would you say they are the same thing?

---

One thing to say, another to show.I don't believe your words. Please show me that they're true. Without that, they remain simply words.Adding the words 'that we know of' would actually make sense to me. Is that what you meant? I don't understand how you could have knowledge otherwise. Great, let's see your evidence. I am not looking to know God more than I know my house exists. I'm simply looking to know God as well as I know my house exists.I touch, see, smell and hear my house on a regular daily basis. I have empirical experiences of my house. What empirical experice can I have of God? No. I told you before, I don't act on my assumptions based on faith. I act on my assumptions base on empirical experience. You're not very good at the game of guessing why I do things. Weird, really, since I've actually told you this many times already. I do not decipher truth through my beliefs. I uncover truth by what can be shown to me by reality. Many of my beliefs get overturned and re-structured because reality shows them to be false. Letting your beliefs set your truth is a sure-fire way to grow away from reality. He tends to be exceedingly silent on the issue. As He is on all issues. The only rational conclusion I can draw from this, is that He doesn't exist. Fair enough, have fun. I thought you mentioned you had some evidence of God to give, though. If you do indeed have some repeatable, verifiable evidence of God, it's a shame you won't share it with us, I'd love to learn about it.

I'm not sure you do understand my point. I was not attempting to say that we could identify if the universe is ordered in the final scheme of things or not. Only that repeated empirical experience shows this to be the case so far. This means scientists do not take it for granted. It doesn't matter what some people agree on and what some people don't agree on. What matters is what our repeatable empirical experiences show us. This point I am making is that Faith is not equal to Science. Faith is assuming something without empirical experience to rely on. Science is assuming something based on empirical experience.Why must we have faith? What would happen if we did not have faith?I'm curious as to how you may answer that because I have personal interests invested in the matter. I do not have faith, in anything. I do not make any assumptions that are not based on empirical experiences. What, in your opinion, is going to happen to me? Are you saying I don't exist?I'm not saying we must all base our assumptions on empirical experiences. I'm sure plenty of people base their assumptions on faith. I'm just not one of those people. Why do you think we must base our assumptions on faith? What makes it impossible to base our assumptions on empirical experiences?

Sorry, I didn't understand you were just stating a simple toatology. If that's all you meant, I hope you understand that the statement is redundant and useless. Like saying "only things that are red have redness, and if they don't have redness, then they're not red". Sure, a nice string of words. But pretty useless in any discussion.I was assuming you meant something meaningful, something like "things only exist within our reality". Which I would then ask you to show, since we cannot know. But if you're only going to state a redundant tautology, then go right ahead and take all the time you'd like to say absolutely nothing of substance. But this isn't true. I see plenty of things I don't want to see. I see pain and suffering every day. And I do not see God standing before me everyday. In fact, I never see God standing before me.I think you're getting a bit lost in the topic. We're talking about faith not being the same as science. You have yet to show how they are the same. As far as what you've been able to show goes, we're still at:

quote:

---

I cannot empirically experience God. I cannot test what levels of oxygen or nitrogen or other molecules are present in God. Why would you say they are the same thing?

---

Why do you say I make this claim? I only claim that our empirical experiences are not faith. And that everything we understand so far has an empirical explanation. I've never said that this proves that everything must have a material explanation. That's only a rational tentative conclusion. I actually agree with you here. Such an absolute conclusion is not based on empirical explanations, and it is faith.But I was asking why it is impossible not to use faith. And I do not hold the faith-based conclusion you provided. Therefore, I do not use faith. I don't see how this helped show that it is impossible not to use faith.So, again, I'll ask you:I do not have faith in anything. Why do you think this is impossible?

But I know I'm not omniscient. And yet I still do not have faith in anything. What is it that you think I must have faith in? I agree. And I would like to point out that I do not assume that what I experience is real based on faith. I assume that what I experience is real based on empirical experience. I do not have faith regarding my assumption that what I experience is real.Do you know of anything that I must be assuming and that assumption must be based on faith? I can't think of one, and I'm pretty sure I don't have one.

Why do you keep saying this? It isn't true. And I've shown you that it isn't true. Science assumes it's ability to analyze observations of the world based on empirical experience, not faith. Thank-you. But I don't care what reality is for this topic, and I don't want anything concerning the law of existence from you either. What I want from you is the same as the topic of this thread, what we're supposed to be talking about. I want to know why you think Faith is equal to Science. This is the first thing you've said that makes sense. And I agree. I simply don't choose to have faith in anything. And the same goes for science. (Technically, science did it first, and I'm just a copy-cat).So, regarding Faith and Science, you still haven't shown why they're the same, and we're still at:

quote:

---

I cannot empirically experience God. I cannot test what levels of oxygen or nitrogen or other molecules are present in God. Why would you say they are the same thing? (regarding God and air)

---