|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Equating science with faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
tesla writes:
You can try by starting to not copy iano's style of writing. Basically, what you look like right now is you bought a bag of fortune cookies, opened them up randomly, and wrote out to us what you read on the notes inside the fortune cookies. Someone here coined the term "fortune cookie language", and I agree with him. With this, how can i hope to make any sense to any of you? It really does help to try to talk in a linear manner rather. You can think in cryptic terms all you want, but communication relies on linear speech.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1623 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
An act of will is not a physical action as you have been proposing! You act on the BELIEF the room is REAL and that you can CAPABLY walk across it. Without this mental analysis and understanding, you would not be able to walk across the room if you did not fully believe you could do it. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1623 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
It really does help to try to talk in a linear manner rather. You can think in cryptic terms all you want, but communication relies on linear speech. Communication is a two way street. If you don't know the math to install a floor, I can talk you you all day and you'll never understand until you admit there is something you do not understand, and make an attempt to understand it. If you understand, Then you'll know. But if is beyond your intelligence, what can i do about it? I am called the idiot, but this is simple to me. Who is correct? will it be only in the day that the earth is destroyed in fire and your soul on the edge of heaven or hell that you know? perhaps. perhaps for many. But if ONE comes to understand, God will find his glory, and perhaps i can escape hellfire by doing what i was asked. regardless of the pain i draw to myself from my action. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
You act on the BELIEF the room is REAL and that you can CAPABLY walk across it. Without this mental analysis and understanding, you would not be able to walk across the room if you did not fully believe you could do it. That belief is based on repeatable and observable evidence, as I have walked across the room or rooms like it many times before. It's based on evidence, tesla, not faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes: I see where you're going with this. You quote my entire message and then this was all you have to say about it. So much for debate.
Message 1 In the OP you state:
No faith is involved. The entire point of the scientific method is to produce objective, accurate, reproducible results so that any theory can be shown to be accurate at any time, and nothing need be taken on faith. The Big Bang model is not based on any such thing. Science is based on those processes which are observable and testable. Science only accepts that which is objective and unbiased! This is three assertions you made. In Message 7Faith is a belief that is not based on proof. All of science is based 100% on observable, objective evidence and repeatable experiments. Science studies anything and everything we are able to observe and test. Scientific models like the Theories of Gravity, Evolution, and the Big bang are based on mountains of reproducible, objective, testable evidence. Here you make a statement about the definition of faith. Then you commence to make 3 assertions. Now in msg 21 you want to add:
Science also includes deductive reasoning and logical inference Is this not what Rob and Straggler are debating? These two are based on the human mind examining things and coming to conclusions based on what they conclude is correct. How can these 2 additions be compatable with the the six assertions you had previously made? Especialy this one: " based 100% on observable, objective evidence and repeatable experiments." God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1623 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Believing a certain variable will act or has the potential to act a specific way despite the potential influence and probability of known or unknown change. All faith is because of evidence. So is your science. this quote comes from your own post in faith definition. My faith in God is also because of evidence. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Hi Rahvin, Rahvin writes:
quote: You quote my entire message and then this was all you have to say about it. So much for debate. I thought my comments answered your question. Did they not?
Message 1 In the OP you state:
quote: This is three assertions you made. Correct. I was pointing out in my reply to you that logical inference derived from objective, obervable evidence is still not faith.
In Re: defining faith (Message 7)
quote: Here you make a statement about the definition of faith. Then you commence to make 3 assertions. Now in msg 21 you want to add:Science also includes deductive reasoning and logical inference Is this not what Rob and Straggler are debating? It is, to a degree. But theirs is a Great Debate topic, and I wanted to be able to respond to Rob's response to me from the Universe Race thread. Also, this topic is more specifically addressing the motive behind all of these arguments - some people of faith want to have their beliefs put on the same level as those of science.
These two are based on the human mind examining things and coming to conclusions based on what they conclude is correct. How can these 2 additions be compatable with the the six assertions you had previously made? Especialy this one: " based 100% on observable, objective evidence and repeatable experiments." How are they not? Logical inference based on an observed process is still based on evidence. Especially since scientific inferences (hypotheses) are testable with objective, observable evidence. Something not based on evidence would be like asserting that the speed of light mst have been faster in the past. There is no evidence to suggest this (and in fact is evidence contradicting it), so if a person believes it, that belief would be based on faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
tesla writes: All faith is because of evidence. So is your science. this quote comes from your own post in faith definition. My faith in God is also because of evidence. Scientific evidence is objective. That means that I see it, you see it, he sees it, she sees it, everybody sees it, everyone agrees about it, that makes it objective. Religious evidence is personal and subjective. That means that you see God, he sees Allah, she sees Jehovah, they see Buddha, those people over there see Zeus, everybody sees something different and there is no agreement. This is the opposite of the objective evidence sought by science. The two types of evidence are not comparable. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
tesla writes: All that is exists only inside existence, which is the name of God. Nothing that IS is outside God, but God can cut off what he chooses from his body as it is written. We separate ourselves from him, but he is with us still until the day of judgement. 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 wrote the publican and the scientist, which explains that. everything you see, has come form God and is a part of his body. 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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1623 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
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. A name in other cultures and time's also represented what the person represented. IE: Joe Carpenter, Joe who is a Carpenter. An angel was once asked" what is your name?" And the angel replied: " Why do you wish to know my name? It is beyond your understanding." God was once asked by what name he was to be called before moses lead the people out of Egypt. And God answered (according to translation) as: "I am" tell them "I am" sent you. John 1:1 Say's in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word and God were one. Nothing is before existence. Nothing IS outside of existence. I can give you evidence. But you cannot know God any more than you can know your house exists. By faith of the evidence before you, that you believe, and act because you "know". In this way, do i "know" God's name as it is possible to know in the words of men. But as you believe, let that be true to you. And let God be the judge. I have no place besides what he Say's. So let what he Say's stand. And you take up your argument with him. I have said my peace. There is nothing more i have to give than what i have given on this topic. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1623 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Religious evidence is personal and subjective. That means that you see God, he sees Allah, she sees Jehovah, they see Buddha, those people over there see Zeus, everybody sees something different and there is no agreement. This is the opposite of the objective evidence sought by science. The two types of evidence are not comparable. --Percy If this was true, There wouldn't be such heavy debates in science. Many scientists disagree with how the evidence is interpreted. Your alive, you do not deny that. You just deny it came from God. (as i know you to say) But like science, the evidence of God is based on interpretation of evidence. We all in effect, see what we want to see. We don't change our world view because someone Say's anything different. We change our world view when evidence makes sense to us. I didn't come to the boards with true faith. But having debated here, i found true faith. Because the evidence you deny cannot nor has ever been refuted, and most refuse to even acknowledge its potential. Such as the topic i tried to start, and as you and i discussed, left it to close. You can call science objective. Scientists object to another scientists reasoning all the time. But when the "board" makes a decision, everyone Say's: alright thats it. They made the decision. So this is what we will believe. But i say: Show me what i can believe, because science is many times wrong. So i will review science objectively. And if i find a question, that no one has an answer to: that doesn't mean its a stupid question. Nor am i stupid for asking. But it is UNKNOWN. And the rest is guesses. So i offer my best guess by the evidence shown, and i am called the fool for being objective. But as we all have our opinions of science; Who knows? You? Me? The purple dinosaur? God? You should be careful all of you who deny God openly. Because as you claim there is no proof to say he is, (While living and breathing in a huge universe that you have no idea how it could "exist"), Neither have you shown that he does NOT exist. Nor will you, because he IS. And it is not given to me in power to show you that you might have faith; because God works his way. And he will open your ears and speak to your thoughts and your heart if you know him. In this way, has he came to me, and shown me things i could not know. But its his power, not mine. So i am a fool. But my God is all knowing. I have nothing further to add to this thread, having said what i can; And the rest, we will all know in our deaths of this body, or the coming of the Son in his glory, whichever may come first. Gods will be done. So be it. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
If this was true, There wouldn't be such heavy debates in science. Many scientists disagree with how the evidence is interpreted. You should see Straggler's post on this subject here. Your statement is only true if science posesses all relavent evidence. Since we are not omniscienct, we have to make do with the evidence we have. That's why all scientific models are tentative pending additional evidence - if we had all of the evidence, we'd know the answer with 100% certainty.
Your alive, you do not deny that. You just deny it came from God. (as i know you to say) Not quite. As usual, you misunderstand atheism. Atheism does not state "there is no god." Atheism states "I see no reason to believe in god." There is a very large difference. The first statement would require evidence, and without it, it's a statement of faith. The second statement is dependant on objective evidence.
But like science, the evidence of God is based on interpretation of evidence. We all in effect, see what we want to see. We don't change our world view because someone Say's anything different. We change our world view when evidence makes sense to us. Here you go again, trying to equate your faith with science. The existence of a supernatural deity is not suggested by any evidence. Scientific evidence, as Percy noted, is identical from one person to another. We can show the evidence that suggests the Big Bang model of the Theory of Evolution. You have no evidence requiring the existence of a deity. That's the very difference between science and faith!
I didn't come to the boards with true faith. But having debated here, i found true faith. Because the evidence you deny cannot nor has ever been refuted, and most refuse to even acknowledge its potential. Such as the topic i tried to start, and as you and i discussed, left it to close. You never posted any actual evidence, just gobbledygook and nonsense about "everything exists in existence." But then, that's not the topic here.
You can call science objective. Scientists object to another scientists reasoning all the time. But when the "board" makes a decision, everyone Say's: alright thats it. They made the decision. So this is what we will believe. Of course there is disagreement and debate withing science. Has anyone said otherwise? Disagreement and debate over scientific models does not mean the models are wrong. Debate and criticism are part of the scientific method, and they are what ensures that the evidence is unbiased and objective.
But i say: Show me what i can believe, because science is many times wrong. So i will review science objectively. You're an individual. You're subject to personal incredulity ("what you can believe"), personal ignorance, etc. You aren't capable of objective analasys alone. That's why science requires experiments to be repeatable, so that multiple, independant researchers can duplicate the results and ensure objectivity.
And if i find a question, that no one has an answer to: that doesn't mean its a stupid question. Nor am i stupid for asking. That depends on the question.
But it is UNKNOWN. And the rest is guesses. What, exactly, is this "guess" you're referring to?
So i offer my best guess by the evidence shown, and i am called the fool for being objective. No, you're called a fool for not making any sense and having a flimsy argument dependant compeltely on your initial definition of "god is existence." It's a lot like Rob in this thread, except Rob makes more sense even if his arguemnt is still false.
But as we all have our opinions of science; Who knows? You? Me? The purple dinosaur? God? "Truth" is not the purview of science, and science never claims to have all of the answers. All that is claimed is that science models reality with a high degree of accuracy, and strives constantly to increase that accuracy as new evidence is uncovered.
You should be careful all of you who deny God openly. Because as you claim there is no proof to say he is, (While living and breathing in a huge universe that you have no idea how it could "exist"), Neither have you shown that he does NOT exist. Do we also have to show that there is NOT an invisible purple elephant standing next to you?
Nor will you, because he IS. And it is not given to me in power to show you that you might have faith; because God works his way. And he will open your ears and speak to your thoughts and your heart if you know him. In this way, has he came to me, and shown me things i could not know. But its his power, not mine. So i am a fool. But my God is all knowing. You just stated exactly the definition of faith: there is no evidence for beliefs based on faith. That's the difference between faith and science. You posess no objective evidence for your deity, and so take his existence on faith. I have objective, reproducible evidence that my keyboard works, and so I do not take its continued function on faith.
I have nothing further to add to this thread, having said what i can; And the rest, we will all know in our deaths of this body, or the coming of the Son in his glory, whichever may come first. This really isnt the place to preach, tesla.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
tesla writes: Nothing is before existence. Nothing IS outside of existence. 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.
I can give you evidence. But you cannot know God any more than you can know your house exists 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?
By faith of the evidence before you, that you believe, and act because you "know". 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.
But as you believe, let that be true to you. 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.
And let God be the judge. I have no place besides what he Say's. So let what he Say's stand. And you take up your argument with him. 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.
I have said my peace. There is nothing more i have to give than what i have given on this topic. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
I completely understand your point Stile. But you are incorrect, and Davies is right.
The problem is that we are not omnipotent. We cannot say for sure that the universe is ordered in the final schme of things. I agree that we have empirical evidence that confirms our logical observations. But the logical philosophies came first. It was then applied to natural science. Not everyone agreed that the universe was ordered in an intelligible way. Some still don't, and ultimately believe that chaos is the only absolute. In fact, there was much reistance to science even by the church because it might challenge the Pope's ecclesiastical proclamations of truth. Such is the case today, where new discoveries threaten and challenge the ecclesiastical proclamations of the materialists. If there is one thing God tears down, it is human dogma. It is the truth that rules supreme in the end, in spite of our philosophical blinders. The point I am making is that logic must be assumed to be supreme, even if we cannot ultimately prove it. We must have faith. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes: if we had all of the evidence, we'd know the answer with 100% certainty. I thought you had already determined we had 100% certainty at least about some things. As you state Here:
Rahvin writes: The expansion of the Universe is a fact. I would love to see the information that makes this a fact as I seem to keep finding too many people that disagree with you. Is this a fact which would be indisputable. Or is this your personal belief that it is a fact? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024