You again? With more word salad and meaningless nonsense as you navel-graze and utterly
fail to address anything approaching the topic?
the problem i have is that when discussing true origin, the assumption that you exist is taken for granted. but existing, being definite, having asked the question.
Don't start your "everything that exists is in existence" bullshit. It's not on-topic. it has
nothing to do with how some people try to claim that scientfic theories are based on faith just as religion is.
science is the study of the workings of the things that exist, and how they came to exist in their forms. but ignores and overlooks the faith that scientists accept in their sciences concerning existing and overlook God. which is argued in definition as well.
Most of thatdoesn't even make a lick of sense. Science is the study of the observable Universe. You're right that it "ignores and overlooks the faith that scientists accept," because
personal faith has nothing to do with objective evidence. That's the very
point. Scientists are required to leave their faith at the door and rely
only on objective evidence when dealing with scientific models. Science "overlooks god" becasue there is no
evidence regarding "god."
sad that accepting faith in anything is impossible for some, who take for granted the faith they do have. its just arrogance really.
What faith is used in science?! This has been asked repeatedly throughout this thread, and nobody has provided a reasonable answer. My contention is that there
is no faith in science, because science is based entirely on observable, objective evidence and the logical inferences drawn from that evidence, while faith is defined as a belief that is
not based on evidence. The two are
polar opposites. So how is anyone "taking for granted the faith they do have?" What is arrogance?
science and faith are not equal, as the topic of this thread seems to imply;
If you think the topic of this thread implies that they
are equal, you didn't even read the opening post.
but all manner of things that exist have a faith. a necessary faith and acceptance of existing before it is even possible to exist. if a seed has no faith in its ability to grow, it would not grow.
...what? How can a seed have faith?! You're rambling incoherantly again, tesla. I seriosuly doubt your connection to reality - you seem incapable of saying anything that doesn't boil down to a word-salad nonsensical mishmash of vague philisophical opinions and "grand revelations" you think you've stumbled upon but which actually have no relevance to
anything.
same as men who did not have faith in their ability to walk, could not walk. even as it IS possible, but by their own denial cannot walk. many times have psychiatrist and the like classes found ways to help people overcome physical illness's that were only because of a mental subconscious issues (refer to fraud's research).
It doesn't require faith to walk. In such cases, the belief not supported by evidence would be that the victims
cannot walk.
But this has nothing to do with science. It has nothing to do with the topic.
so in discussing origin, all those discussing origin have already accepted there is a now and a before, which is a faith based on their observations.
You just contradicted yourself. If a belief is based on
observations, it is not faith. Faith is a belief
not based on evidence. You cannot have "faith based on observations;" it's an oxymoron.
the belief in God is also made in this same way; had Christ not walked on water, healed all manner of disease, nor did the miracles: who would believe?
had not the burning bush spoke to moses, neither would he have believed. nor the slaves who came out of Egypt on Gods promises spoken through moses, and for their belief, were they also delivered.
If anyone were to actually
observe such things as magical talking bushes, those individuals would not require faith - they would have
direct observational knowledge. Their beliefs would not be based on faith, but would rather be based on objective evidence.
However, believing that these things actualy happend when the
only evidence is a musty old series of mishmashed books
is faith - there is no objective evidence showing that they happened at all.
But again, this has nothing to do with science...so what's your point, tesla? Oh, that's right - you don't
do well with "points." You just like to ramble on and make long posts of nonsense.
who has seen the reports of the earths condition? how fast the fish and sea's and the clean waters in the earth turned more and more putrid in so short a time? who is acting? where is the faith in the world of what men and woman see and can understand the dangers? the faith of most men is in their governments or other men. but what good will that do? because not enough act; but point fingers. and when the water turns into disease, and the fish die, and men rape the land of its animals that they might eat, and there will not be enough food; who can men blame? even as the gun is pointed at the brains of all the men of the world they will try to outrun a bullet; and they cannot do it. but act when you see the gun being pointed, and you can outrun the arm of the assailant.
but without faith, you can do nothing. and so then is faith a requirement to exist. or you would not exist in sane mind; so even those who exist have faith in their existence.
Again with the nonsense. This is not a place for
sermons or even wondering at the state of the world. The
topic here is the fact that some people try to claim that science is based on faith just as religion is; a claim that is blatantly
false. None of your nonsense even seems to
address that, except in a silly roundabout way by claiming that "faith is a requirement to exist."
Faith is not required to exist, tesla. But then, that's still not the
topic here, is it.
™ Version 4.2