Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Equating science with faith
tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 58 of 326 (460299)
03-13-2008 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by DrJones*
03-13-2008 10:09 PM


Re: defining faith
lol 0 to the trillionth power is still zero huh?
did you know that exploring T=0 is now the new frontier of science?
We're Sorry - Scientific American
check it out eh?
now you wanna talk faith is science: anyone who is truly studying string theory. wow. now that takes an act of faith to study.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by DrJones*, posted 03-13-2008 10:09 PM DrJones* has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 59 of 326 (460300)
03-13-2008 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Percy
03-13-2008 8:43 PM


Re: defining faith
You were talking about evidence, not interpretation of evidence. As I said, scientific evidence is objective, and we know this because everyone can see and agree about the same evidence. Religious evidence is subjective because there is very little agreement.
No different. All Christians agree christ died for their sins. Its the details that are not worked out.
Science is just as divided. Some scientists are religious, some are not. Its still evidence. Its just in the interpretations. When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.
Right now we are all on a turning point, because the age is ending. And soon all this chatter will probably seem small in comparison to what the new age is going to bring about very soon. But as we stand at the edge of its, lets debate with honesty.
Is string theory a theory only acceptable by faith?
How potential is the data next to the data of God? which makes better sense? honestly.
We defined faith, any action based on belief with no doubt , thats what faith is. You come to faith by evidence. An example in an earlier post by a definition from wiki said:
A man who walked tightropes could carry a man his his shoulders, but even though people saw it, and new he could do it, only the trainer had enough faith to get on his shoulders.
The evidence is there. But no one was willing to act on the evidence. They did not have faith in his ability, even after they saw him do it.
Same with science. If you don't believe in string theory, but believe : Hey its a decent theory. Can never prove it. But hey thats science right? What do you call the acceptance of string theory? What data does it REALLY have to back it up? As much as a man dying on a cross and raising from the dead three days later? More than a man who raised the dead? Even the Jews don't deny he did those things. Too many reliable witnesses. They just say he isn't who he said he is. Call him a prophet most do. A prophet, and a liar huh? So which is HE? Who did those things? He didn't stand to gain anything by it. Neither did his disciples who had to fight death in every town, sneaking out windows and running for their lives because what they said caused so much anger. But still they did it. Even after prison to prison. And still they had faith. And still they taught Jesus the son of God.
Now, with this data , what has more backing of empirical data: String theory? Or the many witnesses of Jesus of Nazareth?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 03-13-2008 8:43 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 03-14-2008 8:19 AM tesla has not replied
 Message 65 by Blue Jay, posted 03-14-2008 8:44 AM tesla has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 74 of 326 (460441)
03-15-2008 2:08 AM


all you do, you do by faith.
How can you perceive reality and say that your reality as perceived is the true reality?
It is based on your perception.
But what then can you say is definite in anything?
You say red is red. But we are not discussing the color red when discussing science. Your math is tentative. Your science is tentative. And only by faith can you study a "maybe" and believe it to be true enough to continue to study.
As you disagree, then so be it. But until you have answered: what is reality? and; what is existence? All that you perceive is potentially false and only by faith.
You have agreed that science is tentative. not definite. Then by your own admission: You study the truth of it, by accepting its potential not truth, but still do study it, on faith, that your calculations are reliable. So it is faith.
I have not answered all my replies individually because i have been set to a 30 minute limit on posting, and i dont have the time to come here every 30 minutes to make a post.
So for now, I wish to withdraw from this site, and go where God inspires me to do his work. As i have given you what he has shown me, so then observe it, study it , or not study it. The choice is yours.
God be with us all. And Gods will be done. So be it.
-Tim Brown

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by bluegenes, posted 03-15-2008 6:02 AM tesla has replied
 Message 78 by lyx2no, posted 03-15-2008 9:18 AM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 80 of 326 (460470)
03-15-2008 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by lyx2no
03-15-2008 9:18 AM


Re: All I do, I do by Pragmatism.
prag·ma·tism
Pronunciation: \'prag-m?-?ti-z?m\
Function: noun
Date: circa 1864
1 : a practical approach to problems and affairs
2 : an American movement in philosophy founded by C. S. Peirce and William James and marked by the doctrines that the meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief
” prag·ma·tist \-m?-tist\ adjective or noun
” prag·ma·tis·tic \?prag-m?-'tis-tik\ adjective
(b) Now intellectual knowledge may be defined in a general way as the union between the intellect and an intelligible object. But a truth is intelligible to us only in so far as it is evident to us, and evidence is of different kinds; hence, according to the varying character of the evidence, we shall have varying kinds of knowledge. Thus a truth may be self-evident -- e.g. the whole is greater than its part -- in which case we are said to have intuitive knowledge of it; or the truth may not be self-evident, but deducible from premises in which it is contained -- such knowledge is termed reasoned knowledge; or again a truth may be neither self-evident nor deducible from premises in which it is contained, yet the intellect may be obliged to assent to it because It would else have to reject some other universally accepted truth; lastly, the intellect may be induced to assent to a truth for none of the foregoing reasons, but solely because, though not evident in itself, this truth rests on grave authority -- for example, we accept the statement that the sun is 90,000,000 miles distant from the earth because competent, veracious authorities vouch for the fact. This last kind of knowledge is termed faith, and is clearly necessary in daily life. If the authority upon which we base our assent is human and therefore fallible, we have human and fallible faith; if the authority is Divine, we have Divine and infallible faith. If to this be added the medium by which the Divine authority for certain statements is put before us, viz. the Catholic Church, we have Divine-Catholic Faith (see FAITH, RULE OF).
Potato. Patata.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Faith
sorry to the rest of you. 30 minutes til i can post again
I'm going for coffee, anyone else want some? I'll e-mail you a cup *stretch* oh wait..we can't do that yet.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by lyx2no, posted 03-15-2008 9:18 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Admin, posted 03-15-2008 11:45 AM tesla has not replied
 Message 85 by lyx2no, posted 03-15-2008 8:47 PM tesla has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 83 of 326 (460473)
03-15-2008 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by bluegenes
03-15-2008 6:02 AM


Re: Universal assumption
Well done
The post was not meant for you, who understands that there are definite's in "reality".
There are those who do not believe that. and i wonder how they could not...
But to answer your questions:
Faith is action based on belief. so you act by what you know, But as you understand faith in your idea, that acting on what is perceived reality as opposed to what is definite reality, and that science is a definite reality based on empirical data. But the data empirical as you perceive it to be, is still a calculation based on the potential truth and not a definite assumption, as are unmistakable data such as red is red.
To understand my point on how science takes its empirical data by faith, read this post for definitions and an example of the faith of science in their data:
http://EvC Forum: Equating science with faith -->EvC Forum: Equating science with faith
to percy:
You do not like what i say, and so you control the debate. A lot of the debate defense I've seen against what i say is: Your stupid.
But if i was the stupid one, you would find a better defense.
The cut and paste of the threads is a common place event in debates. You have exercise your power to control my ability to do that while letting those you like do it excessively. Your biased. But that does not take away from the truths i offer to the debate. YOU take away my ability to debate thinking that i need time to think, when its obvious from your "wookie defense : ie "your stupid, thats why i cant offer you real data to defend against your argument") That YOU should be the one taking time to think.
Go ahead, exercise your power against me on this site, does it make you feel good? because in the end, the truth will be the truth. And i will not answer for you, but YOU will answer for yourself. Because the evidence has been before you, and you reject even the potential because you want to feel comfortable. But the truth IS. And i have YOU to thank for my understanding the truth of it. So i bear no ill to you for your obvious hatred of what i have said.
If you do not understand what i have said , it does not mean i cannot relay well, because i have relayed the truth in many different ways that are easy to understand, by all observable empirical data. If you cannot understand it, you should double check YOUR ability to understand.
Gods will be done, So be it.
-Tim Brown.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by bluegenes, posted 03-15-2008 6:02 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Admin, posted 03-15-2008 12:12 PM tesla has not replied
 Message 86 by bluegenes, posted 03-16-2008 9:05 AM tesla has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 298 of 326 (464298)
04-24-2008 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by 1071
04-22-2008 7:20 AM


Re: defining faith
The problem I have is when they (both sides) try to make it seem like their opinion on Origin, is science. I propose that neither are science. But both use science to try and prove their dogma.
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.
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.
sad that accepting faith in anything is impossible for some, who take for granted the faith they do have. its just arrogance really.
science and faith are not equal, as the topic of this thread seems to imply; 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. 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).
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. 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.
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.
so why deny it?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 7:20 AM 1071 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Blue Jay, posted 04-24-2008 5:56 PM tesla has not replied
 Message 300 by Rahvin, posted 04-24-2008 6:07 PM tesla has not replied
 Message 301 by Taz, posted 04-24-2008 6:53 PM tesla has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024