Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

I don't see how the failure of an equation causing the supposition of something totally new fits in with science assuming the null position until objective evidence comes along.

They absolutely could be. Not in the observed phenomenon-reason for inquiry kinda way.What objective reason does anyone have to suppose god exists? What objective phenomenon is leading to this question?If the question was for the strings in string theory, the logic would follow this way:Well we discovered molecules; inside them we found atoms. Then we thought, since there was something in the molecule, there might be something in the atom? And wouldn't you know it, there was. So we said fuck it, maybe there's something in the atom too, and boom, we find the nucleus; then we found quarks in them too. So we figured, logically the next step is to find out if there's something inside quarks - we (they) predict strings.That is logically sound. There is objective evidence and logical reasoning to suppose the string hypothesis (even if there will never be objective evidence for the string itself).There is no objective evidence to support the god hypothesis, or to even support the need for the "Is there a god?" question.In string theory, there is a reason to ask the question. There was stuff inside molecules, atoms, nucleus, quarks ... maybe there's something in quarks because it follows that there might be.The god question does not follow this level of logic. It is an out of the blue question with no objective reason to even ask.There is equally no reason to ask if there's a teapot orbiting Sirius. If there exists an IPU. If the FSM exists. If fairies exist. If unicorns exist. If god exists.These questions are unnecessary.- Oni

I don't think so. For one, I think my subjective experiences do necessitate the question so the lack of objectiveness doesn't really matter for me. For two, I think there is objective reasons to suppoes that god exists. The question IS relevent. That the millions of people could be wrong doesn't negate the objectiveness of the evidence nor it being a reason for the supposition of a god existing.

But that says nothing in support of the need to ask the question in the first place. There was a time when everyone believed in a geocentric solar system; in fact, a geocentric universe because they thought the solar system was all there was. There was a time when everyone thought the earth was flat. There was a time when everyone thought slavery was ok.Majority beliefs are evidence of nothing, other than majorities usually think alike. It is natural for a social group to share views and beliefs, even without reason. You need an objective phenomenon that requires an answer to suppose any hypothesis. What is the phenomenon that needs answering that the god hypothesis will answer?- Oni

Sure it does. Why do so many people believe? Maybe there really is a god. The supposition has begun. The popularity doesn't add weight to the veracity, but it is a reason to suppose. The majority of people believing that god does exist.

The thing is, they had two options:1) Go with the very accurate and highly useful equations that work in 99% of all cases, but add something to make that last 1% work, or2) Devise an entirely new set of equations that works as well as the first set of equations, but without the need to invoke Dark Matter, or any other unknown phenomenon.Until someone comes along with better equations, we're stuck with only the first opotion, really. And since the first anomalous solutions, we're finding corroborating evidence for dark matter. Science is all about tentativity. It holds to the current equations, if they work in most cases, until better equations come along. It doesn't take one anomalous reading to refute Evolution, Gravitation, Relativity, Germ Theory...it takes an anomalous reading AND a better set of equations. It's often much easier to fix the current equations, and dark matter is that "fix" for gravitation...unless you know of another way to fix them that doesn't require unknown phenomenon.

I don't doubt that you do, and that the question feel relevant to you. Like what? All it is reason for is to ask why those people feel the question is relevant.If I ask you why you feel it's relevant, and you answer, because a million people feel it's relevant. Then my next question is why a million people feel it's relevant? - Because a billion feel it's relevant? OK. Then why do a billion feel it's relevant? So on and so forth.You just moved the question from an individual to a group, to a larger group, to an even larger group - and no one answers the question.- Oni

It's the same as asking why the individual believes and saying maybe it's because there's a god; it's no difference by increasing the number of believers. But that doesn't give any reason to ask the question in the first place. No other question would be allowed to get away with that except for the god question.There is no area of scientific inquiry that is being studies because a million people believe it's true, or because they feel it should be asked. For everthing we study, there is objective reason to inquire other than popular belief.If we can all agree that the scientific method is the best way to investigate (and even RAZD had admitted this) then the god question should not be asked. Personal reason (subjective reasons) are not relevant in science; what eveidence supports the need to ask the question in the first place? Why? What's their reason?- Oni

Yeah, and you're right that in the context of scientific methodlogy, the question of god's existence is uneccessary. God never comes up in the lab. But outside of that, I think it is a relevant question and supposition is warranted. I think you're moving the goalpost.You said that there's no objective reason to suppose the existence of god. From a scientific standpoint, I tend to agree. But since that methodology doesn't work pratically for everyday situations, I've moved from the purely scientific standpoint. And then I think that its fairly easy to find an objective reason for the supposition. Old books saying so and the popularity of the belief are the first two reasons that came to mind. I think they're sufficient enough to at least suppose that god exists.

I don't think so. One guy could just be crazy. The majority of the people...not so much. It does just that. That soooo many people believe it is a reason, itself, to begin supposing. The scientific method is the best when dealing with objective evidence. When we're getting into things that we lack sufficient objective evidence for scientific inquiry, then we shouldn't use scietific methods anymore.And going the route of it lacking objective evidence meaning it isn't scientific is getting tautological. They all have their own. One guy saw a burning bush... that was objective evidence for him. But he could have been crazy. When we get to a large enough amount of people believing it, I maintain that it is a reason to suppose.

True - but you don't need million of people believing for such an observation to 'objective'. If one person believed that also would be objective evidence. If we're happy to abandon logic then anything is a reason to suppose the existence of god. The grass is green, the sky is blue, Steven is a name. None of them has any logical connection that leads from them to strengthening the hypothesis that god exists, though.I also point out there is a subtle paradox in your statement that allows for 'logically fallacious ' and 'reason' to be used in that manner. Many people would not regard the concept of a logically fallacious reason as a sensible or coherent one. Reason is tied with rationality and rationality is tied with logic.And this is where the confusion might come into play. When someone says there is no reason to suppose that any god exists, they mean there is presently nothing which can rationally increase our confidence in the proposition that god exists.This is easily confused with a similar idea.

The world will end tomorrow!!!!!

There is no reason to consider that the world will end tomorrow. But if I asked you why you considered the concept of the world ending tomorrow - you'd probably say something like, "I did so because you displayed the concept to me using words that I was unable to ignore."That is a reason to suppose that the world might end tomorrow (somebody brings it up), but it should not increase our confidence in the proposition that it will.So yes - lots of people believe in god and this fact is apparent to many of us. Therefore we are placed into a position of considering the existence of god. But that doesn't suggest that god can exist within the realms of reality, nor does it suggest that it does exist.Finally, saying that something 'might exist' is basically meaningless. All it means is that it cannot presently be demonstrated that it does not exist. And we don't need millions of people to believe in something to conclude that.

I'll answer this in the reply to this: One, you are advocating another method to investigate reality other than the scientific method. I disagree completely and I don't think you'll find much support for that.Two, we are not dealing with everyday situations; unless you're saying that everyday you're bombarded with situations that you cannot explain naturally.So it is my understanding that we are dealing with something unique, and specific.The scientific method is the best, and I'd say ONLY, approach to investigate.But here's another point, you said, highlighted above: "I've moved from the purely scientific standpoint..."Well, then you don't get to define the reason as objective! That's your subjective interpretation. So the reason only appears objective to you, because you are subjectively viewing it that way.- Oni

Who said anything about crazy?Let me try to break it down like this, people have decided to take a position on a question for which no reason has ever been shown to ask in the first place.Now, I agree that it seems like the majority has decided that there is a god. No doubt about that (although I think the numbers are rising for our side).But, what that majority failed to do was ask why the question was needed in the first place. And we could ask why that is.Well you alluded to it earlier as a reason for belief "my mom told me."Exactly. The question of god is already circulating in society so people are already picking a side at an early age - sometimes, they don't even get the chance to pick a side, they're just told he exists and period.In fact, Britanica started a thread about his 5 year old asking him about god. Well how did that 5 year old even know what the word "god" meant? She didn't ask him if atoms exist - somebody talked about god around her and she felt the question needed an answer.To me the best answer (not for the 5 year old mind you) is to ask someone, like I asked you, whats your reason for asking the question to begin with?If the best anyone can come up with is, well other people believe, then it seems like a logical reason isn't going to be found. And it seems like indoctrination is at work; we are indoctrinated to ask the question. 1 person, 1000 people, a million people, the question remains the same, whats the reason for asking?Indoctrination is the reason IMO. We are indoctrinated to ask the question. What other method would that be?Keep in mind that by saying we shouldn't use the scientific method, you're saying we should abandon formulating a hypothesis. Therefore you don't get to call "god" a hypothesis for an answer to a phenomenon. You abandon that right when you abandoned the scientific method and replaced it with anoher (yet to be described) method.You can't have it both ways. Explain. So we're back to the individual. A 2000 year old book, written by many (unknown) authors, claims in one of the stories that a guy saw a burning-bush ... lets call it what it is. And if a guy told you that today you would think he's fuck'n nuts. When do the individual accounts, like the crazy one you mention about a burning-bush, simply turn credible?How does a million crazy accounts (no different from one crazy account) become a thing to logically believe in?I know you want to maintain that it does, but why? You wouldn't let anything else get away with such BS ... why this?- Oni

My contention is with the phrasing and the underpinnings of " the absence of evidence is evidence of absence." That means if no evidence exists [in defense of one's proposition], that there is no evidence of that proposition is actually evidence that it is not true.But that is a faulty premise. As Wikipedia says, The Argumentum ad absurdum is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.I see now though that this topic really isn't related to the one we had a few weeks ago. Somehow that topic, which I discovered was closed, has now been assimilated in to this topic on faith and skepticism.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Why do they believe?Is belief itself evidence upon which to justify belief? Or is that circular? The fact that people believe in gods is objectively evidenced. The actual eistence of gods remains a wholly objectively unevidenced answer as to why people believe in gods. Can you seperate the belief itself from the possible reasons for belief? The fact that the theistic/deistic side of this entire debate need the atheists here to be ridiculous figures of black and white absolute certitude who apply illogical IF THEN fallacies to derive illogical conclusions is not my problem.I can only say "I don'tknow for certain" - "I cannot say 100% for sure" - "I don't know" so many times. By their very nature irrefutable claims are impossible to refute. Thus the logical possibilty exists. And nobody denies these possibilities. But the objective evidence for the possibility of human invention is immense whilst the obective evidence that suggests that gods even might exist is literally non-existant.Based on the objective evidence alone (the only evidence which we can assume to lead to conclusions superior to guessing - as we have established elsewhere) - Human invention is far more likely in relation to any given god concept than the actual existence of said god concept.Can you seperate the belief from the reasons for belief? That is the question. Or are you going to insist on the circular argument that belief itself somehow evidences that which is believed?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.