Is personal faith a debatable topic?

More accurately perhaps, if something is true then then it would imply certain things. If those things are observed that that gives us a little more confidence that the something is true. It's a little more complicated than that, but I think it is a bit better than your wording.What is the black hole to the stone age men? does black gives any thing observed to the stone age men? Or do you mean that black hole doesn't exist in stone age.In the whole history of humanity, we are now perhaps in the 'stone age' as well. We know black hole now, but do we know everything in this universe? Do you observed everything in this unverse? Perhaps you think it a yes while I think it a no.

quote:

---

Your personal conviction, as you point out, is not always sufficient grounds to persuade somebody else. After all, humans have a lot of convictions many of which have been shown to be false.

​

Sounds a bit odd. On the one hand he gives empirical proof to some people (I would call, meeting God personally to be empirical proof) but not others? Why can he not simply meet with everybody on their sixteenth birthday? That way, it'd still require that we trust that he is god and not a powerful alien (so faith would still exist) - but he would be able to differentiate himself from a random hallucination/epileptic episode/stroke/numinous experience/etc.

---

The good is not everyone needs empirical proof to believe, to them nothing is necessary to be given to persuade him. That's what the "tailor" means. To give out evidence makes a difference from give out proof. That's the point.

quote:

---

If someone has faith that they met Allah and Muhammed - do you think it is possible to have any form of debate, meeting of the minds, constructive discussion with regards to it? Or do you feel they would simply stick to their guns about their personal conviction that the Koran is the Word of God?

---

It seems to me that you totally miss out what I was trying to say. Quite speechless to me. People believe whatever they believe but that wouldn't be able to refute that God gives personal experience to those who have faith in Him. Geez, what's that to do with other religions at all.It seems to me that you are trying to say that because a truth cannot be cleary presented to you such that the truth must not exist?!Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

I didn't say anything of the sort and you didn't bother to explain how you deduced that the concept of developing a hypothesis and confirming it with observation means that prior to the observation and hypothesis the thing in question didn't exist, from my post. I'm all for Cancer Research. Think about that. So God gives tailored evidence to his audience. He gives nothing to those that started with faith. How is refusing to give empirical evidence to empiricists an example of "tailored evidence to everyone's belief system to allow it to choose to believe "? Yeah, I was trying to address the topic of whether personal faith is something that can be debated. Sorry about that. The question is: Do you think you can have meaningful and constructive discussion with a person that has faith that Muhammed and Allah gave them a personal message or whatever? Is their personal faith something that can be meaningfully or constructively debated? No. You made that up from your own personal biases about the kinds of things you think your opponents think. It does not remotely reflect my views.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I didn't say what the model of the BB was, so how can you alledge that I don't understand it? I said there was no possible model for the alleged singularity event, the thesis premise of the whole she-bang.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Thanks much, IchiBan. It's unusual for anyone here to appreciate what makes good sense. [/qs]

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Better yet, to get the profane to admit to the possibility of evidence observed being applicable to the existence of a higher level of intelligence in the universe than that of us little creatures on this tiny little planet tucked away in one of the billions of galaxies.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

My point is that such a prediction could theoretically be falsified; the fact that it hasn't tells us it is very likely to be correct.Contrast this with a religious concept that cannot be falsified, such as an undetectable unicorn. These sorts of claims are completely untestable because there is no experiment or result that could possibly disprove the unicorn's existence. If the results of all possible experiments are identical regardless of the truth or untruth of the claim, we shouldn't be impressed by observations being in line with its expectations. So I don't seem to "get it" and because if this I *cannot* "get it", because it is about something involving law and eternity. Also, if I don't "get it" now after such an expose you further admonish me against drawing my own conclusions.Could you please restate this bit? It looks like you are asking me to turn off my brain...

quote:

---

I didn't say anything of the sort and you didn't bother to explain how you deduced that the concept of developing a hypothesis and confirming it with observation means that prior to the observation and hypothesis the thing in question didn't exist, from my post.

---

You don't seem to get my point. So now you realise that black holes did exist in Stone Age, right? Yet humans in stone never found any evidence of the existence of black holes, right?It says, something not evident to humans can still be a truth. Right?

quote:

---

The question is: Do you think you can have meaningful and constructive discussion with a person that has faith that Muhammed and Allah gave them a personal message or whatever? Is their personal faith something that can be meaningfully or constructively debated?

---

If I can establish a talk with you, why can't I establish a talk with those believe in Allah?! In the end, we are betting on who holds the truth.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

quote:

---

My point is that such a prediction could theoretically be falsified; the fact that it hasn't tells us it is very likely to be correct.

---

I used a scientific rule as an example to illustrate that science is about natural rule cannot be falsified by experiments.Yet you ask how if the example is falsified. 1) You question is totally irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. 2) If the example is falsified, then the rule I used for such an illustration is not scientific at all. So what example do you want me to use to illustrate what science is, as for every example I use you seem to have query that what if that example can be falsified and is not thus not scientific.It doesn't make sense at all. If you try query the truth of the example I used, you may open another thread to discuss how to falsify 2H2O = 2H2 + O2.

quote:

---

Contrast this with a religious concept that cannot be falsified, such as an undetectable unicorn. These sorts of claims are completely untestable because there is no experiment or result that could possibly disprove the unicorn's existence. If the results of all possible experiments are identical regardless of the truth or untruth of the claim, we shouldn't be impressed by observations being in line with its expectations.

---

You don't need this explanation becaue religion simultaneously means something not falsifiable by scientific mean.

quote:

---

So I don't seem to "get it" and because if this I *cannot* "get it", because it is about something involving law and eternity. Also, if I don't "get it" now after such an expose you further admonish me against drawing my own conclusions.

---

Your query doesn't make sense to me, that further discussion is thus made impossible. I guess you misunderstood the what falsifiability of science is. Scientific rules are not falsifable by experiements. Yet scientific rules are considered as "falsifyable" which means "if the so-called science rule is not scientific at all, you can establish an experienment to falsify it".Falsifyability of science says that, if a rule is suspect of false, it can then be falsified by the correct establishment of experiment using critical data. Such an approach is not applicable to religious stuff, thus religious stuff are said to possess no falsifyability.Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

Yep, and in Jurassic too. I think that would be a safe conclusion to reach. It says that something for which we have not acquired evidence can be true. And that's why I support science research: to acquire the necessary evidence to uncover those things which we didn't know about and add them to the list of things that we can say we now know about.You think that my point is that 'since there is no evidence it must be false' - but I didn't say that. You made it up. All I said was "if something is true then then it would imply certain things. If those things are observed that that gives us a little more confidence that the something is true." Not just talking, obviously. I mean debating of the faith itself. Do you think you can question, argue against, and debate a Muslims faith with any satisfying end?
Or would the Muslim become socially annoyed by your constantly not taking his faith seriously enough to not argue against it?
Or would the debate simply go around in pointless circles for hours?That's what I am asking.

See, you have it all wrong. Being able to be falsified is a crucial element in an example being subject to scientific testing! For example:Water decomposing into hydrogen and oxygen could, in theory, be falsified by it decomposing into something else. The fact that it is never falsified lends credence to the prediction.The presence of an undetectable pink unicorn cannot be falsified. The fact that it is never falsified lends absolutely no credence to any predictions made.The first example is part of science, the second isn't. No, that is a dodge used by theists. For instance in the Bible the apostle Thomas wouldn't accept that Jesus was resurrected without being able to observe him and verify that he was wounded. A number of things could falsify the religious claims at that point; Jesus's wounds being fake for instance, or the person claiming to be Jesus reborn not being Jesus. Jesus not being wounded at all would suggest some sort of double was executed, and the body conveniently removed to hide the deception.There are plenty of religious beliefs that can be falsified by science. It is just generally the case that once such beliefs are falsified by science, the believers either abandon their god or push it back into gaps in our knowledge where science has not yet advanced. Many theists are engaged in constant backpedaling; creationists would be a prime example. You are misunderstanding what "scientific" means. Science is a method of determining truth and reality, not a shorthand for describing something as real and true. Someone could make completely incorrect predictions based on a flawed theory, do experiments, and be proven all wrong while also being completely scientific. Correction: It doesn't apply to most religious stuff that hasn't been abandoned in the face of scientific evidence. The advancement in our knowledge for the most part crushed those superstitions that lay in its path, so religious ideas today tend to cling to areas that are untestable by definition. This isn't an inherent quality of religion, it is an inherent quality of *what is left*.