|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
If you hold to your original claim that because the odds are not 100% that this would happen that ANYTHING that could happen is going to happen REGARDLESS OF THE ODDS, then why don't you do the deed and see what happens?
Since your so smart, do I really need to explain the difference between the odds of something, and the idea of jumping off a bridge? The 2 are completely different, yet you still think that they have something to do with each other, for which you are famous for. I wouldn't jump off that bridge if the odds were 1% that I would crush my skull. I don't play games with my life, which has nothing to do with discussing odds.
Do you or don't you believe that this is an extremely likely outcome?
No, I don't. Like I said the odds for me personally might be 0%. The only way to find out is to jump. So we won't find out my odds. This is what I'm telling you. This is why odds are sometimes not good scientific data, or a reason to believe in one thing or another.
We can say this with strong confidence that approaches 100%, but since we are not omnicient, we could be wrong that gravity is in effect. There could be another force that we don't know about which is affecting us that we haven't found yet, or may never find.
Thats why I said if no outside forces get involved.
Besides, you do know that there are several various competing theories of gravity, don't you, and that we don't really understand how it works very well?
Yes I do, because we don't know the exact weight of planet earth, we cannot nail down the gravitational constant.
Is there an element of faith in statistics, riverrat? Is there an element of faith in probability figures? Is there an element of faith in mathematics?
Since statistics are taken by and recorded by man, oh yea.Just like church is run by man, thats why I don't really care for religion, but that doesn't stop me from going to church. Is probability an odd? lmao, Faith in it?You see all those people fleeing Florida because of a probabilty forcast? No thats faith. Mathematics? I used to think that math was a constant. 2+2will always =4. I have seen thinking contrary to that in this forum. So I am starting to wonder if math is a constant. I realize that some unproven mathematical formulas might require an element of faith to believe in, but maybe the easy stuff, or proven stuff will never change, as long as 1=1. If you can theorize when 1 does not = 1 then please enlighten me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
I don't see that. I don't think that it its clear. I see the passion that people belive in science and all its predicted outcomes. People in here even devote their lives to studying it. People in here, whether they would admit it or not would use certain aspects of science to not believe in God.
They have faith even if they think they don't. Just because they wouldn't admit it, doen't mean they don't have faith. Many people are trying to prove to me all these things are so close to being 100% that we should believe in them. Read that last scentence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
I don't have a problem with that, if that is the complete truth.
Just because a person is a scientist, doesn't make him 100% honest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
happy_atheist Member (Idle past 4935 days) Posts: 326 Joined: |
quote:Of course you do, every single thing you do is playing games with your life as you put it. When you cross the street there is a chance you'll get run over. Even if you look both ways very carefully you might have missed something. When you eat food theres a chance you might have a fatal allergic reaction to something inside it. You weigh the odds and only do those things were you think it's an acceptable risk. Obviously jumping off a bridge would not be an acceptable risk (unless maybe you had a bungee rope attached to you, but some people aren't even happy with that). This message has been edited by happy_atheist, 09-04-2004 10:41 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
happy_atheist Member (Idle past 4935 days) Posts: 326 Joined: |
I know, not all scientists are honest. I read in a science magazine a story about a very respected young scientist who'd maded some astounding discoveries. It turned out he'd either altered or just plain made up the results. He wasn't at all honest. The thing is it doesn't require everyone to be honest for the scientific method to work. If someone else can't replicate your results then you'll be found out. Unless every single scientist is grouping together in a big conspiracy to make up all the results and keep everything consistent then dishonesty won't work.
If all the scientists WERE doing that though, science would be useless. Nothing useful could possibly come of it, no new technology would work. Since things made from scientific discoveries do actually work (this computer for example), then I think it's fair to say that the majority of scientists are honest enough
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Right, which is why I do not accept things as fact no matter what the odds are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Right, but not only dishonesty can drive scientists to come up with wrong results.
It would seem nowadays that with the evidence for evolution being so strong that scientists would collect data and first see how it fits into an evolutionary model. If it doesn't fit or cannot be explained, then it would be put to the side until a later date when it could then be explained. Also, our ignorance to many things can keep us from knowing the truth. Go back into history and see all the scientific theories that have been, and see how they have been changed. But at the time it was accepted. Now we can look back at certain things and laugh. So 300 years from now we might look back at certain things we accept now, and laugh.I am not saying this will happen or not, but just that I won't let it be my God. I will accept what we know now as the best possible answers and use the science we now have to my benefit. But I will not accept it as fact. I just got done watching the science channel and they did a survey of judging peoples faces to be trust worthy or not. It was the most ridiculus thing I have ever seen, and they would accept it as scientific data is just plain stupid. I totally did not agree with the results, and that would be because we all have different way of looking at things. There is just way to many variables involved for a survey like that to ever be accurate or be of any use. But that didn't stop them from trying it, and then publishing the results on TV, then the general public would look at it and say, "oh". Its science media. To me all media sucks. It takes a lot for me to accept something as being true, as I have seen too much lies. The only thing to me that remains true is God's word, and his promises. I can look into someones eye's and the Holy Spirit would tell me right away if this person is trust worthy or not. I do not need to judge him by his/her features.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
happy_atheist Member (Idle past 4935 days) Posts: 326 Joined: |
Thats fine, no theory is ever meant to be taken as 100% true. If it was it would become dogma and unchanging, which would be a bad thing. In science theories are never facts. Facts are plain observations. It is a fact that massive bodies have an attractive force because this is observed. General Relativity is not a fact though, its a theory that is used to explain the facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
happy_atheist Member (Idle past 4935 days) Posts: 326 Joined: |
Well I have no idea of the validity of the results in that experiment so I won't comment on them. I don't doubt that psychology is a very hard place to get conclusive data though. I'm sure we'd have to look into the actual research papers to see just how valid or invalid the results are though, the media has a way of slanting things one way or the other.
quote:If you do not need to judge someone by their features then you do not need to see them (or have ever met them) to determine if they're lying or not. In fact you should be able to tell me if someone is trustworthy or not without knowing anything about them at all. This message has been edited by happy_atheist, 09-04-2004 01:25 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Judging by your post count, you are new here. But as you go along and read, people will argue that based on a collective amount of evidences that it is so over welming, that evolution is fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
In fact you should be able to tell me if someone is trustworthy or not without knowing anything about them at all.
Yes, but I would have to meet them at least, and experience some sort of exchange with them, and then be able to judge if what they are saying is coming from a trust worthy source.I wouldn't even try to judge someone I have never meet or had any dealings with, its not my place to. Also doing it over the internet doesn't seem to work, because its too easy to lie. Remember I need to see the persons eyes. I could make a general assumption based on what a person writes, but I still wouldn't know if it was coming from their heart. This increases with the more writing that goes back and forth. I would judge by the short conversations that we had, that for the most part you seem trust worthy, and a realist. But that is only based on the actual words that were exchanged, not who you really are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
happy_atheist Member (Idle past 4935 days) Posts: 326 Joined: |
I'm new at posting, but i've been reading the board for some time. Anyway, evolution is a fact in that it is observed to happen. The facts have a theory to explain them. It is exactly the same with gravity, gravity is observed to happen (therefore fact), and it has a theory that explains it. General Relativity is not a fact, it is a theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
happy_atheist Member (Idle past 4935 days) Posts: 326 Joined: |
Thanks, you seem trustworthy too. Maybe view the world very differently to me, but that makes it more interesting.
riVerRat writes: What I don't understand is why you'd have to meet someone to tell if they're lieing if you're not actually using their features (eye contact, voice intonation etc). The only advantage I can see to meeting someone is that you'd get to see their features. Maybe i'm not getting what you meant though.
Yes, but I would have to meet them at least, and experience some sort of exchange with them, and then be able to judge if what they are saying is coming from a trust worthy source.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
I said I would have to look into their eyes, and then ask the Holy Spirit if they were honest.
I use the Holy Spirit as a guide in my life at least 90% of the time. The other 10% would be me just being me, and usually screwing up or trying to take on the world, or something. Nothing too bad though. I am human.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
I agree with gravity, but I am not so sure I agree with evolution as being fact. I went thourgh a huge discussion about this, and it may be me just being stubborn, or I might just have a valid point.
Either way its not a lock that, that is how we got here. Even it was, I would be fine with that.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024