|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is personal faith a debatable topic? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hawkins Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 150 From: Hong Kong Joined:
|
Truth is evidence independent. Evidence is for a human brain (or rather human belief system) to recognise a truth. There's always a gap between what's inside a human's brain (belief system) and what the truth itself is. When the gap is reduced to 0, our brain hits a truth, yet we can never be sure about if it's truly a 0. That's where the Matrix advocate is coming from.
Because each and every human belief system is unique, that's why what's evident to someone may not be evident enough to another. Science is a bit special. Science is about the discovery of existing natural rules. These natural rules can predict precisely for your brain (belief system) to reckon them as the truth. For example, water will decompose into oxygen and hydrogen. You can use this rule to predict that water everywhere inside this universe will decompose so. Before each and every experiment you can expect that the result is so, or to say that no experimental results can falsify your prediction, no experiments can falsify this rule. As a result, the so-called empirical evidence is actually an imaginary evidence which possesses the effect of fooling a certain mass of people's belief systems to belief in something is a truth. God is to give tailored evidence to everyone's belief system to allow it to choose to believe that whether He's a truth or not. He will not give the so-called non-existing 'empirical proof' to a mass of atheists, as people will not need the required faith this way. And without the required faith they can't be saved. Now assuming that you've met with God personally and are 100% sure about His existence, and how will you be able to show others that it is true that God exists?!?!?! You will find that there's not any efficient way for such a kind of truth to be conveyed among humans. Even when you are 100% sure about it, others will have to need faith either to accept or to reject what you said. To simply put, witnessing and testimony are already of the most efficient way for your truth to be conveyed. And coincidently this is what Christianity is, witnessing and testimonies. Moreover, red unicorn may not be unicorn at all if 1/3 human beings buy into your story, including the most intelligent ones such as Issac Newton. To that extent, a skeptic deserves human efforts to dig up the truth behind it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hawkins Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 150 From: Hong Kong Joined: |
2H2O = 2H2 + O2
Do you mean that the above does not hold true in the field of chemitry? If you can falsify the above, it only means that the above is either not scientific, or you are exploring into a deeper paradigm similar to Newtonian laws vs relativity (in this case the rule is not considered as being falsified).
quote: If you can't get it. That's because you don't seem to get it. It's not some kind of hide and seek, it's about His Law and eternity. Get it? (if not don't draw your conclusion). Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given. Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hawkins Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 150 From: Hong Kong Joined: |
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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hawkins Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 150 From: Hong Kong Joined: |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hawkins Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 150 From: Hong Kong Joined: |
quote: 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: You don't need this explanation becaue religion simultaneously means something not falsifiable by scientific mean.
quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024