Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is personal faith a debatable topic?
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


(1)
Message 39 of 85 (563248)
06-04-2010 5:19 AM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Phage0070, posted 06-04-2010 3:56 PM Hawkins has replied
 Message 48 by Modulous, posted 06-04-2010 5:45 PM Hawkins has replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 75 of 85 (564350)
06-10-2010 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Phage0070
06-04-2010 3:56 PM


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:
I cannot see why you think this makes any sense at all. You say that God is unwilling to provide proof of its existence; that it is unwilling to provide any good reason for an atheist to believe in God over any other imaginary concept. Yet God expects them to do so.
Yet, again, he sees fit to personally meet with you and other believers in order to convince you utterly of his existence. Doesn't that seem backwards?
It is like Superman deciding to play Hide and Seek without telling you, hiding behind Pluto, and then when you don't find him murdering you in as horrifying a fashion as possible. Why can't you see how messed up that is?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Phage0070, posted 06-04-2010 3:56 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Phage0070, posted 06-10-2010 11:13 AM Hawkins has replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 76 of 85 (564351)
06-10-2010 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Modulous
06-04-2010 5:45 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Modulous, posted 06-04-2010 5:45 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2010 7:07 AM Hawkins has replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 82 of 85 (564968)
06-14-2010 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Modulous
06-10-2010 7:07 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2010 7:07 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Modulous, posted 06-14-2010 8:04 AM Hawkins has not replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 83 of 85 (564969)
06-14-2010 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Phage0070
06-10-2010 11:13 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Phage0070, posted 06-10-2010 11:13 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Phage0070, posted 06-14-2010 9:39 AM Hawkins 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