Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,649 Year: 4,906/9,624 Month: 254/427 Week: 0/64 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Degrees of Faith?
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4014 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 61 of 86 (390305)
03-19-2007 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by goldenlightArchangel
03-19-2007 5:53 PM


Re: PERPETUAL ETERNAL COVENANT`s SYNCHRONY leaves no room for faith
is synchrony a word?
and why did you reply this to me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 03-19-2007 5:53 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 03-20-2007 1:15 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
goldenlightArchangel
Member (Idle past 1238 days)
Posts: 583
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 62 of 86 (390450)
03-20-2007 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by macaroniandcheese
03-19-2007 6:22 PM


Re: PERPETUAL ETERNAL COVENANT`s SYNCHRONY leaves no room for faith
-
Wrote: why did you reply this to me?
In the instrinsic reason why you replied to me first, to share knowledge/understanding.
-
Wrote: is synchrony a word?
Yes
Synchrony \Syn"chro*ny\, n.
The concurrence of events in time; synchronism. [R.]
[1913 Webster]
synchrony
n : the relation that exists when things occur at the same time;
"the drug produces an increased synchrony of the brain
waves" [syn: synchronism, synchronicity,
synchroneity, synchronization, synchronisation,
synchronizing] [ant: asynchronism]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-19-2007 6:22 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-20-2007 1:37 PM goldenlightArchangel has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4014 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 63 of 86 (390453)
03-20-2007 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by goldenlightArchangel
03-20-2007 1:15 PM


Re: PERPETUAL ETERNAL COVENANT`s SYNCHRONY leaves no room for faith
oh i see. god, i don't even remember that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 03-20-2007 1:15 PM goldenlightArchangel has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 64 of 86 (390579)
03-21-2007 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Omnivorous
01-12-2007 11:02 PM


Once again I am answering something from early in the thread without reading the whole thread. This was interesting to me, though.
I think your definition of faith as "belief without regard to reason" is a fair one
Can be. I'm a believer in Christ, and I don't like that kind of faith.
I especially like "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" as offered by my Webster's.
This seems much different to me from that first definition, and I have no problem with this one.
Faith does not admit of degrees--you either believe or you do not; that belief may be weak or strong in the face of challenge, but the state itself is absolute. Science, however, admits of a broad spectrum of confidence, ranging from "it looks like it might be" to "it almost certainly is."
What if I'm a religious person, and I say, "This seems very likely to be true, but I can't know for certain, of course." What if I think that based on reason and evidence (good or bad, we're not judging the quality of the reasoning or evidence here; let's assume it's not great reasoning or evidence). Do I have faith? I'm not certain, but I am religious (in this scenario). Does this qualify as faith?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Omnivorous, posted 01-12-2007 11:02 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by nator, posted 03-21-2007 9:28 AM truthlover has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2256 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 65 of 86 (390587)
03-21-2007 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by truthlover
03-21-2007 8:41 AM


quote:
What if I'm a religious person, and I say, "This seems very likely to be true, but I can't know for certain, of course." What if I think that based on reason and evidence (good or bad, we're not judging the quality of the reasoning or evidence here; let's assume it's not great reasoning or evidence). Do I have faith? I'm not certain, but I am religious (in this scenario). Does this qualify as faith?
I'd say that you were an Agnostic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by truthlover, posted 03-21-2007 8:41 AM truthlover has not replied

  
jessie
Member (Idle past 5136 days)
Posts: 74
Joined: 03-08-2004


Message 66 of 86 (390660)
03-21-2007 12:55 PM


Hi,
In a belief there is no sureness, no conviction but only a credit to something which may or may not be true which is very much like guessing or assuming.
I would rather know and not guess, not assume that what I hear may or may not be true.
That is why I don't believe nor listen and follow the wide path that belongs to re'legions.

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by truthlover, posted 03-21-2007 1:40 PM jessie has not replied
 Message 68 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 03-22-2007 6:17 PM jessie has not replied
 Message 69 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 03-23-2007 6:06 PM jessie has not replied
 Message 86 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 06-13-2007 5:20 PM jessie has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 67 of 86 (390669)
03-21-2007 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by jessie
03-21-2007 12:55 PM


So you'd guess that it's probably safe to follow no religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by jessie, posted 03-21-2007 12:55 PM jessie has not replied

  
goldenlightArchangel
Member (Idle past 1238 days)
Posts: 583
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 68 of 86 (390960)
03-22-2007 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by jessie
03-21-2007 12:55 PM


CREDERE - The type of credit that is not possible to be covered
Hi SALVADEJAH,
-
CREDERE is the word in Roman language that came to be translated as BELIEVE.
The word CREDERE which means ”give a credit’ has been utilized to designate the giving of TWO types of credit: The financial credit and the spiritual credit.
-
The financial credit is given through money, gold and material things.
The spiritual credit is given through low grades of spiritual *adjuration[solemn promise], in which spiritually one highlights the trusting that this type of credit is worth more [or would be more valuable] than a simple word [spoken whether through a quiet and secret request or a simple yes or no answer].
-
* [Only the Most Holy, who has the right to TERMINATE(put an end), has the right to INITIATE a spiritual or eternal promise].
-
** [The word adjure(solemn promise) originated from the Roman word Giurare (swear) to which has also been attributed the meaning of ”interest’(financial interest), in Latin languages like the Portuguese word ”juros’ that means swear and financial interest].
-
If you give spiritual credit, you’re making a short form of spiritual adjuration, for spiritually you do not own those credits to give [Your spirit is not a property of your own; you do not have the right to touch or compromise it whenever you want].
-
When a spiritual credit is given, one submits his/her spirit under adjuration. For in the eternal instructions YAHWEH says that man ought not to do anything that could violate the integrity of the KADHESH[separation; holiness] of your body as well as to not do anything similar with regard to your spirit[the living electricity that runs through the nerves; the energy into the inward part of your body].
-
Your spirit is a property of which the Word that became flesh said to keep in total KADHESH to YAHWEH of the Hosts.
-
And if you grant spiritual credit you’re giving what you do not have [while giving a credit from what you yourself could not own]. Your spirit is not a property which you could own or have the right to touch by the means through which a spiritual credit is given, as if you could take convincement from it or make it believable.
-
The giving of spiritual credit is only possible through utilizing the system of religion, the wide door of spiritual abominations/faiths of the earth, a spiritual trading that results, in fact, in convincement before men or one oneself in the measure that he/she self-promotes his/her spirit by proving (through religious faith) that the system’s absent elohim (which is seriously in need to be believed in order to exist), or [adulterated] versions of scripture can provide him/her more access to the type of credits that he/she gives.
-
For it is not possible to keep spiritual believing(or faith) without the giving of spiritual credit, as well as it is not possible to give spiritual credit without resulting in one-oneself making him/herself believable, which is also spiritual self-promotion and opressive arrogance. For, to who is it that he/she is making his/her spirit believable to?
If not to men nor to him/herself, then where is the fragment of scripture in the entire Ancient Testamente proving [or giving the understanding] that the Most Holy would ever reward man for making him/herself believable?
-
Instead, YAHWEH’s eternal words firm into the Rock [Hebrew scripture as originally written] attest through JeremYah that nothing ought to ever give spiritual credits to man, whether spiritually trusting in man or receiving spiritual credits from man.
-
The eternal rejection is clear [in the eternal instructions, Ancient Testament] against the spiritually imposed doctrines of faith/abomination that have kept the bizarre habit of stating that the Word that became flesh would receive or be interested in the receiving of spiritual credits from man.
-
It is through the word from the mouth that one ought to be justified, whether through a quiet and secret request or a simple yes or no answer. The word only is what SYNCHRONIZES you with the natural purpose to which you were made: to let YAHWEH’s Spirit of KADHESH inhabit and be sheltered by you, knowing that the Most Holy does not only want your body,
but wants you.
-
In the time of the times,
by getting rid of the type of credit that is not possible to be covered,
there is a chance he/she will be there under the clouds of shining glory of the perpetual name that remains eternally.
-
Through fidelitate[being constant] is [manifest] the substance of what is HOPED.
As well as
Through fidelitate[being permanent] is [manifest] the evidence of things not seen.
-
What is the real substance that Abraham HOPED??
Answer: Isaac
For through being constant[FIDELITY]
is [manifest by the power of YAHWEH]
the real substance, in this case, Isaac.
-
What is the true evidence that was not seen before Abraham heard [from YAHWEH] that it was his FIDELITY[Abraham’s consistent permanence] that needed to be proven true??
Answer: the lamb to die in the place of his son
Is [in that moment]
the evidence of what was not seen, before that moment.
The completeness of voice and total accuracy of the New [including all the letters and writing of the apostles],
You will only find by bringing up the Song of the Lamb [the New and perpetual eternal covenant] straight and directly SIDE BY SIDE with the Song of Mosheh [the books of the Ancients].
-
-------------------------------------------This has been updated for consistency:
-
Was it a believing [credere; religious faith] that had to be proven true?
No. For it is through receiving the type of credit that is from the spirit of man, [(which the man himself does not own neither have the right to touch by the means of spiritual convincement; to make himself believable)], that one does spiritually trust in the spirit of man
-
What is it that had to be proven true?
-
Answer: The PRESENCE of Abraham’s total fidelitate to YAHWEH of the Hosts
-
Updated definition of fidelity - fidelitate - Constant permanence on remaining true and firm with regard to giving the right of precedency to an only one.
-
credere - Presence of believing(faith or non-hesitation) to any elohim who is seriously in need to be believed in order to exist, shows up momentarily in the brains that are cauterized by religion.
-
fidelitate - PRESENCE of constant permanence on remaining true and firm with regard to giving the right of precedency to the words/instructions of an Only 0ne only can be proven through a real fact.
-
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : updating
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : updating

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by jessie, posted 03-21-2007 12:55 PM jessie has not replied

  
goldenlightArchangel
Member (Idle past 1238 days)
Posts: 583
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 69 of 86 (391163)
03-23-2007 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by jessie
03-21-2007 12:55 PM


UPDATED Definition of Fidelity - fidelitate
Hi SALVADEJAH,
-
-
-------------------------------------------This has been updated for consistency:
-
Was it a believing [credere; religious faith] that had to be proven true?
-
No. For it is through receiving the type of credit that is from the spirit of man, [(which the man himself does not own neither have the right to touch by the means of spiritual convincement; to make himself believable)], that one does spiritually trust in man and makes [from the spirit of man's] flesh his [spiritual] arm [or spiritual strength].
-
What is it that had to be proven true?
-
Answer: The PRESENCE of Abraham’s total fidelitate to YAHWEH of the Hosts
-
Updated definition of fidelity - fidelitate - Constant permanence on remaining true and firm with regard to giving the right of precedency to an only one.
-
credere - Presence of believing(faith or non-hesitation) to any elohim who is seriously in need to be believed in order to exist, shows up momentarily in the brains that are cauterized by religion.
-
fidelitate - PRESENCE of constant permanence on remaining true and firm with regard to giving the right of precedency to the words/instructions of an Only 0ne only can be proven through a real fact.
-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by jessie, posted 03-21-2007 12:55 PM jessie has not replied

  
goldenlightArchangel
Member (Idle past 1238 days)
Posts: 583
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 70 of 86 (400356)
05-12-2007 5:44 PM


hidden treasure
Hi,
I'd like your view point on this
CREDIBILITY. Worthiness of belief. To entitle a witness to credibility, he must be competent. - [Law Dictionary at Datasegment]
Competence \Com"pe*tence\, Competency \Com"pe*ten*cy\, n. tence, from L. competentia agreement.
1. The state of being competent; fitness; ability; adequacy;
power.
-
lef - To man was not given the spiritual competence to entitle the Eternal to credibility.
-
Bet - It is not of man's competence to measure or evaluate the Eternal's credibility, for the one who entitles to credibility must have that type of spiritual competence.
-
Gímel - Man does not have the spiritual competence to entitle the Eternal to credibility, much less competence if it is done through a man's work on a belief, credere or giving of spiritual credit.
-
Dálet - It is not possible for man to give spiritual credits before the Amazing and Excellent presence of the Eternal YHWH, for everything that results from man’s measurement and evaluation on the Eternal’s credibility, including man's work on belief or credere, will tend to discontinue.
-
He - If the one who entitles the Eternal to credibility does not have that type of spiritual competence, much less competence will he have to affirm that the Eternal would have ever said that spiritual credits from man’s works on belief would be received.
-
This has been updated for consistency,
-
Vav - It is not possible to the one that intends to work on a strong belief or give spiritual credit, to do it without man spiritually entitling himself competent enough to measure or evaluate YHWH’s Worthiness of belief - credibility, for the one that says 'I believe' - for a spiritual purpose - must be sure that the spiritual credit he gives will validate, or 'credit as true', what truth is supposed to be.
-
Záyin - In the time that 'believe' spiritually means 'to credit as true', the one that credits must support by the foundation - the Testimony of the Law and of the Prophets - that he was given the competence to validate, or 'credit as true', what truth is supposed to be.
-
1st. - In which fragment of scripture do the eternal words attest that the loyal ones ought not to call on [the name that requests total KADHISH-holiness] through the path of belief or a type of reliance that is doctrinal image and likeness of credere [giving of spiritual credit]??
Two responses to this are found in the books of the Prophets. - the two entries are found synchronized in IsaYah and JeremYah.
-
2nd. - Was it given to man the spiritual authority to have the final say on whether YHWH is worthy to be credited or not??
-
In the beginning and in the sequence of times,
to man was given only one form of evaluation by which it is lawful for him to ascertain and evaluate the Eternal's authenticity and righteousness.
And that only one form - love with all his/her understanding, giving ears, seeing, listening and ascertaining with love.
-
3rd. - Is belief [credere or any credibility's measurement line from man's heart] not a 'work on' of man??
-
4th. - Is it lawful for the spirit of man to evaluate YHWH's credibility [or validity] by measuring it through the measurement line that is called credere/belief and man's final say on whether he credits or not??
-
In the field at IsaYah and JeremYah there are proofs that it is not just a question of what nor who the people fears, but ”what type of spiritual fear?’ and ”through which way or path do they fear?’:
For, if he/she is in the ways of YHWH, now as in the beginning,
to man is given the total authority to love the Most Holy above all things,
and to man was not given the spiritual authority to have the final say on whether YHWH is worthy to be credited or not. - Is this love with all his/her understanding and ascertaining?'
As if it was not attested at IsaYAH, in the scriptures as originally written, that 'to YHWH of the Hosts you shall regard in a separate way' - way - a real and total KADHISH-holiness to YHWH.
For one ought not to call upon the KADHISH-holiness of the Most Holy by the same means that Romanesca Mother church prostitute and her protestant daughters have been doing: through the path of belief and by credere - for it is by belief - the way - the path - that man becomes the begetter or father [the one who has the final say] of his belief, like the demon [the father of the beliefs/lies] that does not know what truth is by simply giving ears [through seeing, reading, hearing, listening, inclining all his/her understanding] to a word or instruction.
It is very easy to believe. But this - the question that the Word that became flesh has been asking in the manuscripts as originally written: ”Will you keep emunah [total fidelitate] to YHWH alone??’
is about constant permanence on remaining firm and true with regard to giving the right of precedency to the word of an only One.
The doctrinal image of the scarlet beast says: ..do you believe..’ - But if the way through which you call upon the name that remains eternally is YHWH’s way, path and means, then that is a narrow door and tight trail.
[truth is YHWH’s word and instruction, which the father of beliefs/lies does not know nor comprehend, but believes only].
In the time that you find the treasure, then it will be viewed that whatever spiritual adjuration, or solemn vow from the spirit of man, that is done having these two elements:
I. - man’s purpose from the heart.
II. - man believing that his spirit[of man] was given the authority of having the final say on whether a word [or YHWH, or YHWH’s instruction] is worthy to be credited as true or not.
does fit with the giving of spiritual credits, belief, that are the means and the ways by which one calls upon jesus [the man's name that the inhabitants of the land do claim to fame] or belief’s Lord-God.
Would you be praised for being treated with that same type of reliance [belief's measurement of validity and credibility from the praise and worshipping doctrinal image] that Romanesque Mother prostitute church and the protestant daughters do treat their jesus or belief’s Lord-God??
------------------------------------------ English Standard paraphrased
For YHWH spoke thus to me with his strong hand upon me, and warned me not to walk in the way of this people, saying:
"Do not call [through the] adjuration [of] all that this people calls [in their] [solemn] adjurations,
and do not fear [through the ways of] their fear, nor be in dread.
But YHWH of hosts, him you shall regard in a holy[separate] way. Let him [YHWH'S presence] be [the cause of] your fear, and let him be your dread.
[Let the presence of YHWH alone be the origin and cause of your spiritual trembling-evidence, rather than whatever is caused by belief or 'work on' from the heart of man. - wherever one is present, there is no need of belief that he is there]. - Blessed are those whose heart is kept clean, for they will see YHWH.
*heart is kept clean from trash, belief, doctrines of faith, credere or anything that cares to bring up to memory that the Eternal words would supposedly need to be credited or validated 'as true' as something that man [through belief] evaluates to be true in order for it to not be treated as trash. - As if the spirit of man could take from himself the measurement line to evaluate what truth is, as well as to validate the Eternal's credibility on whether the Most Holy would be walking the line or not.
Pure \Pure\, a. [Compar. Purer; superl. Purest.] among my elected ones. I will hope in YHWH, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob, and I will hope in him. Behold, I and the children whom YHWH has given me are signs and portents in Israel from YHWH of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.
To the Law [or Instruction] and to the Testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.
------------------------------------------- Holman Standard paraphrased:
For this is what YHWH said to me with great power, to keep me from going the way of this people:
Do not call an alliance, everything [that]
these people call [in their] alliance.
Do not fear their [type of] fear;
do not be terrified.
The above paraphrases were founded in the following translations that bring up the word conjuration [solemn spiritual adjuration] rather than other terms that helped to keep the treasure hidden:
Italian
**Poiché cosí mi ha parlato l'Eterno con mano potente e mi ha avvertito di non camminare per la via di questo popolo, dicendo:
**Non chiamate congiura tutto ci che questo popolo chiama congiura, non temete ci che esso teme e non spaventatevi.
L'Eterno degli eserciti, lui dovete santificare. Sia lui il vostro timore, sia lui il vostro spavento. - La Nuova Diodati - Isaiah - The vision concerning Judah and - Bible Gateway
Portuguese
..me disse com mo forte, e me ensinou que no andasse pelo caminho deste povo, dizendo:
**, No chameis conjurao, a tudo quanto este povo chama conjurao; e no temais o seu temor, nem tampouco vos assombreis.
Ops...
Spanish
... y me ense que no caminase por el camino de este pueblo, diciendo:
**No llaméis, conjuracin, a todas las cosas a que este pueblo llama conjuracin; ...
Anonymous (Bible): Holy Bible: Spanish Sagradas Escrituras - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
The word conjuration - from Ancient Roman Language 'conjurare', to swear together - If Scripture was to be interpreted spiritually, then the words conjuration[or spiritual adjuration] in that fragment ought to be interpreted as an spiritual invocation or evocation [the latter in the sense of binding by a vow from the spirit of man]. - wikipedia says: The word ”conjuration’ is often used synonymously with "invocation", although the two are not synonyms. One who performs conjurations is called a conjurer or conjuror.
.
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : Paragraphs at Vav and Zayin
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : truth is
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update Vav and Zayin

  
goldenlightArchangel
Member (Idle past 1238 days)
Posts: 583
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 71 of 86 (400736)
05-16-2007 1:55 PM


Is there competence to validate, by belief, what truth is supposed to be??
Hello,
Vav and Záyin have been updated for consistency,
-
lef - To man was not given the spiritual competence to entitle the Eternal to credibility.
-
Bet - It is not of man's competence to measure or evaluate the Eternal's credibility, for the one who entitles to credibility must have that type of spiritual competence.
-
Gímel - Man does not have the spiritual competence to entitle the Eternal to credibility, much less competence if it is done through a man's work on a belief, credere or giving of spiritual credit.
-
Dálet - It is not possible for man to give spiritual credits before the Amazing and Excellent presence of the Eternal YHWH, for everything that results from man’s measurement and evaluation on the Eternal’s credibility, including man's work on belief or credere, will tend to discontinue.
-
He - If the one who entitles the Eternal to credibility does not have that type of spiritual competence, much less competence will he have to affirm that the Eternal would have ever said that spiritual credits from man’s works on belief would be received.
-
Vav - It is not possible to the one that intends to work on a strong belief or give spiritual credit, to do it without man spiritually entitling himself competent enough to measure or evaluate YHWH’s Worthiness of belief - credibility, for the one that says 'I believe' - for a spiritual purpose - must be sure that the spiritual credit he gives will validate, or 'credit as true', what truth is supposed to be.
-
Záyin - In the time that 'believe' spiritually means 'to credit as true', the one that credits must support by the foundation - the Testimony of the Law and of the Prophets - that he was given the competence to validate, or 'credit as true', what truth is supposed to be.
.

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1491 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 72 of 86 (403886)
06-05-2007 4:41 PM


From Thread Criticizing neo-Darwinism
This started as an offshoot from Criticizing neo-Darwinism with:
Message 165
ABO writes:
The doctrine of common ancestry or tree isn’t visualized by just thinking, it must be imagined. To believe it is a matter of faith. http://www.fcefaith.org
ABO seems to have left the discussion but could still be lurking, in any event the offshoot from this comment involved:
Message 167
RAZD writes:
Welcome to the fray ABO.
Several problems with your post, the biggest is that it uses a website to make your case rather than your own words, which is a violation of forum rules. It is also a PRATT (point refuted a thousand times). Third it relies on a redefinition of the word faith, and we like to use common definitions so we are talking about the same things in the same ways: it's called communication.
faith -noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
We do have evidence, evidence from several lines of investigation that do actually prove that common descent occurs: you are a product of common descent from your parents, your grandparents, your great-grandparents, etcetera; this is a fact. We also have evidence of non-arbitrary speciation events where the result is two populations that cannot or don't interbreed (the definition of species) that have both evolved from their common ancestor population: this too is a fact. We also have evidence from genetic studies that show again and again that common ancestry occurs, and HAS occurred in the past.
When you get down to the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population, then yes, there is a degree of "faith" to believe it, because it is a prediction of the theory and has not been validated (nor invalidated) to date. However, this degree of "faith" is very different from your implication that it is like religion where things are believed without ANY evidence and without question. The later point is critical: science does not believe any theory without question.
To believe it is a matter of faith. http://www.fcefaith.org
quote:
The first Church of Evolution, Author: pastor-bill
Funneling man’s focus on the sacred imaginary doctrine of the Prophet Charles Darwin. It is our calling and outreach to comfort, direct and guide those who believe they have ascended from lower animals. Only through imagination can change above species be seen . As we evolve together in the knowledge of those sacred writings dilivered to the Prophet Charles Darwin, it is our hope that Natural Selection will shine on you.
Nuff said: someone with no clue to what evolution is, who has no training in biology and who is so myopic they can only see the world through the hazy lenses of religion. A card carrying member of the Cult of Ignorance. Someone who will lie to you to sell you a book.
Enjoy
Followed by Message 168
ICANT writes:
We do have evidence, evidence from several lines of investigation that do actually prove that common descent occurs: you are a product of common descent from your parents, your grandparents, your great-grandparents, etcetera; this is a fact.
I agree.
We also have evidence of non-arbitrary speciation events where the result is two populations that cannot or don't interbreed (the definition of species) that have both evolved from their common ancestor population: this too is a fact. We also have evidence from genetic studies that show again and again that common ancestry occurs,
I agree.
When you get down to the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population, then yes, there is a degree of "faith" to believe it, because it is a prediction of the theory and has not been validated (non invalidated) to date.
I agree.
However, this degree of "faith" is very different from your implication that it is like religion where things are believed without ANY evidence and without question.
How is your faith that because we have this much evidence and that since we are here it had to happen.
Any different from my faith?
That we have all this evidence that you and I believe in. But I believe that God created everything and then all these changes took place.
Followed by Message 169:
Modulus writes:
How is your faith that because we have this much evidence and that since we are here it had to happen.
The same reason that you can be removed from jury service if you express that you believe the defendant did it before hearing the evidence. We don't accept faith in convicting criminals, we only accept conclusions drawn from evidence that are beyond reasonable doubt. We do this, because we have noted that it is the most reliable way of arriving at truths about the world.
We can have faith that this system is the best one we have - but that faith is too founded in evidence: this same system of evidence has provided us with wonderful technology and consistent histories.
Still, as Descartes pointed out: Everything has to be taken with some degree of faith other than 'I am'. Believing that my table exists external to my mind is a far cry from believing the tooth fairy exchanges children's baby teeth for cash. The table only relies on the assumptions that allow us to function on a daily basis (the world is real etc etc). Those same assumptions lead us to conclude natural history in the way we do.
Having faith in the supernatural world requires additional faith since there is no testable evidence to lend it any credence. We can quite literally make anything we like up if it is a supernatural entity, so there is no telling what supernatural things are real and what are made up. Faith in the religious sense is arbitrarily picking some supernatural ideas up and rejecting others. It is this arbitrariness that makes it stand out from faith in the real world and conclusions drawn from it.
We look at the evidence and there is only one solution that stands out. Evolution. If we include supernatural possibilities there could be as many different solutions as our imagination allows.
Faith in the religious sense is basically a cultural tradition that has decided which supernatural entities to believe are real without any other reason than because our elders told us that this was so.
Even with the evidence stacked against it: Allowing cultural tradition determine what is real and what is not in the supernatural has shown constant changes, as if cultural tradition was a rubbish way of deciding which supernatural entities are real.
Followed by Message 170:
ICANT writes:
Hi Modulous, did you read RAZD'S post I was responding to?
RAZD writes:
When you get down to the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population, then yes, there is a degree of "faith" to believe it, because it is a prediction of the theory and has not been validated (nor invalidated) to date. However, this degree of "faith" is very different from your implication that it is like religion where things are believed without ANY evidence and without question. The later point is critical: science does not believe any theory without question.
RAZD says it takes faith but his faith is different from mine.
I wanted to know why he thought his faith was different to mine as I had just agreed with all the evidence he had put forth.
I believe God created everything and is in control. I believe that the hypothesis will be substantiated by fact in the future.
Would you care to explain the difference using RAZD'S definition from Message 1 highlited in yellow.
quote:
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
BTW
Having faith in the supernatural world requires additional faith since there is no testable evidence to lend it any credence.
At present there are 107 tests per minute that proves or disproves God exists. The only problem the one doing the experiment has to die to preform the test. One day you and I will preform that test.
Followed by Message 171
RAZD writes:
I wanted to know why he thought his faith was different to mine as I had just agreed with all the evidence he had put forth.
I believe God created everything and is in control. I believe that the hypothesis will be substantiated by fact in the future.
Because in science, theories are based on evidence and the predictions of those theories are not accepted without question: rather they are severely questioned.
Your belief is without evidence and is unquestioned. You admit this with the last sentence quoted.
(A) evidenced based, questioned
(B) non-evidence based, unquestioned
Can you see the difference? I thought Mod had done a good job of noting the difference with the jury selection comment.
Enjoy.
Then Message 172
ICANT writes:
Your belief is without evidence and is unquestioned.
No I cannot see the difference you are questioning my theory now.
We believe the same thing up to a certain point which is fact.
Then you come to the point you have to take the rest by faith hoping that the facts will prove your hypothesis in the future.
I come to the point I have to take the rest by faith hoping that the facts will prove my hypothesis in the future.
Please explain the difference.
Then Message 173
RAZD writes:
No I cannot see the difference you are questioning my theory now.
But you aren't, that makes your faith different from mine.
Your evidence is hoped for in the future, my evidence is in the past and what the hypothesis is built on.
I am not, strictly speaking, "hoping that the facts will prove my hypothesis in the future" but that new evidence will not invalidate it OR that a better theory comes along. It may be possible that there was no universal common ancestor population, but a group of similar derived life forms, as some evidence points in that direction. Several of these pre-biotic systems may have come together to form the first life (as we define -- badly -- it).
Nor is science waiting for the answer, but they are looking for it. Religions are NOT looking. A fairly good overview of the current search is at:
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia
Note the number of theories involved, each one given is possible, so there is no ONE theory that hopes are based on. Notice that they also discuss the problems with the different models.
Enjoy.
Then Message 174
ICANT writes:
Your evidence is hoped for in the future, my evidence is in the past and what the hypothesis is built on.
RAZD writes:
When you get down to the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population, then yes, there is a degree of "faith" to believe it, because it is a prediction of the theory and has not been validated (nor invalidated) to date. However, this degree of "faith" is very different from your implication that it is like religion where things are believed without ANY evidence and without question. The later point is critical: science does not believe any theory without question.
RAZD you state the above in Message 1.
Did you or did you not state you had to have faith to believe it?
A simple yes or no will do.
Then Message 175
RAZD writes:
Yes I said faith, but I also drew a distinction between the kind of faith needed and religious faith: that is the split hair of the issue, not that faith is not involved but that it is NOT religious faith.
(A) religious faith: absolute, not evidence based, not questioned
(B) non-religious faith: tentative, evidence based, questioned
If there were more words perhaps the semantics would be clearer.
Thanks.
Then Message 176
ICANT writes:
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
Is this your definition of faith from Message 1
(A) religious faith: absolute, not evidence based, not questioned
(B) non-religious faith: tentative, evidence based, questioned
Or is this your definition of faith please make up your mind.
Then Message 177
RAZD writes:
There is a logical fallacy called equivocation where
All A is B1
All B2 is C
Therefore all A is C
The problem is that B1 does not equal B2
This is usually done where B1 and B2 are the same word but use different meanings or connotations of them.
Here we are dealing with the term faith, broken down into two (of many) different categories, one religious faith:
(A) religious faith: absolute, not evidence based, not questioned
And the other scientific faith:
(B) non-religious faith: tentative, evidence based, questioned
Both are faith by definition #2:
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
BUT the reality is that one is different from the other by the degree of faith and by the kind of faith involved. Equating them is equivocating on those differences.
For the scientific faith the hypothesis, based on evaluation of the available evidence, is tentative, subject to change (falsification), and until invalidating evidence is encountered OR a better theory comes along, it is tentatively taken as the best reasonable answer. It is NOT taken as the absolute must be true answer, and often the problems with the hypothesis, the reasons it could be invalid are also documented (this is where falsification tests come in to play). It is possible, in fact, to hold that two or more theories could be valid even though they are contradictory. The scientist could have equal faith in contradictory theories.
Whereas for the religious faith the hypothesis, based on no evidence, that God (A) exists, is taken on absolute faith as being absolutely true and not subject to change. Often this faith leads to denial of evidence that contradicts the beliefs involve, such as the age of the earth and whether the sun orbits the earth or the other way around. It is also not possible to believe in two contradictory religions, and thus there IS a fundamental difference in the degree and kind of faith.
To reach the level of faith that is used in science, religious faith has to give up certainty in dogma and documents and belief, and base it's hypothesis on the level of evidence that forms the basis for the original hypothesis. It has to accept that other religions are equally valid and possible.
The only religious faith that I am aware of that comes anywhere close to this level is deism. IMH(ysa)O. No dogma, no certainty other than non-falsifiable belief in {some god - or gods - somewhere: a relatively tentative concept}. Thus there is still a leap of faith even with deism that is missing in science. If you cannot show that science faith matches that of Deism then you have no case to assert that it matches any more formalized, ritualized, dogmatized religion.
Enjoy.
Then Message 178
AZPaul3 writes:
I like using the word “confidence” rather than “faith” in scientific discussions.
We have some level of confidence in a hypothesis because it is logically grounded in first principles and conforms to the facts we have in evidence.
This reserves the term “faith” to its more classical meaning of “belief/trust without evidence.”
Then Message 179
RAZD writes:
I like using the word “confidence” rather than “faith” in scientific discussions.
That's fine, but it is just a semantic shell game, and the question at hand is how much faith is involved in science. Thus changing the terms is not addressing the question.
Or are you saying that there is absolutely no faith (definition #2) involved?
ABE: Message 1
This is actually far from the original topic and should be moved to another thread. Perhaps one called "Faith in Darwinism"?
Enjoy.
Then Message 180
AZPaul3 writes:
Or are you saying that there is absolutely no faith (definition #2) involved?
This is where my concrete and literal reductionist tendencies come into play. I do not see this as a semantic shell game. To me “faith” is used in its classical sense as “belief/trust without evidence,” while a level of “confidence” is dependant upon the level of evidence.
In actuality I have no faith in anything.
I have a good level of confidence in cartographers’ placement of Ulan Baatar on the world map, though I’ve never been there, because I have evidence and experience that these guys these days are seldom too far off. I would not accept that placement on faith.
I have confidence in some of my peoples’ ability to perform assigned tasks because I have evidence that they have done so in the past. Faith would be a disaster in this arena since failure to perform up to the level of my faith would have nasty consequences for all concerned.
I have confidence in the scientific method because I use it, I see others use it and I have seen and experienced the result of its power.
I have confidence in the Theory of Evolution because I have read the literature, recognise the grounding in basic principles, recognise the logic and the use of scientific methodologies. I also am confident, not faithful, that if some nuance or other is not quite right, someone will point this out and it will eventually be corrected.
I have no confidence in faith because the evidence I have shows that such faith is based on emotion, much without reason, and in most cases turns out to be tragically wrong.
ABE: Let me be specific. The word "faith" as used in the popular vernacular has no place in a scientific discussion (except as a topic). It only leads to the confusion evidenced by the previous few messages in this thread.
Let us take up the discussion here with my response to AZPaul3
This is where my concrete and literal reductionist tendencies come into play. I do not see this as a semantic shell game. To me “faith” is used in its classical sense as “belief/trust without evidence,” while a level of “confidence” is dependant upon the level of evidence.
In actuality I have no faith in anything.
You are an atheist, in spite of no falsification test for the existence of a god, you believe in the result.
I have a good level of confidence in cartographers’ placement of Ulan Baatar on the world map, though I’ve never been there, because I have evidence and experience that these guys these days are seldom too far off. I would not accept that placement on faith.
You just did. Maps are known to be wrong. To quote Jimmy Buffet "the best Navigator is one who is not sure until they get there, and even then they are not positive." In addition:
con·fi·dence -noun 1. full trust; belief in the powers, trustworthiness, or reliability of a person or thing: We have every confidence in their ability to succeed.
2. belief in oneself and one's powers or abilities; self-confidence; self-reliance; assurance: His lack of confidence defeated him.
3. certitude; assurance: He described the situation with such confidence that the audience believed him completely.
4. a confidential communication: to exchange confidences.
5. (esp. in European politics) the wish to retain an incumbent government in office, as shown by a vote in a particular issue: a vote of confidence.
6. presumption; impudence: Her disdainful look crushed the confidence of the brash young man.
Looks a lot like the definitions for faith. Fundamentalist can also have confidence in their God. Synonyms for faith are:
quote:
acceptance, allegiance, assent, assurance, belief, certainty, certitude, confidence, constancy, conviction, credence, credit, credulity, dependence, faithfulness, fealty, fidelity, hope, loyalty, reliance, stock, store, sureness, surety, troth, truth, truthfulness
It's a semantic shell game to use a synonym. The question is how much faith there is in science (not just Darwinism) and it is best to deal with the question honestly and front faced, IMH(ysa)O.
ABE: Let me be specific. The word "faith" as used in the popular vernacular has no place in a scientific discussion (except as a topic). It only leads to the confusion evidenced by the previous few messages in this thread.
This is equivocation on the definition of faith - your "used in the popular vernacular" is not restricted to definition #2.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by AZPaul3, posted 06-05-2007 6:09 PM RAZD has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 73 of 86 (403897)
06-05-2007 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
06-05-2007 4:41 PM


Re: From Thread Criticizing neo-Darwinism
Sorry, RAZD, I didn't mean to drag this out to this extent nor mean to interrupt the original OP.
I have given my view on the differences in "faith" and "confidence" as best I can and I see, even within the standard dictionary definitions, the distinctions I assert.
First the minutia. Yes, maps are known to be wrong but my experiences and my evidence is that they are not grossly wrong too often and in most instances are right. I do not need to take the main body of the modern cartographer's art on faith since I have evidence that they are mostly right.
You are an atheist, in spite of no falsification test for the existence of a god, you believe in the result.
Not quite.
I find no logic or evidence to suppose any kind of metaphysical entity exists or is necessary to explain any of our observations. I am atheist (deny the existance of the metaphysical along with Pink Unicorns and planets accreated wholly from cream cheese) only in that there is no compelling evidence to say otherwise. And, no, not even agnostic fits. There is nothing to attempt to falsify. It is a non-issue.
My initial suggestion was that using "confidence" in place of "faith" avoids the pitfalls "faith" embodies in the mind of the religionist. Take it or leave it as you so choose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2007 4:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2007 7:40 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1491 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 74 of 86 (403905)
06-05-2007 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by AZPaul3
06-05-2007 6:09 PM


Re: From Thread Criticizing neo-Darwinism
Sorry, RAZD, I didn't mean to drag this out to this extent nor mean to interrupt the original OP.
Actually it was ICANT and I that were doing the dragging. You just got dragged along for the ride.
... only in that there is no compelling evidence to say otherwise. And, no, not even agnostic fits. There is nothing to attempt to falsify.
I know that's the way you see it.
My initial suggestion was that using "confidence" in place of "faith" avoids the pitfalls "faith" embodies in the mind of the religionist. Take it or leave it as you so choose.
I'll leave it for now, and see what ICANT comes back with. It's just that when someone asks me how much "faith" I have in evolution, I can't say that there is no faith involved. I feel it is necessary to answer "some", and then to qualify what that "some" involves.
Edited by RAZD, : .

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by AZPaul3, posted 06-05-2007 6:09 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 06-06-2007 8:34 AM RAZD has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 75 of 86 (403983)
06-06-2007 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by RAZD
06-05-2007 7:40 PM


Re: From Thread Criticizing neo-Darwinism
Hi RAZD,
I'll leave it for now, and see what ICANT comes back with. It's just that when someone asks me how much "faith" I have in evolution, I can't say that there is no faith involved. I feel it is necessary to answer "some", and then to qualify what that "some" involves.
I am sorry for dragging the topic so far off but I wanted to try and determine how much faith you thought it took to believe in evolution carried to the fullest extent.
As you know I believe in evolution up to the point of things becoming completely different other things.
I know science is supposed to be based on evidence, and much of evolution is based on evidence.
But it has never been observed or reproduced where one thing becomes a completely different thing, and there are not enough fossils to prove that it has taken place.
Even your favorite horse chain has been said to be out of order.
I know you are sincere in what you believe and I applaud you for admitting that there is faith involved in that belief. I also applaud you for stating that what you believe may be proven to be false.
I am sure you know from our many conversations that I am sincere in what I believe. You are aware that I have stated on several occasions that what I believe may be proven to be false.
Message 74
RAZD writes:
BTW Having faith in the supernatural world requires additional faith since there is no testable evidence to lend it any credence.
ICANT writes:
At present there are 107 tests per minute that proves or disproves God exists. The only problem the one doing the experiment has to die to perform the test. One day you and I will perform that test.
I stated here that one day I will perform a test that will prove if what I believe is true:
I believe God created the heavens and the earth.
I believe the first man willfully disobeyed God and that separated man from God.
I believe Jesus came and died on the cross to pay my sin debt.
I believe Jesus is coming again.
I believe those who do not trust Jesus for salvation will be cast into the lake of fire.
I believe there will be a New Heaven and Earth.
I believe the old one will melt with reverent heat.
I believe that those who have trusted Jesus for salvation will spend eternity with Him in that New Heaven and Earth.
I believe that when I die I will know if what I have believe is true.
It will prove if God exists. It will also prove if I chose the right set of beliefs and as I understand it there are 34,000 plus to chose from.
Check out my thread, The Literal Genesis Account of Creation. It might shed a little light on my faith and why I have it.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2007 7:40 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 06-06-2007 9:00 AM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024