Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

I guess you guys put a lot of faith in your argument huh?

Originally Posted by mischievous

Remember when you played tag as a kid? When someone pulls out the old, "Faith is different and doesn't require proof," it's tantamount to saying, "I'm safe, I'm on base!" Nobody can argue with make-believe!

Science is nothing but a method. Faith cannot be touched because it cannot be tested. Look at what people filled in our gaps of knowledge with, faith or god or whatever. The tendency to do that is still rampant!

I don't have to have faith in gravity, speed of light, etc...

Your truth of what is is and what isn't, isn't is a given. That's obvious.

Sorry, but I don't need faith, it's not all I have. And just because I don't know something now doesn't mean I won't know it later, take for example the new collider that's coming on-line. Exciting! What I do have is an understanding of how precious life, the universe, and everything is because I have no faith. Like you said, what is is and what isn't isn't.
Enjoy your time here because there ain't nothing after! Anything else is just make-believe a.k.a. faith.

Originally Posted by jockeys

i would disagree that everyone who values science more than a deity is exercising faith.

if i believe that hurricane ike just knocked down the tree in my yard, but can't see it, hear it, touch it, etc, etc... then that's faith. i can postulate that the tree is no longer standing, but as long as it remains impossible for me to tell, my belief is faith.

now, if i go out in the yard, and see that the tree is lying on the ground, and smell the burning wood from the lightning strike, and feel the splinters in my yard, etc i no longer have faith that the tree is fallen, i have KNOWLEDGE that the tree has fallen. i can observe, repeatably, that the tree is in fact no longer vertical. i can bring other people over to my house and i can show them the same thing, and they can observe it and agree with me. i can look at the tree all day long, for however long i like, in whatever way i like, and there it is: fallen.

now, with science, we can't always directly observe the tree. sometimes we can only hear the thunder and the subsequent crash of the tree, and then make a guess (hypothesis) that it has fallen. this isn't faith either, because i'm not SURE the tree has fallen, i only think it might have. i have some incomplete evidence that points to a fallen tree, but it's still a guess. it's not until i have all the evidence that i can say with certainty that the tree has fallen.

modern science has heard the thunder and the crash, and is guessing that the tree has fallen. we don't know. we guess. we suppose. and we are looking for evidence as best we can. people who claim that the tree has 100% definitely fallen, without seeing it, are idiots. they don't know. they are guessing, too, but because they are tools, they claim knowledge without really having it. people who say all scientific theories are 100% true and god is 100% false fall into this category. it might be. but we don't know yet. we're still looking, guessing, and drawing conclusions from what we see.

religion tells us there is an invisible tree in a yard we can't ever look at, with invisible hurricanes that may or may not have invisible lightning. but they still claim infallible knowledge (not really knowledge, it's faith, but a lot of them won't say it like that) that their invisible tree has fallen. not only is this NOT based on observations, but it's completely non-deterministic. you can't EVER look at the invisible tree to see if it has fallen. you can't ever touch it, or sniff for burning wood. ever. that's faith.

so i'm going to have to take exception to you lumping everyone that favors science into one group that acts out of faith. some of them do, yes. but i think i speak for russell, mischevious and myself when i say we DON"T have faith. at all. we guess, and we (and the scientific community) look for evidence. sometimes we observe things that make us a bit more certain of what we guessed. sometimes we observe things that make us realize our guesses kind of sucked, and we need to come up with new guesses. but we are always looking, and we are always willing to re-evaluate our guesses and come up with new ones.

you can say that we're guessing... we are. you can say that we might be wrong... we might. but you can't say we have blind faith because we really don't... we're just guessing and observing.

russell and mischevious, if i've put the wrong words in your mouth, i'm sorry.

Originally Posted by mischievous

Remember when you played tag as a kid? When someone pulls out the old, "Faith is different and doesn't require proof," it's tantamount to saying, "I'm safe, I'm on base!" Nobody can argue with make-believe!

Science is nothing but a method. Faith cannot be touched because it cannot be tested. Look at what people filled in our gaps of knowledge with, faith or god or whatever. The tendency to do that is still rampant!

I don't have to have faith in gravity, speed of light, etc...

Your truth of what is is and what isn't, isn't is a given. That's obvious.

Sorry, but I don't need faith, it's not all I have. And just because I don't know something now doesn't mean I won't know it later, take for example the new collider that's coming on-line. Exciting! What I do have is an understanding of how precious life, the universe, and everything is because I have no faith. Like you said, what is is and what isn't isn't.
Enjoy your time here because there ain't nothing after! Anything else is just make-believe a.k.a. faith.

And yet....there are issues that science has not been able to explain as yet.
We mock ideas relating to the "supernatural" (meaning, of course, outside the normal set of natural laws) then in turn listen intently as physicists tell us about particles that approach and perhaps even pass the speed of light, and others which we equally cannot see which can be in more than one place at a time, and which never slow down.
Saying there is no evidence for God is just talk. There is equally no evidence that God (or if you prefer a pink Unicorn or a paradoxasaur, Russel, I'll oblige) does not exist. I've used this analogy before, but one viewpoint sees a house and thinks, "someone built a wonderful house-I can even see the brick he used-brilliant!". The other viewpoint says, "well, there is no such thing as a builder-such would be an unscientific idea, after all, but see those bricks? that PROVES there was no builder involved. The parts were already here and through billions of years, fell together through normal forces of gravity, wind, floods, etc.....brilliant!"
To my personal view, the one being pawned off as "scientific" requires more belief in the unlikely than the other, but such is a decision for each to make himself.
Science does not support nor dispel the existence of God or any other Deity we cannot see. Everything else is just a measuring contest.


John P.

Originally Posted by JMS

I guess you guys put a lot of faith in your argument huh?

Mark, that is equivocation.

The word Faith has many meanings and you are applying the different meanings to different situations but treating them as being one and the same.

Belief in science is based on a track record, not the pure and simple word of scientists. If the last few centuries of scientific advancements hadn't happened, then the faith in scientific principles and the faith in religion would be more closely related. But since one of those two groups has proven it's method to be the more diligent, thorough, and finally, the most accurate method of discovering truths about our existence, then faith in that context takes on a different meaning. It's more of a "safe bet" than a true faith.

John,

The strange interactions of subatomic particles is still within the realm of the natural world, the mathematics demand that it be so. Why do we believe what physicists propose? Because on multiple occasions they've theorized the existence of particles or phenomena by using pure mathematics and known scientific principles, prior to actually witnessing the particles or phenomena, and then were proven correct by direct observation with things like particle accelerators years, sometimes decades, after the initial hypothesis.

And that analogy is not substantiated, the person claiming that wind and gravity built a house doesn't have a firm grip on science because there isn't a strong enough attractive force acting between the building blocks to make them coalesce in that manner. But for the building blocks of life, there are such forces. The Electromagnetic Force, the Weak Force, and the Strong Force all work together to make subatomic particles, atoms, molecules and organic polymers bond in a way that produces self replicating proteins and from there, possibly DNA, and then life as we know it. No designer required.


To get back to the topic of the thread, God cannot be proven, nor disproven. But since scientific inquiry and the use of logical arguments have proven to be the best tools for uncovering truth, I choose to stick to them and not form opinions that could never be proven one way or the other. Those who believe are free to so, as am I free to have my "safe bets". As long as you're a good person, and don't try to subvert my world view, we can be best friends (in fact I have many good friends that are of many different religious backgrounds and they're all great people, regardless of their beliefs).

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Mark, that is equivocation.

The word Faith has many meanings and you are applying the different meanings to different situations but treating them as being one and the same.


.

Russel, I think you know better than that! If you have followed my posts on any topic you will find nothing short of directness!

Faith to me has one meaning! If you can supply me with more than one meaning I will be glad to concede that I may have been unclear!

Main Entry: 1 faith
Pronunciation:\ˈfāth\
Function:noun
Inflected Form(s):plural faiths ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\

Etymology:Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide

Date:13th century

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs faith>


Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea. Formal usage of the word "faith" is usually reserved for concepts of religion, as in theology, where it almost universally refers to a trusting belief in a transcendent reality, or else in a Supreme Being and said being's role in the order of transcendent, spiritual things.
Informal usage of the word "faith" can be quite broad, and may be used standardly in place of either as "trust," "belief," or "hope". For example, the word "faith" can refer to a religion itself or to religion in general. (For informal uses of the word "faith", see Faith (word)). As with "trust," faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes.


You we're using "faith" to describe the trust we put in scientific principles, which is different. You may only intend to have one meaning, but that does not mean your definition is correct, nor applicable.


As I said, your definition seems to be the religious version and you were applying it to a non religious context, thus it is equivocation.

Originally Posted by JMS

Russel, I think you know better than that! If you have followed my posts on any topic you will find nothing short of directness!

Faith to me has one meaning! If you can supply me with more than one meaning I will be glad to concede that I may have been unclear!

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. —Idiom

9.in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

Hmmm.
Russel, you wrote:

The strange interactions of subatomic particles is still within the realm of the natural world, the mathematics demand that it be so. Why do we believe what physicists propose? Because on multiple occasions they've theorized the existence of particles or phenomena by using pure mathematics and known scientific principles, prior to actually witnessing the particles or phenomena, and then were proven correct by direct observation with things like particle accelerators years, sometimes decades, after the initial hypothesis.

(emphasis added)

So, if the evidence supposedly supports the existence of these particles (which,actually, have *not* been observed even with particle accelerators, although the potential results of their actions have been seen) and their actions, and we can support a theory that assumes a particle behaves in manners conventionally considered impossible...but the results seem to support it due to statistical analysis....
Then why the double standard wrt believing in God or some other diety? One can easily point to the failure of science to even intentionally create life-and there is almost no condition theorized to have existed on the planet when life came to pass that can not be simulated by science? The very same mathematical analysis seems to support the input of a superior intelligence at some point. Why does it only count for subatomic particles, then?
Ultimately, JMS is right. Your or my belief or disbelief does not make our belief the truth, nor is either viewpoint more or less supported by science. It just isn't there.
Great debate so far.

John P.

All definitions given require one ingredient, and that is belief! Faith is a strong belief in anything!

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Main Entry: 1 faith
Pronunciation:\ˈfāth\
Function:noun
Inflected Form(s):plural faiths ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\

Etymology:Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide

Date:13th century

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs faith>


Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea. Formal usage of the word "faith" is usually reserved for concepts of religion, as in theology, where it almost universally refers to a trusting belief in a transcendent reality, or else in a Supreme Being and said being's role in the order of transcendent, spiritual things.
Informal usage of the word "faith" can be quite broad, and may be used standardly in place of either as "trust," "belief," or "hope". For example, the word "faith" can refer to a religion itself or to religion in general. (For informal uses of the word "faith", see Faith (word)). As with "trust," faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes.


You we're using "faith" to describe the trust we put in scientific principles, which is different. You may only intend to have one meaning, but that does not mean your definition is correct, nor applicable.


As I said, your definition seems to be the religious version and you were applying it to a non religious context, thus it is equivocation.

Originally Posted by mischievous

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. —Idiom

9.in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Hmmm.
Russel, you wrote:


(emphasis added)

So, if the evidence supposedly supports the existence of these particles (which,actually, have *not* been observed even with particle accelerators, although the potential results of their actions have been seen) and their actions, and we can support a theory that assumes a particle behaves in manners conventionally considered impossible...but the results seem to support it due to statistical analysis....
Then why the double standard wrt believing in God or some other diety? One can easily point to the failure of science to even intentionally create life-and there is almost no condition theorized to have existed on the planet when life came to pass that can not be simulated by science? The very same mathematical analysis seems to support the input of a superior intelligence at some point. Why does it only count for subatomic particles, then?
Ultimately, JMS is right. Your or my belief or disbelief does not make our belief the truth, nor is either viewpoint more or less supported by science. It just isn't there.
Great debate so far.

John P.

As I said in another thread, the solution is simple. All you have to do is posit a line of experimentation and observation that has the potential to prove the existence of a god. It's best if it's a step by step process, where you first prove the basics and then move on to the specifics. Once you demonstrate evidence for a step in your proof, publish your results and let other scientists try to duplicate them. Once duplicated, that stage is accepted and you move on to the next. Once that's done, you're on the way to having a theory, not just a theology.

As far as creating life, yes, it's true that science can re-create almost any proto-life environment. What science doesn't have that the origins of life did have is a couple billion years to play with.

Give it time.

j

Originally Posted by JohnP

And yet....there are issues that science has not been able to explain as yet.
We mock ideas relating to the "supernatural" (meaning, of course, outside the normal set of natural laws) then in turn listen intently as physicists tell us about particles that approach and perhaps even pass the speed of light, and others which we equally cannot see which can be in more than one place at a time, and which never slow down.
Saying there is no evidence for God is just talk. There is equally no evidence that God (or if you prefer a pink Unicorn or a paradoxasaur, Russel, I'll oblige) does not exist. I've used this analogy before, but one viewpoint sees a house and thinks, "someone built a wonderful house-I can even see the brick he used-brilliant!". The other viewpoint says, "well, there is no such thing as a builder-such would be an unscientific idea, after all, but see those bricks? that PROVES there was no builder involved. The parts were already here and through billions of years, fell together through normal forces of gravity, wind, floods, etc.....brilliant!"
To my personal view, the one being pawned off as "scientific" requires more belief in the unlikely than the other, but such is a decision for each to make himself.
Science does not support nor dispel the existence of God or any other Deity we cannot see. Everything else is just a measuring contest.


John P.

So, if science can't explain something then it's a bogus methodology?

And saying there is evidence for the existence of a god isn't just talk? Please tell me you have some proof and we could be done with this thread!

Science never claimed to try to dispel the existence of a god or gods. Those statements come from the fear a believer feels when his faith is truly shaken.

Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. - Frater Ravus