Belief vs. faith

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"It's only a theory! Perhaps the next time you fall over you'll float off into the sky, science can't prove 100% this won't happen!"

Apparently you can't understand even what you say!

You are asserting that nothing is provable. Not even gravity.[/b]

How is the accusation I made a universal statement, not just about science, but anything whatsoever:

If, as Agerg suggest, nothing is provable

substantiated by the comment:

"It's only a theory! Perhaps the next time you fall over you'll float off into the sky, science can't prove 100% this won't happen!"
?

Originally posted by amannion
JW, I'm not sure how much clearer people can get, but I'll try one more time. Theory is a term that is used in science to describe an explanation for a particular phenomenon.
Theory doesn't mean something is unproven, or untested, or not factual.

But, while we're here talking about facts, you don't believe in a living, breathing man - you believe in acc ...[text shortened]... ter his death. If that's what you call factual, then evolution is completely sewn up.

"Theory is a term that is used in science to describe an explanation for a particular phenomenon."

For crying out loud amannion. I know that.

Evolution is a theory used to explain life. It's a theory that says life began X number of years ago, in this or that way, and that living things began as a microbe piggy backing on crystals, or whatever.

The evidence cited to support the theory of evolution is laughable. Mere fragments of bones and a cave drawing. A mountain of theory has been fabricated over the last 150 years based on virtually nothing at all. It's an illusion.


"...you don't believe in a living, breathing man..."

Don't be obtuse. How can you say such a thing? If Jesus wasn't alive from the dead I wouldn't believe.

Don't get me wrong. What you mean isn't lost on me. But you are mistaken. There were eyewitnesses. Their testimony is true. There is more evidence for the resurrection than for the existence of Aristotle.

You don't know it, but your view of things is skewered by false perceptions of reality. The more you build a case against the truth of God, the deeper into the deception you fall.

Evolution is a hoax. Everything that exists is just as it was created on the day it was created. Only less so.

Originally posted by josephw
Faith must have an object. If that object is false, then the faith is false.

True faith is [b]in something real and true. Therefore, faith exercised toward something without substance is not faith at all. It is merely wishful thinking.

Few have true faith because they believe in that which is true. Many believe in things that are false, therefore t ...[text shortened]... that one may have true faith in? We all know it's Jesus!

Oh my God! Did I just say that? 😉[/b]

Yep, you said it again😴

The "object" of faith isn't so much of an object as we have come to use in our everyday vernacular. "It" is a "No-thing" 😉

Originally posted by Agerg
How is the accusation I made a universal statement, not just about science, but anything whatsoever:

If, as Agerg suggest, [b]nothing is provable

substantiated by the comment:

"It's only a theory! Perhaps the next time you fall over you'll float off into the sky, science can't prove 100% this won't happen!"
?[/b]

What kind of science is it that can't prove that if you jumped off a cliff you won't fall?

The kind of science is that?

I think Newton would cry if he could read this forum. "What goes up must come down".

Oh, but modern science doesn't know what is up or down! Or even if there is an up or down!

Modern science seems to be a religion for atheists. Deny everything because nothing can be proven! Jesus!

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yep, you said it again😴

The "object" of faith isn't so much of an object as we have come to use in our everyday vernacular. "It" is a "No-thing" 😉

"The "object" of faith isn't so much of an object as we have come to use in our everyday vernacular."

Please rewrite that sentence in English.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Spirituality, yes. A sunset, not so much.

That's my point here. "There are none so blind as those who would not see."

Describing faith to those who refuse to have faith in anything beyond themselves is futile.

God IS real, and yes, people with open minds will find Him sooner or later. Those who refuse have closed their minds to Him. But hey, th ...[text shortened]... t is what Free Will is all about. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Dude!! If (the christian)God only smited me for my blasephemy for my time here on RHP then I would have been pummelled inot the ground along with Agerg and the others who have openly flaunted their dissatisfaction and complete rejection of "Him".

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Theory is a term that is used in science to describe an explanation for a particular phenomenon."

For crying out loud amannion. I know that.

Evolution is a theory used to explain life. It's a theory that says life began X number of years ago, in this or that way, and that living things began as a microbe piggy backing on crystals, or whatever. ...[text shortened]... hing that exists is just as it was created on the day it was created. Only less so.[/b]

If evolution were built on bone fragments and cave drawings then you're right, it would be laughable.
But in fact, it isn't based on this at all. It's built on many different lines of evidence, including in recent years, many lab experiments that witness evolution actually taking place.
Now, I'm sorry that for some reason evolution seems to upset you so much, but when someone watches it take place that's pretty good evidence for me.

Don't mistake my stuff about Jesus. I'm not claiming he didn't exist - although I know there are some who do. I assume that he did exist. I assume that Aristotle existed too.
But Aristotle is not claimed to have risen from the dead.
So, to accept your claim, I'm going to need some pretty good evidence - after all, if this were actually to happen, or have happened, I think we could all agree that it would be considered a bona fide miracle.
Okay, so what is the evidence.
A handfull of accounts, written by supporters, that are somewhat contradictory.

Now, I get you believe.
But I don't. So, I'm going to need some convincing.

If I told you I was a believer in the divinity of some local Australian man - let's call him Bob - and that Bob had risen from the dead after being executed, I would hope that you would at the very least, treat my claim with some skepticism.
Are there witnesses to this, you might ask. Well no, I say, but there were witnesses, and they told other people, who told other people, who wrote it all down.
Are there independent observers amongst these witnesses, you might ask. No, I say, all of the observers are Bobians - they're all believers in the divinity of Bob.
What about the contradictory accounts of Bob's resurrection you ask me. Some accounts say that Bob was alone when this happened. Others say he was with some women. Others say he was with his mother and a friend.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"The "object" of faith isn't so much of an object as we have come to use in our everyday vernacular."

Please rewrite that sentence in English.[/b]

It's not an object. It's not a "HE".

Originally posted by josephw
God isn't an assumption. God is a fact.

In science, a fact is something that can be observed by everyone. The fact that you believe in god, that you may "feel" god's existence, doesn't make it observable to everyone. So, no, god is not a fact. It is indeed an assumption. What you perceive as god, can just as well be explained psychologically and neurologically.

Originally posted by josephw
All of them. 🙄

If you don't believe me, just ask your high priest Richard Dawkins. Evolution is a theory. It cannot be substantiated by any fact. In fact, the theory of evolution is losing ground, because it is becoming more and more evident that all life forms exist on the basis of intelligent design.

No proponent of evolution can substantiate the cl ...[text shortened]... lved. It is purely bogus science.

Everything is just as it was first created, only less so.

You've just repeated the same thing again. Saying the same thing twice doesn't make it true. I want you to explain to me how 'evolution is losing ground'.

Originally posted by josephw
If science can't prove anything, then what's it good for?

Science is what's made our entire society possible. It's through science we get our technology. Even the simplest tools are technology arrived at through scientific means, in the sense that they're the result of observation, understanding and reproduction. It's not the job of science to answer mysteries, but to observe and explain the natural world in a manner that is consistent with the facts gathered. This understanding then helps us develop and improve on our technology, and even our own behaviour and communication.

Sometimes these facts speak in favour of what we'd like to believe is true, but sometimes they don't. When facts speak against a given theory, it's either discarded or revised (whatever fits). That's science, and that's the reason why the theory of evolution can never be proven in the sense you use the word. However, all the facts of nature gathered thus far (which is quite a lot by now) speak in favour of the current theory of evolution, so it's the closest thing to truth you can ever hope to have in science.

And - more importantly - it's really the only truth we need for science to be incredibly useful to us.

Originally posted by josephw
You are asserting that nothing is provable. Not even gravity.

You're probably talking about Newton's law of gravity. A law is the result of a cause that plays out exactly the same every time you test it. It's consistent in that manner. But why or how gravity works requires hypothesis/theories, and those can never be proven. They're explanations bound by our current understanding. They can only be completely supported by current known facts, or they're discarded/revised.

In other words, a theory/hypothesis always holds the possibility of one day being discarded/revised in light of new observations; new facts, which is why it can never be proven (even when all known facts - and lots and lots of them - support it).

Originally posted by Zenarctic
Science is what's made our entire society possible. It's through science we get our technology. Even the simplest tools are technology arrived at through scientific means, in the sense that they're the result of observation, understanding and reproduction. It's not the job of science to answer mysteries, but to observe and explain the natural world in a ma ...[text shortened]... antly - it's really the only truth we need for science to be incredibly useful to us.

I am an Engineer myself. I agree that Science and Technology are extraordinarily powerful tools. Science has its limitations. It starts with axioms. Terms like mass, energy,gravity are described in terms of their effect but not explained. It is basically a collection of successful recipes. It cannot explain why the rules are the way they are.

Originally posted by josephw
Evolution is a theory used to explain life. It's a theory that says life began X number of years ago, in this or that way, and that living things began as a microbe piggy backing on crystals, or whatever.

Not quite. Evolution is merely the theory that explains how life can change over time from one form to another. It doesn't explain how life once began, when it began or why. The basic observations made is that there is life, and that life changes over time, and the theory of evolution explains that process of change within the confines of currently known facts about nature.

As for how, when and why life once began you have to look into the different theories of abiogenesis, which have their own models for explaining these things. Though you might argue that the beginning of life is essential to understand the continuation of life, you'd be wrong. Once DNA and RNA molecules were complex enough to build "advanced" forms of life, the evolutionary theory explains the rest (the changes over time) quite aptly.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
It cannot explain why the rules are the way they are.

Nothing can ever do that. Every explanation will ultimately lead to more axioms.