Faith does not create objective knowledge...

@sonship said
I mean a goalless, purposeless process arriving at the biosphere as we see it.

You are entitled to speculate about its purported "purpose" as much as you want. Neither of us is going to generate anything "objective" by comparing what we do and don't believe about such things.

@FMF

Faith does not create objective knowledge; it is founded on beliefs that one acts upon as if they were objective knowledge.

Thoughts?

Without something like faith, and I emphasize it is only LIKE faith, you cannot do science.

The doing of science is based upon a belief that is philosophical in nature. And it cannot be proved itself by the science en devour.

No scientific experiment can can prove that science leads us to truth. We have to assume that. And that (something like a trust) must be held or you cannot do science.

The belief that the scientific method is the only way to arrive at truth is called scientism.

@FMF

You are entitled to speculate about its purported "purpose" as much as you want. Neither of us is going to generate anything "objective" by comparing what we do and don't believe about such things.

I am not talking about generating truth but discovering it.

Are you saying that there is no discovering of what is true in life?
I don't mean inventing it or generating it through speculation.
I mean somehow uncovering what is reality, discovering the objective real.

Do you think such a thing doesn't happen?

@sonship said
The belief that the scientific method is the only way to arrive at truth is called scientism.

You should tackle someone about it if they propose it and you disagree with it.

@sonship said
I am not talking about generating truth but discovering it.

I don't think we can discover "objective" "truth" about your God figure.

You have your ancient texts, your doctrines, and your speculation about the supernatural elements of the narrative, and about the origins of the universe, and I don't think you are going to find "objective" "truth" about them.

However, if the so-called "knowledge" you feel you have "discovered" and your faith which is based on it has you absolutely convinced its true, then I think it's no problem for you to act upon it as if it's objectively true.

@sonship said
Are you saying that there is no discovering of what is true in life?

No. Don't be so silly. Why would I - or anyone - say such a thing?

@FMF

I don't think we can discover "objective" "truth" about your God figure.

Well, considering what you say and what God says in His word, I have to go with the Bible. Call it an argument on authority of you wish.

But the natural world reveals to us something about its Creator.
You could call that discovery.

And God has REVEALED something of Himself to man which also is something of discovery to some.

You have your ancient texts,

"Ancient" is not a necessary negative or weakness.

In fact often some things faddish are not nearly as substantial.
When I hear of something going "viral" on the Internet I know usually it is of little importance.

So "ancient" is not an automatic drawback.

your doctrines,

The word "doctrines" can be for some a dirty word also.

I may write about some doctrines. I write quite much about truth being a living Person.

and your speculation about the supernatural elements of the narrative, and about the origins of the universe, and I don't think you are going to find "objective" "truth" about them.

If I ask you for an alternative to explain why there is something rather than nothing, you'll dodge the question. Dodging the question is your way of suppressing the so-called "god figure".

And if we ask you about why the universe seems so miraculously fine tuned for the existence of people in it, you'll probably play obfuscating dodge ball with that request as well.

However, if the so-called "knowledge" you feel you have "discovered" and your faith which is based on it has you absolutely convinced its true, then I think it's no problem for you to act upon it as if it's objectively true.

I think we are on the right track, if not absolutely convinced that whoever is responsible for the design and bringing about of the universe is Somebody bigger than you and I.

He had to have always been.
He had to have a will to call all else into being.
He had to have great wisdom and knowledge to calibrate its constants in anticipation that we would arrive in it.

Many honest scientists have discovered that the universe looks like a put up job.

From Fine -tuning of the Universe | Evidence to Believe

Is the Universe Fine Tuned for Life?
Based upon all of the scientific research to date, it appears that the evidence is telling us that the universe – the myriad of galaxies, the solar system, and our earth – are uniquely suited to support complex life. Now, there are only three possible explanations to account for this:

This situation is the product of blind chance
That this universe happens to be part of a “multiverse“, and we just happen to be living the in universe that was best suited for life
That the universe was and is designed on purpose for life
The Evidence for a Fine-Tuned Universe
The Right “Building Blocks” Problem

Most non-believers start with the notion that given enough time, and enough space, and just the right environment, that even complex life could evolve by itself without the help of a divine, all powerful Creator. One big problem with this approach is the assumption. There simply isn’t enough time.* But setting this issue aside, there must be four major “building blocks” designed Fine Tuning of the universe just so to provide for life.*

This, I'd say, is the result of natural revelation and discovery.
Speaking of God reaching out to speak to may be another matter.

But certainly of late the finely tuned constants of the universe for life has been DISCOVERY.

@sonship said
@FMF

I don't think we can discover "objective" "truth" about your God figure.

Well, considering what you say and what God says in His word, I have to go with the Bible. Call it an argument on authority of you wish.

But the natural world reveals to us something about its Creator.
You could call that discovery.

And God has REVEALED something of Him ...[text shortened]... er.

But certainly of late the finely tuned constants of the universe for life has been DISCOVERY.

As I have said. There is nothing wrong with speculating about supernatural things. There is nothing wrong with perceiving the resulting beliefs as knowledge that you have discovered. There's nothing wrong with believing that the scriptures you subscribe to are true. There's nothing wrong with having faith in a supernatural being based on these beliefs and to base your faith on the scriptures you believe in. And there's nothing wrong with acting upon your faith as if it were objective.

Discoveries evidencing intelligent fine tuning is a viable explanation of the nature of the natural world.

Strong evidence for a Designer comes from the fine-tuning of the universal constants and the solar system, e.g.

The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. If it was smaller, fewer electrons could be held. If it was larger, electrons would be held too tightly to bond with other atoms.

Ratio of electron to proton mass (1:1836). Again, if this was larger or smaller, molecules could not form.

Carbon and oxygen nuclei have finely tuned energy levels.

Electromagnetic and gravitational forces are finely tuned, so the right kind of star can be stable.

Our sun is the right colour. If it was redder or bluer, photosynthetic response would be weaker.

Our sun is also the right mass. If it was larger, its brightness would change too quickly and there would be too much high energy radiation. If it was smaller, the range of planetary distances able to support life would be too narrow; the right distance would be so close to the star that tidal forces would disrupt the planet’s rotational period. UV radiation would also be inadequate for photosynthesis.

The earth’s distance from the sun is crucial for a stable water cycle. Too far away, and most water would freeze; too close and most water would boil.

The earth’s gravity, axial tilt, rotation period, magnetic field, crust thickness, oxygen/nitrogen ratio, carbon dioxide, water vapour and ozone levels are just right.

https://evidencetobelieve.net/fine-tuning-of-the-universe-2/

@sonship said
Many honest scientists have discovered that the universe looks like a put up job.

Do you believe this is an objective statement?

@sonship said
Strong evidence for a Designer comes from the fine-tuning of the universal constants and the solar system, e.g.

The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. If it was smaller, fewer electrons could be held. If it was larger, electrons would be held too tightly to bond with other atoms.
Ratio of electron to proton mass (1:1836). Again, if this ...[text shortened]... rust thickness, oxygen/nitrogen ratio, carbon dioxide, water vapour and ozone levels are just right.

None of this makes your opinions about the Abrahamic God or the divinity of Jesus or your opinions about Islam or Hinduism being part of "Satan's rebellion" etc. etc. objective.

@FMF

Do you believe this is an objective statement?

Yes. Close enough.
I didn't say "all." I said "many."

And my opinion is that some of them are honestly going against the traditional past assumptions.

Its close enough. Knit-picking over it sure won't render it a false statement.

@sonship said
@FMF

Do you believe this is an objective statement?

Yes. Close enough.
I didn't say "all." I said "many."

And my opinion is that some of them are honestly going against the traditional past assumptions.

Its close enough. Knit-picking over it sure won't render it a false statement.

Well, it's a completely subjective statement. The "honest" scientists are the ones who agree with your personal opinions about the universe? Are you taking the piss, sonship?

@FMF

None of this makes your opinions about the Abrahamic God or the divinity of Jesus or your opinions about Islam or Hinduism being part of "Satan's rebellion" etc. etc. objective.

I did not make the leap that the discovery of fine-tuning was evidence for all other things told me in the Bible. The case for that intelligence being "the Abrahamic God" could be made.

But other monotheistic faiths and possibly some Hinduism concepts could be suggested as well. I am not an expert in the millions of gods of Hinduism.

Islam is a Arabic Judiasm with Mohammed as its law maker rather than Moses.
And the Christian faith has its foundation is Judaism.

Bahai is monotheistic which has some copy overs from Islam which in turn has some copy over ideas from Judaism and the Christian gospel.

But the discovery of finely tuned constants was offered by me mainly to evidence a Creator of power, intelligence.

Observing people squirm around the evidence is interesting.

@sonship said
@FMF

None of this makes your opinions about the Abrahamic God or the divinity of Jesus or your opinions about Islam or Hinduism being part of "Satan's rebellion" etc. etc. objective.

I did not make the leap that the discovery of fine-tuning was evidence for all other things told me in the Bible. The case for that intelligence being "the Abrahamic God" ...[text shortened]... ce a Creator of power, intelligence.

Observing people squirm around the evidence is interesting.

It's all speculation.

Neither of us know for sure. We both believe what we believe.

The stuff that appeals to you and that convinces you that you have discovered "the truth" is also plenty enough conjecture and tradition and theory to justify your faith, to my way of thinking.

And you should act upon your faith as if it were based on objective truths.