"God theory"

[secondeve]

When I think of faith in its simplest form(in my mind, anyway), I'm thinking of the kind of faith I have that allows me to believe China exists. This is a kind of faith we all have, believers and nonbelievers alike. I've never been to China, or physiscally seen it, but I take it on faith that it's there. People have told me it's there. Sources that I trust say it's there.

The world would be very chaotic indeed without this kind of faith.

This is different to faith, I think. You're saying that a constant stream of day-to-day eyewitness accounts, documentaries, people who have lived there, the presence of people who speak Chinese and history books documenting relations between China and other countries - not to mention the fact that you could get on a plane and fly there any time you liked - you're saying that all this is faith? No. This is fact. Faith must be in something which cannot be proven. You don't have to do the working yourself to know that 2 + 2 = 4; believing that doesn't require faith.

[billie]

Faith must be in something which cannot be proven.

Sometimes, but not always, which is why I posted "in its simplest form, in my mind".

faith (fth)

n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.

3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

6. A set of principles or beliefs.

[khalou]

Hey, StewartP, he of the Terrecuite whatever, and maybe self-concocted "atheist" Khalou too, you want ME to explain YOUR belief-system re the sole pure FAITH-alternative to the Creator-God?! Naw, since you have inadvertently set up the straw-man - ie, your Blind, Mindless & Inert god Chance via the fortuitous collision of mindless molecules originating from flotsam or prithee, inanimate mud or goo (even tho you can't even tell us where the flotsam, mud or goo came from!!) - as the aforementioned FAITH-alternative to the existence of our purely-by-chance, colorful & mathematically-tuned, highly intricate universe, you'll do your own explaining. And you'll have to start by telling us who wrote the DNA genetic Code. Chuck Darwin perhaps? I'm truly worried about the extent of your dilemma as a professed self-concocted "atheist." And do employ at least a modicum of commonsense if you can, even tho practically EVERYTHING SCIENTIFIC militates against your Blind, Mindless & Inert god Chance. If you wish to exercise faith to believe that humans evolved somehow from apes, that's your right - it's a free country I think. But please don't call it good science - after all, C.D.'s hypothesis was based on the concept of the simple cell that could be found in all life - an idea rejected outright by biologists years ago. Let's call your self-concocted "atheism" what it really is - a religion, heavily based on faith. AMEN & AMEN!

Gotta go now. I have to meet a very special lady at the local StarBucks. She said it's on her. Hmm, maybe gender equality at last, yes?

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

You continue to exhibit an ignorance that truly knows no bounds. I am not an enemy of Christianity, and think that you just might do it more disservice than I ever possibly could.

If you are really interested in the scientific method, which I truly doubt, then I suggest you look it up, because you have already exhibited such a profound misunderstanding of it that I'm surprised the moderators aren't falling all over themselves to prevent your posts from reaching sensible ears.

Are you actually accusing each and every scientist on the whole of the planet of belonging to some fraternal order that has agreed to certain truths that are based on faith of some kind? Scientists that are made up of Muslims, Christians, Jews, Republicans, Democrats, Monarchists, Pagans, communists, vegetarians, panthologists, atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, and every other belief system are all in agreement in faith about evolution? How could that be managed? Is it even possible?

What central control would there be in this conspiracy?

If you're interested, and I'm certain that you're not, the scientific method deals with that which is testable, falsifiable, and provides predictions. Since Karl Popper, the days of simply assembling reasons to believe something are long gone. Nowadays, whatever you say in science has to include that which might disprove what you are saying, or it isn't scientific. If there is no way to disprove your theory, then your theory isn't scientific. Evolution can easily be falsified. The whole of science is constantly trying to do just that, and has been since Darwin. If ever a Jurassic fossil is found in the Triassic period, evolution would fold, for example. The discovery of DNA and RNA could easily have disproved evolution, but only supported it.

Every scientist in the world is actively trying to disprove what has been presented as a theory. That's how discovery is achieved.

I can't believe that an adult living in this century that has any interest at all in the scientific method doesn't know this stuff. It is fundamental to science. Every post I've read from you makes it plain that you are unaware of the scientific method as it is practiced all over the planet.

Google everything I've said. Go ahead.

But that isn't the worst thing you've done here. You've done your religion a disservice in many ways. For one, you don't love me. That is apparent. You are acting like a football quarterback that can "win the game" against the evil atheists. Yay. Good for you. What about Jesus, who actually does love me?

Secondly, you have misled Christians in their understanding of science for some unknown reason. What if someone adopts Christianity based on your words and then discovers that you are wrong about science? What if they lose that faith because of your feel-good, rah, rah, tactics when they discover your ridiculous claims about science?

I'm glad you can make a living on your ministry, but please. It isn't your bottom line that will judge you when you meet your maker. I am not your enemy, unless you seek to continue to mislead people.

k

Edited October 25, 2006 by khalou

[Observer of dreams]

There is a big problem with how arguments are handled. The problem is that we as believers make up our minds about something, then look for evidence to back it up. Atheist do this as well except they look to science, biology or another form for validation. The flawless nature of Gods laws was something I observed, then came to a conclusion about.

I didn't have any prejudgments about it. Heck I didn't even think about it until around the time of the post. The reason it is apparently so hard for me to accept an opposing idea from an atheist is because they are trying to give me their own moral arguments, moral arguments that they have already made up their mind about, then have sought the evidence after the fact.

Here is an example. Say me as a christian says "Abortion is wrong!" Then someone from a pro-choice stance say "It's their choice let them make up their own mind!" Even reading this as a believer one might have already put up their moral defences assuming I am to make a case for abortion, this is not the aim.

When asked for evidence for the argument that abortion is wrong I might point to a scripture in which God says to peter that he knew him before he was concieved. This appears a solid fact for the argument that human life beggins at conception, but when the passage is put in context it turns out that it has to do with peters status as a profit, and God is telling him he knew he was to be a profit before he was concieved.

Based on the christian religion God's laws ARE flawless according to the christian religion. God is flawless, God makes laws, the laws are therefore flawless. In this argument it doesn't matter if a flaw is found in them because Christianity says they are flawless. It is therefore true within the confines of the religion.

I wont say that they are flawless beyond this until I investigate, pray, or meditate further on it. For now the argument above is the only conclusion I can reach. I am not saying that God's flawlessness DOESN'T go beyond the christian faith, but only that I don't know because I haven't thought that far ahead.

Edited October 26, 2006 by Observer of dreams

[khalou]

There is a big problem with how arguments are handled. The problem is that we as believers make up our minds about something, then look for evidence to back it up. Atheist do this as well except they look to science, biology or another form for validation. The flawless nature of Gods laws was something I observed, then came to a conclusion about.

The scientific method doesn't work this way.

You don't look for reasons to believe something is true in science. You look for reasons NOT to believe something is true. Look up Karl Popper.

Anything can be backed up by stacks and stacks of evidence in favor. This is a fundamental problem with Christians and their arguments with atheists. Christians seem to believe that science is about what you've described.

How could that be possibly true when we're talking about scientists that are of all faiths and are humans, yet agree on things?

Intelligent Design, for example, seeks to gain scientific status as a theory. There is one reason, and one reason only, that makes it impossible for Intelligent Design to rate a scientific status. There is no way to prove it false. That's it, that's all. If you can't disprove it, then it isn't scientific.

What was that you said? "we as believers make up our minds about something, then look for evidence to back it up. Atheist do this as well except they look to science". Impossible.

Science does not look for evidence to support their theories, because history has shown that there is always evidence that might support a claim. What science seeks is some test that might disprove the theory. If there is no such test, then it isn't scientific.

In Darwin's case, every scientist on the planet seeks to disprove evolution. That is how we learn. There have been many chances for this, and all have ended up supporting evolution. Darn! So scientists of all cultures, of all religions, of all tendencies still regard evolution as a viable theory. It offers predictions, and explains vast amounts of observable phenomena.

That's why scientists of such diverse backgrounds can support the theory. Some, not all, Christians seem to want people to believe that evolution is supported by a group of like-minded individuals that are totally against Christianity, but that would be impossible. Who would intimidate the Indian Hindu scientists who believe that God created the earth? Or the Muslims that believe the same?

Science all over the world has tested the theory ever since Darwin with the enthusiasm of their opinions, and have only come up with support for the theory.

I know that no one here will understand what I'm saying, but please! Before you go and try to equate faith with science, at least understand what science is.

k

[Floatingaxe]

Intelligent Design, for example, seeks to gain scientific status as a theory. There is one reason, and one reason only, that makes it impossible for Intelligent Design to rate a scientific status. There is no way to prove it false. That's it, that's all. If you can't disprove it, then it isn't scientific.

Good going, ex-brother.

[khalou]

Intelligent Design, for example, seeks to gain scientific status as a theory. There is one reason, and one reason only, that makes it impossible for Intelligent Design to rate a scientific status. There is no way to prove it false. That's it, that's all. If you can't disprove it, then it isn't scientific.

Good going, ex-brother.

What do you mean?

k

[Floatingaxe]

It means that I see you believe that as ID cannot be proven false, that is is indeed, TRUTH. Must be!

[Observer of dreams]

I know what khalou is saying, and he is right! What he means that an argument can be so irrefutable that you end up not saying anything at all.

In a book I am reading entitled "Elements of Moral Philosophy" there is an argument. The argument is that Micheal Jordan can't fit into my volkswagon. Your argument is that he can. So to test this we take the volkswagon to Micheal Jordan and have him get in and we see if he can fit or not. In this situation there are ways in which this is true, and ways in which are false.What Khalou is saying is that in my argument we don't know where micheal Jordan is, we can't find him. We know there are books about him and various T.V. appearances, but there is no way to prove he can't fit into my Volkswagon unless we can find him. so scientifically something can be unproveable and therefore moot in the eyes of science, but I don't like this because it is essentially saying that since there is no proof it must not be exsist which bring me to another point....

Khalou you are right that the sientific method doesn't work that way, but that is not what I was getting at. Here is a better example of what I am talking about by.....

There is a big problem with how arguments are handled. The problem is that we as believers make up our minds about something, then look for evidence to back it up. Atheist do this as well except they look to science, biology or another form for validation. The flawless nature of Gods laws was something I observed, then came to a conclusion about.

The situation for the atheist is as follows; I grow up believing there is no God because my mother died and I have alot of resentment. Ok now my argument to a believer becomes God doesn't exsist. However I can't just say he doesn't exsist because of my resentment towards my mothers death, so I look for evidence to back up the conclusion I have already reached. I find that there are no pictures of God so that benifits me, I find that when I prayed for my mother to get better she didn't so theirs more evidence. There are no bones of Jesus and no way to verify anything written in the bible. Theirs more evidence, but when I tell a believer they don't listen to me.

The situation for the believer is as follows; I grew up in church and read the bible regularly, I put my will second to God's will and everything I need is provided to me. I am very happy and I have faith that God exsist though I have never seen him. When someone tells me he doesn't exsist I tell him about faith, I show him scripture, and I show him the dig sites and evidence of events that were recorded in the bible, like wars, and earthquakes and sudden destruction of cities, and I show him the footprints in the red sea where it is written in the bible that moses delivered the hebrews from the egyptions. I am upset because he still will not believe me even now.

Now here is my point. Neither one of these people will ever be convinced that the other one is right. They never fully consider both sides of the story. In both cases they ignore evidence for the other side and cherry pick those peices of information that suites them and best falls in line with the beliefs that have been preconcieved.

QUOTE(Floatingaxe @ Oct 27 2006, 11:23 AM) *

It means that I see you believe that as ID cannot be proven false, that is is indeed, TRUTH. Must be! laugh.gif

So, you just admitted that because it can't be disproven, it isn't science?

Just because something cannot be disproven does not mean that it is true. I state that, 9 billion light years away, there is a cluster of stars that contain a solar system almost completely like ours.

I'd challenge you to state how you would disprove such a statement. Remember, if it cannot be disproven, then it must be truth!

In a way you are right, but by this standard you cannot say something is false because it cannot be proven, the best conclusion is to say that you don't know. However I could then ask you to show me this solar sytem, and when you do I could ask you to prove that the pictures are real, and if you take me to a telescope and show me I could ak you to prove that it is really a solar system and not just some kind of wierd cluster of stars since they would appear pretty small 9 billion lightyears away, then I could ask you for samples from the earth like planet, then I could just dismiss the samples as samples from our own earth. Evidence doesn't matter. If God could be proven true or false it would have been done by now.

Edited October 28, 2006 by Observer of dreams

[khalou]

I know what khalou is saying, and he is right! What he means that an argument can be so irrefutable that you end up not saying anything at all.

In a book I am reading entitled "Elements of Moral Philosophy" there is an argument. The argument is that Micheal Jordan can't fit into my volkswagon. Your argument is that he can. So to test this we take the volkswagon to Micheal Jordan and have him get in and we see if he can fit or not. In this situation there are ways in which this is true, and ways in which are false.What Khalou is saying is that in my argument we don't know where micheal Jordan is, we can't find him. We know there are books about him and various T.V. appearances, but there is no way to prove he can't fit into my Volkswagon unless we can find him. so scientifically something can be unproveable and therefore moot in the eyes of science, but I don't like this because it is essentially saying that since there is no proof it must not be exsist which bring me to another point....

Khalou you are right that the sientific method doesn't work that way, but that is not what I was getting at. Here is a better example of what I am talking about by.....

There is a big problem with how arguments are handled. The problem is that we as believers make up our minds about something, then look for evidence to back it up. Atheist do this as well except they look to science, biology or another form for validation. The flawless nature of Gods laws was something I observed, then came to a conclusion about.

The situation for the atheist is as follows; I grow up believing there is no God because my mother died and I have alot of resentment. Ok now my argument to a believer becomes God doesn't exsist. However I can't just say he doesn't exsist because of my resentment towards my mothers death, so I look for evidence to back up the conclusion I have already reached. I find that there are no pictures of God so that benifits me, I find that when I prayed for my mother to get better she didn't so theirs more evidence. There are no bones of Jesus and no way to verify anything written in the bible. Theirs more evidence, but when I tell a believer they don't listen to me.

The situation for the believer is as follows; I grew up in church and read the bible regularly, I put my will second to God's will and everything I need is provided to me. I am very happy and I have faith that God exsist though I have never seen him. When someone tells me he doesn't exsist I tell him about faith, I show him scripture, and I show him the dig sites and evidence of events that were recorded in the bible, like wars, and earthquakes and sudden destruction of cities, and I show him the footprints in the red sea where it is written in the bible that moses delivered the hebrews from the egyptions. I am upset because he still will not believe me even now.

Now here is my point. Neither one of these people will ever be convinced that the other one is right. They never fully consider both sides of the story. In both cases they ignore evidence for the other side and cherry pick those peices of information that suites them and best falls in line with the beliefs that have been preconcieved.

Well, what about me? I fit the latter history. I have been shown that anything can be believed just by looking for evidence in support of it, but if one looks for evidence that disputes it, then we can see if it's true or not.

Christians offer no such evidence, but atheists do. I lost that faith because Christians seem to want to get involved in an argument of secular evidence in the first place. I'd easily become a Christian again if I could find one that doesn't do this, but so far, I haven't. All Christians seem to misunderstand the data and proclaim "evidence" where none exists! Personal evidence, and in what one experiences personally, is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the ridiculous logical and historical and other supposedly scientific arguments that are supposed to show that Christianity is correct that never do so because the method of determining actual evidence is ignored!

Faith is faith. Faith is all you have. You certainly can't show any evidence of God without faith. Why do Christians constantly dilute the message by making such glaring errors of logic in their arguments?? Do you WANT to keep people from the faith?

k