Thought Experiment

[daveman]

Sorry you're still too upset to respond coherently to simple questions and feel you need to hide behind those childish popguns.

Btw, get it straight. Atheists simply lack belief. Like jurists, we demand compelling evidence from those asserting the existence of supernatural beings and causes, not "proof" or "disproof." Say it. One hundred times. Again.

You do nothing but prove my point: You understand nothing of the nature of faith.

Do you really want me to change my avatar so you're less frightened?

 

[daveman]

Faith is more a religious term in this context. Rather than using "faith" people should use "trust" in science.

Yes, but furthermore science can't "prove" anything or know what anything "is". What basic science does is describe behavior. Metaphysics asks the questions involving reality in science. For example what particles and light "are" is a conundrum. But science knows their behavior to parts per billion accuracy. Those that don't understand that ask the gotcha question, is light a particle or wave? The answer is that it behaves like a wave in flight, but behaves like a particle when interacting with matter.

.

I agree, but we've both seen people displaying faith in science They don't really understand any of it, but it's what they've been told to believe, so they do.

 

[Wuwei]

I agree, but we've both seen people displaying faith in science They don't really understand any of it, but it's what they've been told to believe, so they do.

I have seen many religious people who don't understand science use the term "faith in science" derogatively, but I haven't seen those that trust science use "faith".

 

[Grumblenuts]

Meanwhile, the experiments at the LHC, while cool, can in no way prove how the universe came into being. The experiments can only provide conditions the scientists conducting them believe may replicate the conditions extant at the beginning -- but again, there is no way to test them against what actually happened. It's educated guesswork, but guesswork nonetheless.

No shit. So you're dissatisfied with what you cheaply refer to as "faith" and "educated guesswork." Compelling evidence, falsification of testable theories, repetition of experimental results, peer review, transparency, publication, consensus. YOU'RE the only idiot who has demanded proof of anything here. Atheists as a rule do not. Again, scientists do not. If you ever manage to quote some idiot aside from yourself doing so, then by all means go nuts. Let 'em have it. Both barrels. But, for the love of dogs, start with yourself.

 

[emilynghiem]

.

.
persuasion is a better way of putting it, what others are trying to do ... your religion, christianity precludes ever arriving at the state of purity where everything is resolved, being attainable as the reward - the goal of the prescribed religion of antiquity, you might keep that in mind.

Dear BreezeWood
I find that the universal truth found in Christianity is compatible and fulfills any other system of expressing God's laws.

Whatever you keep objecting to as the lies and fraud taught in historical Christianity is by definition NOT universal, eternal or sustainable truth.

You are talking about false teachings in Christian history.

I am talking about truths so universal they are compatible and can be expressed using any person's systems.

Whatever is universally true in the Antiquities you teach is ALSO the true teachings that Christianity should teach as well.

I am sorry to hear you do not have faith this can be corrected. You seem to think the only way is to denounce Christianity, not correct the way it is taught.

I believe ANY system can be used to teach the same truth you are trying to share and establish.

Universal truth by definition should translate equally into Buddhist terms as Muslim, secular/nontheist terms as Theist or Christian.

I have faith that by definition of Univeral truth, anyone can communicate this with other people using whatever terms or language that person understands best.

Sorry to hear you do not have this faith that you can share God's truth in terms of Christianity but only reject it.

It seems a waste of your spiritual gifts and teaching to argue and reject Christians instead of adding and correcting by your contributions of knowledge God has given you which you find they lack. What a shame you cut off the very people you argue most need to have this knowledge.

I pray God opens up a better avenue for you to reach the audience most in need who would benefit most from receiving you. May your path be made open free and clear to receive each other so your knowledge may be shared for the enlightenment and benefit of all humanity.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I have seen many religious people who don't understand science use the term "faith in science" derogatively, but I haven't seen those that trust science use "faith".

While the words "faith" and "trust" enjoy wide secular usage, I don't see how "trust" can be significantly better than applying "faith" to science. Neither work for me. Science just implies study of, research, investigation, while scientific more connotes the means or method. We largely seek material, dependable facts. Having to no longer "trust in Faith" is largely the point. What's the alternative to scientific method? Study religion? Flip a coin? Sorry, but one can depend upon or "trust" those methods to fail at least half the time. Science is always there for when you tire of just screwing around.

 

[Blues Man]

Not exactly.

The answer is 'no'.

You could not prove the universe was created 10 minutes ago... because there is no experiment you could perform that would supply that proof.

You are inside the Matrix.

I could take it even further.

Prove that ... (Insert any random event outside of your own personal experience here)... actually occurred.

I'll choose the Crusades...as we are in the Religion Forum.

Prove that the Crusades occurred...

I think we have different ideas on what a thought experiment actually is.

 

[BreezeWood]

Dear BreezeWood
I find that the universal truth found in Christianity is compatible and fulfills any other system of expressing God's laws.

Whatever you keep objecting to as the lies and fraud taught in historical Christianity is by definition NOT universal, eternal or sustainable truth.

You are talking about false teachings in Christian history.

I am talking about truths so universal they are compatible and can be expressed using any person's systems.

Whatever is universally true in the Antiquities you teach is ALSO the true teachings that Christianity should teach as well.

I am sorry to hear you do not have faith this can be corrected. You seem to think the only way is to denounce Christianity, not correct the way it is taught.

I believe ANY system can be used to teach the same truth you are trying to share and establish.

Universal truth by definition should translate equally into Buddhist terms as Muslim, secular/nontheist terms as Theist or Christian.

I have faith that by definition of Univeral truth, anyone can communicate this with other people using whatever terms or language that person understands best.

Sorry to hear you do not have this faith that you can share God's truth in terms of Christianity but only reject it.

It seems a waste of your spiritual gifts and teaching to argue and reject Christians instead of adding and correcting by your contributions of knowledge God has given you which you find they lack. What a shame you cut off the very people you argue most need to have this knowledge.

I pray God opens up a better avenue for you to reach the audience most in need who would benefit most from receiving you. May your path be made open free and clear to receive each other so your knowledge may be shared for the enlightenment and benefit of all humanity.

.

I am sorry to hear you do not have faith this can be corrected. You seem to think the only way is to denounce Christianity, not correct the way it is taught.

I believe ANY system can be used to teach the same truth you are trying to share and establish.

your religion, christianity precludes ever arriving at the state of purity where everything is resolved, being attainable as the reward.

.
excuse me, every page of the desert religion's bible are forgeries, fallacies and corruption - faith is not included in the religion of antiquity.
.p

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

.
you sing with the worst of them emily - your posts are drenched in inaccuracies - the above is the emperor of the roman empire - the persecution and victimization of the innocent is your calling card, christianity.

 

[Wuwei]

While the words "faith" and "trust" enjoy wide secular usage, I don't see how "trust" can be significantly better than applying "faith" to science. Neither work for me. Science just implies study of, research, investigation, while scientific more connotes the means or method. We largely seek material, dependable facts. Having to no longer "trust in Faith" is largely the point. What's the alternative to scientific method? Study religion? Flip a coin? Sorry, but one can depend upon or "trust" those methods to fail at least half the time. Science is always there for when you tire of just screwing around.

Well, there are two aspects. One is the dictionary meaning, and the other is an emotional choice of words. In the current context, to me "faith" means belief of a concept without evidence. "Trust" is belief that the scientists behind a concept have thoroughly and honestly investigated the evidence. But that's my take. I can see that others will differ.

 

[Meriweather]

Well, there are two aspects. One is the dictionary meaning, and the other is an emotional choice of words. In the current context, to me "faith" means belief of a concept without evidence. "Trust" is belief that the scientists behind a concept have thoroughly and honestly investigated the evidence.

Evidence is only available in the physical world, it is something that can be measured with at least one of our five physical senses. Belief of a scientific fact is based on evidence.

Since faith is of the spiritual realm, no physical evidence is available. Faith means belief of a concept based on reason.

Interesting that many scientific discoveries begin with using reason as well. The difference is that physical evidence is available in the physical realm, but is not in the spiritual.

 

[Blues Man]

Evidence is only available in the physical world, it is something that can be measured with at least one of our five physical senses. Belief of a scientific fact is based on evidence.

Since faith is of the spiritual realm, no physical evidence is available. Faith means belief of a concept based on reason.

Interesting that many scientific discoveries begin with using reason as well. The difference is that physical evidence is available in the physical realm, but is not in the spiritual.

Faith is belief in the absence of proof or reason.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Since faith is of the spiritual realm,

i.e. the realm of pure imagination, zombies, talking serpents, life after death,..

no physical evidence is available. Faith means belief of a concept based on

fantasy, myth, fairy tales, propaganda, coercion,.. whatever it takes!

 

[Meriweather]

Faith is belief in the absence of proof or reason.

Not for most. For most, faith is based on reason. I learned that in elementary school--and the primary grades at that.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Like I said: "Whatever it takes!"
Martin Luther tumbling in his grave? Whatever!
Religious belief irrational? Never!

 

[Faun]

In this experiment, there was no universe and therefore nothing existed 11 minutes ago. No matter, no energy, no physical space.

Then God created the universe 10 minutes ago, exactly as it is right now, with all the evidence it's billions of years old built-in, with the light from distant stars created in transit, and us with all our memories of a lifetime in place.

Now...how could you disprove this? NOTE: Emotions are not proof. Hostility to God and insistence He's not real is not proof.

If nothing existed 11 minutes ago, G-d wouldn't have existed 10 minutes ago.

 

[emilynghiem]

.



.
excuse me, every page of the desert religion's bible are forgeries, fallacies and corruption - faith is not included in the religion of antiquity.
.p

.
you sing with the worst of them emily - your posts are drenched in inaccuracies - the above is the emperor of the roman empire - the persecution and victimization of the innocent is your calling card, christianity.

You are still talking about the letter of the writing.

I am talking about the traditions and teachings in Christianity including
* the Golden Rule found in ALL religions
* universal wisdom such as speaking the truth with love and seeking wisdom and truth
* laws of justice or karma: that we reap what we sow. That by forgiving others we are forgiven, but if we do not forgive others then we are not forgiven.

BreezeWood are you enlightened enough to see where universal truths that do not depend on the Bible can still be taught as consistent and expressed in Christian terms?

Aren't the above laws true for all humanity regardless of the Bible or any way of teaching them?

Buddhism also teaches laws of karma or cause and effect, whether we call this justice or laws of attraction.

Same universal principle.

Does this process of justice change how it operates just because someone refers to it as "reaping what we sow."

Isn't it still true regardless if someone uses Buddhist or Biblical terms to describe this universal law?

 

[BreezeWood]

You are still talking about the letter of the writing.

I am talking about the traditions and teachings in Christianity including
* the Golden Rule found in ALL religions
* universal wisdom such as speaking the truth with love and seeking wisdom and truth
* laws of justice or karma: that we reap what we sow. That by forgiving others we are forgiven, but if we do not forgive others then we are not forgiven.

BreezeWood are you enlightened enough to see where universal truths that do not depend on the Bible can still be taught as consistent and expressed in Christian terms?

Aren't the above laws true for all humanity regardless of the Bible or any way of teaching them?

Buddhism also teaches laws of karma or cause and effect, whether we call this justice or laws of attraction.

Same universal principle.

Does this process of justice change how it operates just because someone refers to it as "reaping what we sow."

Isn't it still true regardless if someone uses Buddhist or Biblical terms to describe this universal law?

.

I am talking about the traditions and teachings in Christianity including ...

.

.
so are the literalists, the one being addressed. your ignorance seems contrived.
.

@BreezeWood are you enlightened enough to see where universal truths that do not depend on the Bible can still be taught as consistent and expressed in Christian terms?

.
there are no 1st century christian terms, 1st century liberation theology has only the triumph over evil as prescribed for its singular and only objective - required of all humanity.

are you speaking for the crucifiers, no - they can only be brought to justice, their crime persists to this day - they wrote the 4th century christian bible.
.

Aren't the above laws true for all humanity regardless of the Bible or any way of teaching them?

.
no, it does matter - the uninterrupted and remorseless history of christianities persecution and victimization of the innocent makes yours a mute point. for all three desert religions.

 

[Blues Man]

Not for most. For most, faith is based on reason. I learned that in elementary school--and the primary grades at that.

Definition of FAITH

allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty; fidelity to one's promises; sincerity of intentions… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

firm belief in something for which there is no proof

If there is no proof then there is no reason to believe

 

[Meriweather]

firm belief in something for which there is no proof

For the millionth time: Faith is not based on evidence. We agree there. I am saying that for probably the majority of us, faith is based on reason.

 

[Blues Man]

For the millionth time: Faith is not based on evidence. We agree there. I am saying that for probably the majority of us, faith is based on reason.

There is no reason to believe something that cannot be proven.

Faith doesn't come after reasoning it comes before and then it becomes the reason.