razeontherock
Well-Known Member
That does not = "belief in the absence of evidence." It is not an easy concept though
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That does not = "belief in the absence of evidence." It is not an easy concept thoughIsn't that the Bible's definition of faith though?
Heb 11:1 (KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
What do you mean "go with that definition"? This is what people mean by the word in relation to the pursuit of truth!
Seems a pretty darned popular position to me.
I said nothing whatsoever about materialism. Only being able to check your answers. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. If you can't check your answers, then you're guaranteed to get it wrong. Period.
Two points I would make:I should interject this comment I just stumbled upon in another thread, to see what you might make of it:
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." - Max Planck
Obviously I will point out some similarity with at least 2 notable passages of Scripture, but do you discredit Planck?
Then what is your definition? I mean, if it's such a straw man, you should be able to come up with a definition for the word that is concrete and matches what people mean when they use it, right?No, it is merely your strawman. Glad you personally reject it. Please don't slap such a label on others.
That's why non-material is nonsense in the first place. Non-material is meaningless word salad that is used in an attempt to avoid anybody looking behind the curtain.As an atheist, what non-material means do you have at your disposal to check answers? I would suspect the question itself would make no sense to you, so you'll understand my curiosity why you would make such a comment.
Deep Blue, because it's the first step towards robot domination.
I wonder why he'd say thatWhat about Turings original chess programme (written before there was a machine to implement it).
Or MANIAC1 chess computer (1956 according to www) which beat a female beginner?
Or more jokingly "the Turk" which had a chess master hidden inside.
BTW Kasparov says that he has his doubts as to whether Deep Blue actually had no human assistance.
What part of humans is the spiritual part? If something in the world can be both physical and spiritual, and science can study the physical world, does that mean science can study spiritual things as well? After all, if humans are spiritual, and science can study humans, then science can study at least part of the spiritual, no?Yes! Our species is the only example I know of for sure though.
Well, it's my thread (courtesy of Maxwell), and 'Ask a physicist anything' means that the topic is anything.I keep trying to return this thread to it's purpose. I hope you see that?
True, but the problem is that if God doesn't exist, then we would still be able to study the physical universe. There's nothing we observe that is contingent on the existence of a deity. So God may have created the universe and its physical laws, and so studying physics is studying God's works - but there's nothing about physics that really tells us that we are, in fact, studying God's works.Anyway, maybe some of this is in some small way at least tangentially related. The context here is you showed the attitude that if G-d exists, science will find Him. I find this to be admirable, and rare! I said science has been finding Him via His works, with said works being ... anything with physical existence, apparently. If He is creator of all that is, seen and unseen, that includes laws of physics.
He was a brilliant scientist, but that alone doesn't make him right in all things. Even Einstein been proven wrong. However, Planck's religious views are as subject to change as anyone else's: shortly before his death, in response to rumours that he had converted to Catholicism, he said he did not believe "in a personal God, let alone a Christian God". So what to make of his above comment? Perhaps he was being poetic, like Einstein when he said "God does not play dice". Perhaps he was once genuinely religious, and had change his beliefs in his later years. Perhaps the 'concious and intelligent mind' refers to sum total of human minds, along the lines of the observer effect, rather than the individual mind of God.I should interject this comment I just stumbled upon in another thread, to see what you might make of it:
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." - Max Planck
Obviously I will point out some similarity with at least 2 notable passages of Scripture, but do you discredit Planck?
Yeah he admits he's a sore loser otr thet he doesn't like to lose, but adds that computers today play at grandmaster level but not world beater, yet they have a lot more ability than DB had 10 or 15 years ago. Also he says that in the first game the play was unimaginative as would be expected of a computer, but in the second game (the one which DB won) the play was on another level which had not been seen in the first game. He asks would a corporation with all that kudos to gain be tempted to cheat, and also says that the game would have stricter monitoring in todays world.I wonder why he'd say that
So... yeah, he's a sore loserYeah he admits he's a sore loser otr thet he doesn't like to lose, but adds that computers today play at grandmaster level but not world beater, yet they have a lot more ability than DB had 10 or 15 years ago. Also he says that in the first game the play was unimaginative as would be expected of a computer, but in the second game (the one which DB won) the play was on another level which had not been seen in the first game. He asks would a corporation with all that kudos to gain be tempted to cheat, and also says that the game would have stricter monitoring in todays world.
human[/I] minds, along the lines of the observer effect, rather than the individual mind of God.
So, not only did Plank not believe in God at the end of his life, neither is it clear he believed in God when he made this claim. And even if he did believe in God, well, great men have been wrong before.
Wait, are you saying Creationists lie and use double-standards?!We note of course that brilliant scientists are right, admirable and good if they happen to appear to support some Christian idea. They are a source of authority on such things.
Now, when brilliant scientists dont do that, in fact say things that contradict someone's faith in special creation, noahs ark and so on well then that is another matter.
Then they are dupes of satan and his minions.
Wait, are you saying Creationists lie and use double-standards?!
In all seriousness though, you make a good point: you hear no end of scientists who happened to believe in God, but any scientists who doesn't believe in God is either ignored or deemed a moron.
Wait, are you saying Creationists lie and use double-standards?!
In all seriousness though, you make a good point: you hear no end of scientists who happened to believe in God, but any scientists who doesn't believe in God is either ignored or deemed a moron.
Then what is your definition? I mean, if it's such a straw man, you should be able to come up with a definition for the word that is concrete
And by the way, I absolutely stand by the statement that this is the way in which Christians overwhelmingly use the word. For instance, in a situation where a Christian is having doubts, another Christian may say, "You just have to have faith!"
And then there's the whole story of doubting Thomas, the only one who had the nerve to ask for evidence, who is traditionally and still routinely vilified in many Christian circles.
That's why non-material is nonsense in the first place. Non-material is meaningless word salad that is used in an attempt to avoid anybody looking behind the curtain.
What part of humans is the spiritual part? If something in the world can be both physical and spiritual, and science can study the physical world, does that mean science can study spiritual things as well?
Well, it's my thread (courtesy of Maxwell), and 'Ask a physicist anything' means that the topic is anything.
True, but the problem is that if God doesn't exist, then we would still be able to study the physical universe. There's nothing we observe that is contingent on the existence of a deity. So God may have created the universe and its physical laws, and so studying physics is studying God's works - but there's nothing about physics that really tells us that we are, in fact, studying God's works.
That's ridiculous! The word "faith" is part of human language. But what's more, I'm pretty sure you've entirely abdicated the argument right there. You've essentially said, "I can't say what it means, but it certainly doesn't mean what you say it means!"Nope. You're talking about things that surpass human language, and wanting a nice simple answer. Even a complex one can't possibly convey the truth here, which is likely why you're drawn to the hard sciences?
And yet it is an extremely common one.Ok. And I stand by my statement that this is a weak (or non) answer to someone who is weak at the moment. And perhaps the Church is overwhelmingly weak; that has no bearing on the truth of this issue.
And how would you look behind the "non-material" curtain at all? That's my entire point: you can't. It's fundamentally impossible.No, it's just direction as to which curtain to look behind.
I never thought of it like that. They're so used to accepting things because they're spoken by an authority.It's obviously not done on a sensible basis though, the problem is that because creationist dogma up to and including the Bible is an argument from (alleged) authority, many assume that everyone else's point of view is based on the same method.
It is not the case, of course, and their lack of imagination does not change that.
I often wonder if what Creationists say about us - that we're blinded, close-minded, ignorant, willfully deluding ourselves - is true. And then I remember that we have the evidence. I remember that for every criticism of evolution ever put forth, we have good answers. Criticisms that say evolution cannot happen even in theory, are easily refutable. Criticisms that say evolution simply didn't happen, are easily refutable. Criticisms that evolution leads to atheism, or Marxism, or genocide, or abortion, or homosexuality, are easily refutable.In all seriousness, not all creationists...surely...lie and apply double standards surely not as a deliberate and conscious thing.
A better descriptor would be to say that all I ever encountered, maybe every lat one of them has failed very badly to do their due diligence as far as actually putting in time and effort on the subject of creation vs evolution.
i say that because i have never ever once seen an argument against evolution that was not based partly or entirely on falsehoods in the form of misinformation, ignorance, distortions, misrepresentation, or plain old fabrication.
Whether its 'how come there are still monkeys" or
any of the other moldy pratts, they just wont learn to talk about something real.
And with the rarest of exceptions they will never accept it that they are using bad information and got something wrong.
Well, it may well be true, and I'd be a poor scientist if I closed myself off from the truthIt is refreshing to see such curiosity. At least you entertain the possibility!
So the mind operates as a bridge between the physical body and the spiritual 'spirit' or 'soul'?I would be wise not to comment on this, other than to say as we learn of the workings of the human mind I don't think we study spirit directly, but see a medium that interacts with both. (Physical and spiritual)
Indeed. I've often wondered why some Christians favour the Bible over Creation - if our interpretation of the Bible conflicts with the very reality God himself created, surely it's our interpretation that's wrong, not reality?7I agree w/ this completely. Makes it an equal opportunity field(Which also makes one have to wonder about claims of exclusivity among C's, or any of the religious)
Not at all. For every famous scientist there's usually quotes floating about that attest to their belief in God, regardless of whether they did or not.Thanks for your thoughts re: Planck. Obviously, I was surprised to come across the statement. (Posted by fellow believer Lucaspa)
And then you don't understand how someone on the other side could think the sameI often wonder if what Creationists say about us - that we're blinded, close-minded, ignorant, willfully deluding ourselves - is true. And then I remember that we have the evidence. I remember that for every criticism of evolution ever put forth, we have good answers. Criticisms that say evolution cannot happen even in theory, are easily refutable. Criticisms that say evolution simply didn't happen, are easily refutable. Criticisms that evolution leads to atheism, or Marxism, or genocide, or abortion, or homosexuality, are easily refutable.
Once I've remembered that, my doubts vanish
I often wonder if what Creationists say about us - that we're blinded, close-minded, ignorant, willfully deluding ourselves - is true. And then I remember that we have the evidence. I remember that for every criticism of evolution ever put forth, we have good answers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?