Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Does the Scientific Method require Faith?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="roach" data-source="post: 59317232" data-attributes="member: 289725"><p>Why put 'Biblical' or 'Scoffer' or 'Straw' in front of faith? Is it because you acknowledge your conception of faith is NOT universal or understood by 'all mankind'? I'm not talking about anything other than a straight-forward, unambiguous, agreed upon meaning of faith. </p><p></p><p>Do we <em>really </em>have to go to a dictionary? </p><p></p><p>"Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing, or a belief that is not based on proof."</p><p></p><p>So if you want to call 'biblical' faith=faith based on evidence, don't expect people to read your mind and understand how you define words, especially oxymoronic definitions you concoct to suit a particular conversation. </p><p></p><p>If you want to proceed in a discussion of faith and science, just agree to a single, clear definition of faith. (<em>then </em>you can make up phrases like 'biblical faith' and define those however you like; I really don't care). </p><p></p><p>Faith is a word; it has a meaning, and more specifically, it has one meaning in this context. Before you start making up words and calling my conception of faith something it's not, think about how incoherent you sound. I'm just going by a dictionary definition of faith; it's your problem if you don't agree with the dictionary, not everyone else's. </p><p></p><p>SO, good luck with those dictionary editors, I'm sure it's a wonderfully gratifying project; best wishes, buddy!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="roach, post: 59317232, member: 289725"] Why put 'Biblical' or 'Scoffer' or 'Straw' in front of faith? Is it because you acknowledge your conception of faith is NOT universal or understood by 'all mankind'? I'm not talking about anything other than a straight-forward, unambiguous, agreed upon meaning of faith. Do we [I]really [/I]have to go to a dictionary? "Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing, or a belief that is not based on proof." So if you want to call 'biblical' faith=faith based on evidence, don't expect people to read your mind and understand how you define words, especially oxymoronic definitions you concoct to suit a particular conversation. If you want to proceed in a discussion of faith and science, just agree to a single, clear definition of faith. ([I]then [/I]you can make up phrases like 'biblical faith' and define those however you like; I really don't care). Faith is a word; it has a meaning, and more specifically, it has one meaning in this context. Before you start making up words and calling my conception of faith something it's not, think about how incoherent you sound. I'm just going by a dictionary definition of faith; it's your problem if you don't agree with the dictionary, not everyone else's. SO, good luck with those dictionary editors, I'm sure it's a wonderfully gratifying project; best wishes, buddy! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Does the Scientific Method require Faith?
Top
Bottom