More Things to consider

[Skreeper]

Yes you do. All the time. Your whole life experience is largely one of faith.

I disagree. Please give me an example where I'm supposed to be exercising faith.

 

[pshun2404]

That is a very general statement. How does any of what you posted show it to be entirely untrue? What "truth" would you put in it's place?

Because it was a story told that was not based on fact or evidence long before some evidence had been interpreted to fit the story. Thus it is made up. It was a way to explain but not discovered to be true. It was great science fiction and like all science fiction borders in some areas around the fridge of truth.

I guess I could propose some alternate science fiction but why bother? That was not the point. I never said "entirely" and agree with some of the order of events. For example, we can see some single celled forms and colonies of cells existed before "animals" but because something precedes another does not necessarily equal that one caused or became the other. And the hypothesis that more simpler levels of complexity DEVELOPED INTO the higher levels of complexity is being shown to not always being the case. Some examples show a movement to less complexity, some to less then more, and others simply a sudden appearance, and so on.

 

[pshun2404]

I disagree. Please give me an example where I'm supposed to be exercising faith.

Do you even plan your next breath? You are so assured of your breathing. This is called faith (trusting in something reliably known and thus counted on). You go to sleep with the impression/assumption of your waking. Do you not? That is faith (not a wishful imagining). Will the sun continue to be there today and bless your day? It is possible it could cease to be so, but you have faith this will not happen. You trust in, rely on, and cling to, many scientific hypotheses (some of which have not been fully revealed to you, some of which are not confirmed) and so on. Must I really go on?

 

[Skreeper]

Do you even plan your next breath? You are so assured of your breathing. This is called faith (trusting in something reliably known and thus counted on). You go to sleep with the impression/assumption of your waking. Do you not? That is faith (not a wishful imagining). Will the sun continue to be there today and bless your day? It is possible it cease to be so but you have faith this will not happen. You trust in, rely on, and cling to, many scientific hypotheses (some of which have not been fully revealed to you, some of which are not confirmed) and so on. Must I really go on?

You work with a different definition of faith than I do. Faith is believing in something when you don't have a good reason to (e.g lack of evidence). What you consider faith I call trust or confidence in.

 

[pshun2404]

You work with a different definition of faith than I do. Faith is believing in something when you don't have a good reason to (e.g lack of evidence). What you consider faith I call trust or confidence in.

Yeah I figured you did not understand what faith is. You incorrect definition is the culprit. Now you can adjust it. It is similar to your understanding of when we say we "hope". For you "hope" is a wish something could or would come true. To us "hope" is the eager expectation of that which we KNOW will happen or come true.

Faith is to trust in and rely on...not imagine...

 

[durangodawood]

All past events are a matter of some type of faith....

Thats super absurd.

I need no extra faith to believe that a tree used to stand where a stump now sits in the ground. No more faith than I have in my own sensations today.

 

[Skreeper]

Yeah I figured you did not understand what faith is. You incorrect definition is the culprit. Now you can adjust it. It is similar to your understanding of when we say we "hope". For you "hope" is a wish something could or would come true. To us "hope" is the eager expectation of that which we KNOW will happen or come true.

Faith is to trust in and rely on...not imagine...

My definition is not incorrect. It is the way the people I interact with use it most of the time.
I'll be nice and adjust it for the conversations with you so we understand each other.

It even has a third usage in the Bible where faith is actually the evidence of things not seen. Nonsensical, if you ask me.

 

[SkyWriting]

Thats super absurd.I need no extra faith to believe that a tree used to stand where a stump now sits in the ground. No more faith than I have in my own sensations today.

So if I burry one in your front yard, you will be stunned?
My crew is quite good at this.

 

[durangodawood]

So if I burry one in your front yard, you will be stunned?
My crew is quite good at this.

Sure, maybe you could fool me with a really good job. But thats not the way of tree stumps typically. My assessment that a tree used to be there is based on observation and reason, not faith.

 

[bhsmte]

Do you even plan your next breath? You are so assured of your breathing. This is called faith (trusting in something reliably known and thus counted on). You go to sleep with the impression/assumption of your waking. Do you not? That is faith (not a wishful imagining). Will the sun continue to be there today and bless your day? It is possible it could cease to be so, but you have faith this will not happen. You trust in, rely on, and cling to, many scientific hypotheses (some of which have not been fully revealed to you, some of which are not confirmed) and so on. Must I really go on?

People apply the term faith in different ways.

The definition of faith, tends to lean towards believing in something without objective evidence. I don't need faith to know I will likely take my next breath, I have a proven track record to rely on. I don't need faith to know the lights will turn on when I flip the switch, because I have a proven track record to rely on.

Without a proven track record, one would require faith to believe something.

 

[pshun2404]

My definition is not incorrect. It is the way the people I interact with use it most of the time.
I'll be nice and adjust it for the conversations with you so we understand each other.

It even has a third usage in the Bible where faith is actually the evidence of things not seen. Nonsensical, if you ask me.

For 100os of years people had faith that all matter was comprised of small building blocks (as you do) which cannot be seen. You have faith in a universal common ancestor you have not seen. You have faith that somehow somewhere fish became amphibians (but have never seen this). You have faith that there must be life on other planets (but do not see this). You never SAW the love your mother had/has for you but you have faith that she does because of your experience.... Shall I go on?

 

[bhsmte]

For 100os of years people had faith that all matter was comprised of small building blocks (as you do) which cannot be seen. You have faith in a universal common ancestor you have not seen. You have faith that somehow somewhere fish became amphibians (but have never seen this). You have faith that there must be life on other planets (but do not see this). You never SAW the love your mother had/has for you but you have faith that she does because of your experience.... Shall I go on?

You would do well, to not apply your definition of faith to others and assume to know, what others have faith in or don't have faith in.

 

[pshun2404]

People apply the term faith in different ways.

The definition of faith, tends to lean towards believing in something without objective evidence. I don't need faith to know I will likely take my next breath, I have a proven track record to rely on. I don't need faith to know the lights will turn on when I flip the switch, because I have a proven track record to rely on.

Without a proven track record, one would require faith to believe something.

The definition of faith, tends to lean towards believing in something without objective evidence.

That is because you do not accept the experience (the proven track record) of millions from all times (of every continent, both genders, all ages, from every social and academic strata) as "objective evidence". You have been given a very limited box to check. If it does not fit it, it allegedly is not valid.

 

[bhsmte]

The definition of faith, tends to lean towards believing in something without objective evidence.

That is because you do not accept the experience (the proven track record) of millions from all times (of every continent, both genders, all ages, from every social and academic strata) as "objective evidence". You have been given a very limited box to check. If it does not fit it, it allegedly is not valid.

I don't see any proven track record with faith claims of Gods. I see a whole lot of personal claim, of a wide variety, that can not be verified in any substantial way besides personal opinion.

 

[Speedwell]

The definition of faith, tends to lean towards believing in something without objective evidence.

That is because you do not accept the experience (the proven track record) of millions from all times (of every continent, both genders, all ages, from every social and academic strata) as "objective evidence". You have been given a very limited box to check. If it does not fit it, it allegedly is not valid.

I don't accept it either--as evidence that the ToE is false. In fact, the "experience" you cite as evidence is only evidence of the real faith of these millions. It is not evidence of the truth of any particular theology. It might just as well be advanced in justification of the theology of many other, larger sects. Yes, there are (by my estimate, anyway) around 100 million devout creationists; millions, as you assert. But there are close to two billion Christians worldwide who are not creationists. Why is their faith not evidence that creationism is wrong? If numbers are to count, then we win.

 

[Skreeper]

For 100os of years people had faith that all matter was comprised of small building blocks (as you do) which cannot be seen. You have faith in a universal common ancestor you have not seen. You have faith that somehow somewhere fish became amphibians (but have never seen this). You have faith that there must be life on other planets (but do not see this). You never SAW the love your mother had/has for you but you have faith that she does because of your experience.... Shall I go on?

I already told you that I don't subscribe to your usage of the word faith. I would appreciate if you could stop telling me what I'm supposed to have faith in or don't have faith in.

None of the above is an accurate description of what I actually believe.

 

[USincognito]

But why, one may ask? Why doesn’t it make sense? Well because as they point out amoebas have 100s of times more DNA than higher primates.

1. There's no such thing as "higher primates". All beings from bacteria to oak tree to Athlete's Foot fungus to human are equally evolved.
2. Genome size =/= "complexity".

 

[USincognito]

You have faith in a universal common ancestor you have not seen.

We don't need to "see" it. We have evidence for it from the fossil record and genetics.

You have faith that somehow somewhere fish became amphibians (but have never seen this).

Actually we have evidence for it from the fossil record and genetics.

Shall I go on?

Only if you want to fortify the fact that you're defining "faith" in a very strange way.

 

[klutedavid]

Can you show me this designer or how exactly he managed to design everything and making sure it looks like the result of natural processes?

I can show you the designer, Jesus Christ.

If God created the universe with an inbuilt age, then He did that for a reason. Perhaps He gave you exactly what you were after.

One cannot say that any process or event is a natural process, unless one knows for certain that a natural event can occur.

I have found it wiser to never assume anything, our knowledge is very limited.

 

[pshun2404]

I don't accept it either--as evidence that the ToE is false. In fact, the "experience" you cite as evidence is only evidence of the real faith of these millions. It is not evidence of the truth of any particular theology. It might just as well be advanced in justification of the theology of many other, larger sects. Yes, there are (by my estimate, anyway) around 100 million devout creationists; millions, as you assert. But there are close to two billion Christians worldwide who are not creationists. Why is their faith not evidence that creationism is wrong? If numbers are to count, then we win.

a) I don't accept it either--as evidence that the ToE is false.
b) I also do not believe it is evidence of the truth "of any particular theology."
c) I was never speaking of what you call "creationists" (as you described elsewhere)
d) I also believe "there are close to two billion Christians worldwide who are not creationists" as you described creationists (I'm one of the two billion).
e) we were talking (though still way off topic) about faith

Faith is not evidence "creationism" is true or false...our faith is in the evidence of experience. It is a form of what is empirical.