""So, we all have faith in our lives. In fact, only a small portion of our lives are lived via science.
Now, as it turns out, believing that the Sun will rise tomorrow and that your car will start are faith. Both are examples of inductive reasoning. You can never prove by inductive reasoning. An atheist, David Hume, showed that back in the 1780s. If you don't understand how those are faith, then ask and I will explain in more detail."
I don't understand because it isn't faith to believe in gravity. It is a scientific principal that we understand. Understanding how something works requires no faith at all!
Believing that the "something" will work in the future requires faith. Yes, we understand that the earth rotates on its axis and therefore the sun "rises" in the morning. However, to say "the sun will rise tomorrow" is faith. It is inductive reasoning based upon "the sun rose the day before yesterday, the sun rose yesterday, the sun rose today, therefore the sun will rise tomorrow." You can't
prove by inductive reasoning. So we can't
prove the sun will rise tomorrow.
Instead, what we do is make a
theory that the sun will rise each day, based upon the theory of earth's rotation. Each day then becomes a
test of the theory in an attempt to falsify it. Of course, you are still working on your fallacious definition of "faith".
"Sorry, but you have the science wrong.
All theories start out with no evidence. Theory first, evidence later. See my thread
Hypotheses, theories, and laws - Christian Forums"
You aren't thinking of the scientific definition of a theory
"
Noun1.scientific theory - a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
Where did you get this definition? It is in error. Did you read the thread? Just to point out one error, not all theories considered science are falsifiable. No Boundary is a prime example. It is not falsifiable. No one has said Stephen Hawking did not make a scientific theory.
When first proposed, scientific hypotheses/theories don't have evidence. Evidence comes later when tests are undertaken specifically to test the hypothesis/theory:
"I thought that scientific theories were not the digest of observations, but that they were inventions -- conjectures boldly put forward for trial, to be eliminated if they clashed with observations, with observations which were rarely accidental but as a rule undertaken with the definite intention of testing a theory by obtaining, if possible, a decisive refutation." Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, 1963 p 38.
"To my mind the great strength of Karl Popper's conception of the scientific process is that it is realistic -- it gives a pretty fair picture of what actually goes on in real-life laboratories." "The Threat and the Glory", by P.B. Medawar (Nobel Prize winner in medicine), HarperCollins, New York, 1990 (original publication 1959). pp 96-101.
A theory without evidence is a thesis, which needs to be tested and repeated before it can be granted theory statis.
This is the false idea that being called a "theory" gives some form of certainty. The definition you provided above shows the falseness of the idea: "scientific theories must be falsifiable" Now, if a theory is falifi
able, then it can be
false. If you look over the history of science, you find that 99.999+% of all theories have, in fact, been shown to be false -- wrong. Think about phlogiston. Think about the theory that proteins were the hereditary material. Think about the Hawking's theory that time would flow backwards as the universe contracts. All of them are wrong. None of them were demoted to a "thesis", were they? All of them are still considered scientific theories.
So, calling an idea a "theory" does not say
anything about its truth value. A theory can be 1) untested, 2) tested and falsified, and 3) tested and supported.
Creationists often say evolution is 'just a theory', but everything in science is a theory. Gravity is a theory!
We don't let creationists define scientific terms. As it turns out, of course, both gravity and evolution are strongly supported theories. But phlogiston is a falsified theory. Creationism itself is a falsified theory. Oh wait! You are the one that said we can't falsify anything!
lucaps: "Let's try the
dictionary again:
"
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
(2) : complete
trust "
Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
See? You are talking about complete trust in a doctor. That is faith. "
Glad you can be sceptical sometimes. But if trust is earned then you have a reasonable argument to put trust in someone.[ It isn't unreasonable and requires no faith that someone who has reached the stage of doctor has some competency in what he is doing.
Look at the definition! Faith is "no
proof". Not "no evidence". That is where you go off the rails. Faith has
evidence. But yes, it does require faith to think that someone who has an MD has some competency. As I said, I can name several who don't. Yet they managed to get an MD. Some even managed to get thru their orthopaedic board exams and are orthopaedic surgeons.
The same way it isn't faith to not believe in God, that's like saying that health is a disease!
That also is faith. I presume you have your reasons. So far, none of your proposed reasons are valid. However, there are valid reasons for the faith of atheism. But
look at the definition. You have no
proof.
Also, in order to be an atheist, you
must make some statements of faith for which you have
no evidence at all. None. Zip. So, even by your warped definition of "faith", atheism is a faith.
Pretend for arguments sake that the fairy has all the powers of your God.
In that case, all you've done is called "God" "fairy". You haven't done anything at all. "A rose by another name ..."
Can you test for God? Your argument is based on requiring scientifcic methods.
No,
your argument is based on science. Mine isn't.
Science can't directly test for God. It's a limitation of science. Not a problem on God's end, but a problem on science's end. The problem is called Methodological Materialism or Methodologican Naturalism. Often MN for short.
I will have to leave this one as I don't know anything about tachyons. I would assume they would be required to solve an equation, and if enough evidence supports them then they may be a valid theory.
I gave you all the information needed. As it turns out, your assumption is wrong. They are a
possible solution to the equations of Special Relativity. Just as matter can only move slower than light, and photons can only move the speed of light, there are
possible entities that would only move faster than light -- tachyons.
So, back to my question again: what is your attitude toward tachyons? Do you believe they exist? Do you believe they do not exist?
God could have come up with a kinder alternative if he wanted to.
How do you know? What is
your alternative?
It seems unnecessary to me.
That is the Argument from Personal Incredulity. I've shown the necessity of pain. You have just denied the necessity. How's the weather in the Land of Denial? It's raining at the moment in my corner of Reality.
If you were put on this Earth to help the needy, then what were the needy put on the Earth for?
Ah, the irrelevancy. I never said that was why I was put on the earth. I said that my actions in helping the hungry have meaning. Why? Because people actually get fed. Meaning is having real consequences to your actions.
The "needy" are also the real consequences of actions. Some are by humans in reducing the number of workers employed in a business. Some are due to brain chemistry and the resulting mental illness. But even here we have consequences of the actions of
people, don't we? We as a people could decide to pay enough taxes to have programs to take care of the hungry. But the majority of us have voted against that. So a reason the "needy" are present is a consequence of the actions of humans. Real consequences of real actions. So, why do you invoke God? You said "It is obscene to think a loving God would let people starve to make the more forunate feel a bit better...".
I never said that nor what I said implied that.
You made this strawman.
If God can only do good (the best thing to do), then surely he doesn't have free will himself does he?
It would be better to say "God chooses only to do good." We aren't privy to all of God's thoughts, are we?
You choose not to rape because you know it is the wrong thing to do, you don't require God to tell you this.
I was talking about consequences. Both to me and to the women. I wasn't talking about why I chose how I chose.
I can't see how a God that allows an innocent person to get raped simply to allow the evil person to have free will makes any sense.
It's all love. To deny the rapist free will is not to love that person. In fact, to manipulate us so that none of us ever has the
choice is not loving the good person either. What you have is a god that uses us as puppets, keeping us in a mental prison so that certain choices are forbidden to us. Don't you like freedom? Do you really want someone -- even a god -- compelling you on what you can and can't do? If none of us
can rape, how would we "know" it is the "wrong" thing to do? Part of our decision making process is knowing about the bad consequences to women who have been raped. Right? So, in order for us to
know rape is the wrong thing to do, God must allow it to happen.
Where is this clearer message? Nothing could be clearer than a plague of frogs. There are numerous evils in the bible perpetrated by God, surely you are aware of them better than I? I can recall one where God kills 70,000 innocents to get back at one man, as well as many baby killings.
The frogs weren't very clear to pharoah, were they?
He still refused to listen.
There are many acts in the Bible
attributed to God. Are they all God's? Or are many of them acts of people who decided to blame God? After all, even today we have people committing or advocating bad acts by saying "God said". The reference you make is one of the latter, IMO. It is in 2 Sam 24: 1-17. David insists on a census. Many of the people resist this because of it's possible political misuse: the king can now draft and he can tax more efficiently. In fact, they object to it so much that the authors of the histories are even willing to move Satan from friend of God to enemy of God and have Satan be the cause of David's decision. So, instead of saying "the people rose in rebellion" or even "the people will rise in rebellion if the present king ever tries to do a census", they have God punish David the King. It's a lot easier here for people to blame God than to take responsibility themselves. God is their political cover.
lucaspa: "Excuse me, but just how do you know that those who get better without going to the holy site had nothing to do with God? You are presuming the very thing you are trying to prove. That fallacy is called "circular logic".
What I am saying is no-one got better that couldn't of by natural means. A boy can fall through ice for 20 mins yet be revived later and is often deemed a miracle. Yet this isn't an uncommon event and surgeons use this cooling method to slow the heart.
Again, how do you
know that
no one ever got better except by natural means? Again, you are using circular logic here. The example means nothing because 1) such examples were never hailed as a miracle and 2) it isn't addressing someone with a diagnosed illness that got better and there is no medical explanation. IOW, the example is the Red Herring Fallacy.
I don't really understand what you mean by strawman, I assume I am supposed to take some offence?
You don't know what a Strawman Fallacy is? Knowing that is basic to critical thinking. Here:
Fallacy: Straw Man You can also use the site to look up "Red Herring".
I would say a miracle would be something like healing blindness or growing back a limb long before science has the means to do so.
How about spontaneous remission of cancer? This is where you have the Straw Man. You are picking things that you are pretty sure never happened. However, you are excluding documented cases where science still didn't have the means to do so.
I don't want this to be 'science vs religion',
Sure you do. That's why you use science. You think it is firmly on the side of atheism. However, you have a distorted picture of science that you use, because you need the distorted picture to support your atheism.
The best way to find the truth is to test the observations around us and come up with the most logical and statistically most likely answer.
Which is what theists have done.
Most importantly if new evidence is presented that casts doubt on any of these theories we must be prepared to leave old beliefs behind. Can you honestly say you are doing the same?
Yes, but you aren't. You are sticking with the "old belief" of a literal Bible.
So, tell me, why are you not prepared to leave that old belief behind?
Let me tell
you. Because a literal Bible is the
only way you can argue against Christianity. So you are trying to saddle us with this false idea -- not because you want to "listen", but because you need that old belief for your own belief.