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.
A necessary first step does not the science make.
If there is a God it is remarkably stubborn in revealing itself to me.
No we point to that. A unfulfilled desire to explain everything leads us to make "explanations" that don't explain anything.
I have basic assumption that my satisfaction has little if anything to do with the truth.
What I do know is that God doesn't explain the gaps in our knowledge, it just makes people feel better about them.
As you have aptly demonstrated.
If there is a God it is remarkably stubborn in revealing itself to me.
Okay, so from now on I don't want to see any hypothesizes from scientists.
He may be waiting on you to reveal something. That's how it's been in my experience. Long story short, I've had some deep secrets that when they came to light, I was appalled at myself, but then God restored me through His grace and forgiveness.
Might depend on what satisfies you. Logically, if the truth satisfies you, then your satisfaction is dependent on the truth.
God gives me reasons to ask questions that matter and I take joy in that.
I don't keep any secrets from myself.
There's no direct evidence of the multiverse, but it's existence is taken on faith in order to explain what we can observe in our universe.
Reasonable faith is never blind
it always has a reason and that reason is almost always to search for an explanation of what we experience/observe in this reality.
Its true that faith is never based on proof. which is why it's accurately defined as: the acceptance of something for which there is no proof. Proof is different from evidence and reasons.
Not in the least. It just so happens that astronomy is one area of "science" that is utterly empirically indistinguishable from unfalsifiable "faith based (bad) religions" and resident atheists resent me pointing that fact out.
You may have "faith" in "space expansion", but you have no empirical cause/effect justification for the claim, and no empirical evidence it occurs anywhere in nature.
You shouldn't want to see "just" hypothesis from them.
It falls short of actually being science. It's the first step without the others because we can't think how to do the others.
I don't keep any secrets from myself.
I also think my attempts to find God have been genuine given that I was a believer for at-least half of my life.
In terms of forgiveness, I make a better Atheist than I ever did a Christian in terms of my ability to act within a strict moral framework.
I am simply saying that I don't think the truth depends on my satisfaction.
Clarity isn't always satisfying.
I have basic assumption that my satisfaction has little if anything to do with the truth.
I'm not much taken by the idea that the universe or any such Gods exist to make me feel better.
What is not falsifiable under Fcf? Precisely something like Bertrant Russell's teapot example. Note that Fcf requires the ability to "imagine a state of affairs in which it is false."
Utterly false. At best, the multiverse is hypothesized by some scientists.
And not a single one simply accepts it as "existing" or "true". So the statement that it is "taken on faith" is simply ridiculous.
What is "reasonable faith" and how is it different from "regular faith"?
Everybody believes things for a reason. That doesn't make beliefs "reasonable".
That would depend on what the reasons for belief are. You are aware that there is such a thing as "bad" or "invalid" reasons, right?
Playing silly semantic games again, I see.
Faith is the acceptance or assumption of something for which there is no direct evidence of. Both scientists and laymen do this in order to explain things that they do have direct evidence of. The multiverse is a good example of this. There's no direct evidence of the multiverse, but it's existence is taken on faith in order to explain what we can observe in our universe. Same for God.
Reasonable faith is never blind, it always has a reason and that reason is almost always to search for an explanation of what we experience/observe in this reality.
Its true that faith is never based on proof. which is why it's accurately defined as: the acceptance of something for which there is no proof. Proof is different from evidence and reasons.
Edit: at least how I differentiate between proof and evidence is that proof is always undeniable, but evidence may support multiple interpretations of what's true that can lead to proof of what's true.
My point is that they intentionally assume the multiverse exists in order to explain phenomena that they observe in this universe. I agree, that not all scientists do this, but many physicists do.
I agree, some beliefs are based on bad reasoning, but the belief was formed before it was made known that the reason was bad. No reasonable person believes something that is clearly wrong to them.
Lets say we're studying the sun and we find evidence that suggests it may explode soon. This wouldn't be proof that it will explode, however, if the evidence is so strong that we're able to calculate the exact date that it will explode and then on that date it does explode, then there's your proof.
Can you see how I understand the difference? Maybe my understanding is wrong in this area, I welcome correction.
Natural faith is a commonplace thing. Divine faith is specifically similar, but inspired by God. Only folks with a heavy agenda, such as Loudmouth, think that faith means absolutely different things in different contexts--true equivocation.
I can think of at least one easy way to test for God. However, if you haven't any valid, honest reason to assume His existence, then you may not try to ask him to reveal himself to you.
Every believer first came to a point where they humbly sought for God and find that He gives answers and explanation to many things.
The data is pointing to a need for an explanation as to how and why this universe and ourselves exists. Religion simply states that God can provide that explanation on a far deeper level than the material world can provide. However, if you're satisfied with material answers that do nothing to explain love, happiness, hate or evil other than to say they are a result of mindless material happenstance, then so be it.
I'm not saying God is an explanation, I'm saying God can explain things. God isn't an object, He is a living being, who's capable of explaining as much as we can handle and are willing to accept.
In reality you are unable to produce an argument for your position and are just "hand waving" yourself. Mere assertion. We can look at any article of faith and demonstrate why it is believed to be revealed by God, and thus worthy of belief.
He may be waiting on you to reveal something. That's how it's been in my experience. Long story short, I've had some deep secrets that when they came to light, I was appalled at myself, but then God restored me through His grace and forgiveness.
Utterly false. At best, the multiverse is hypothesized by some scientists.
And not a single one simply accepts it as "existing" or "true". So the statement that it is "taken on faith" is simply ridiculous.
What is "reasonable faith" and how is it different from "regular faith"?
Faith is the excuse people give when they wish to believe something for no good reasons. It really is that simple.
As mentioned before, you discount negative results and stay with your conclusion anyway.
I know, but the question is whether forming a hypothesis is a first step in science or not. You're suggesting it's not. See your below remark.
If it's not a part of what science is then why do scientists do it? Could it be that you're incorrect in thinking hypothesizing is not a part of the scientific method?
This suggests that it is:
Outline of scientific method - Wikipedia
You misunderstood. It wasn't that I was keeping secrets from myself, it was that I was intentionally hiding things from others out of fear and shame. When those things finally came to the light, God freed me from them through His forgiveness.
I get that, but there's always more to learn through trial and error.
That's good, but the age old question is: Why live by a strict moral framework, when we won't even be held accountable in the end after death? Even those who will remember how moral you were will eventually die.
Ah, clarity can also being agreement among truth seekers. I agree that the truth doesn't necissarily depend on your satisfaction, but that isn't to say the truth and your satisfaction have nothing to do with one another, which is what you alluded to earlier here:
I'd say the existence of either is what allows you to feel real. We're all better off when we confront reality and seek out the truth, I just happen to believe there's a reason for that, that goes beyond us all.
I wish you the best on your journey.
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?