Faith is one of the world's great evils

[Scooby Doo]

It doesn't matter. Faith doesn't involve either of them. Proof nor evidence. That's why you are wrong to focus on semantics when what I wrote truly reflects my points.

It does matter, because if you define faith as a belief without evidence, then yes, it's easy to ridicule. Just like if you define God as the spaghetti monster, it sounds ridiculous. But then I could just define atheism to my own liking and say it's the belief you can do whatever you want, or evolution as the belief we evolved from monkeys. But these are distortions of the meaning of the words.

Also, now you claim it includes neither proof nor evidence, but you give nothign to back this up.

Actually, the dictionary you quoted gives this example to the 2nd definition:
"He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."

You must be registered for see links

Then the same dictionary defines hypothesis as such:

1 a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.


2 a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.

You must be registered for see links

Then, as I already quoted from wikipedia:

"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence."

You must be registered for see links

So your very own dictionary agrees with wikipedia on what evidence is, and differentiates between evidence for a hypothesis, and proof that that the hypothesis is true.

 

[Hawker]

What about faith in hypothetical particles and such? These are things that no one can prove exists yet a lot of scientists and their ordinary followers swallow it up. The scientists preach it like priests and invoke it like a god and they call on their prophets who are those who theorized said hypothetical objects. Do you see the similarities. Faith is not the problem I am not concerned about what someone chooses to believe in, what I am concerned about is if that person tries to exercise their beliefs on those that aren't concerned with them.



It doesn't matter to me which one he chooses to pick, even by looking at the definition he chooses to view it means that he doesn't believe in anything that he can't individually and independently verify. That means he doesn't believe in say electrons. Even if he were to say there is evidence for their existence he can't verify it himself he would have to trust what he is told in school, on TV or anywhere else. In other words he has faith in those who tell him this is true. Those who have religions also were taught that what they believe in is true by existing individuals there is no difference here.

Faith in science is different. I have faith in scientific methods which have been from time and time again proven to work. Pretty harmless don't you think?

Also what you say about electrons is true. The difference is, I can go to a library any day I want and study them. Then I can go to a laboratory. I will have an indirect evidence of their existence through radiation. If there are many of them and they are emitting some radiation, and also if we shine some radiation on then and receive back the response this will also constitute a kind of seeing.

 

[Umari Senju]

This is why people shouldn't argue religion over the Internet :sdo:

 

[Gerkak]

Faith in science is different. I have faith in scientific methods which have been from time and time again proven to work. Pretty harmless don't you think?

It isn't that different if the believed object isn't proven to exist then it is faith that holds it together, someone can come up with as many equations and computer models they like but without laboratory evidence then we can't be sure it exists and believing it does is faith. Scientists as I am sure you know can be wrong it doesn't matter whether they were right 20 years ago science isn't history. As for the harmless part I agree, if beliefs are not enforced on others I can call it harmless when it is enforced, then I have problem with those that do so. I'll repeat faith on it's own is an abstract concept, people are the ones that create and use their beliefs for violence or at the very least to justify it.

Also what you say about electrons is true. The difference is, I can go to a library any day I want and study them. Then I can go to a laboratory. I will have an indirect evidence of their existence through radiation. If there are many of them and they are emitting some radiation, and also if we shine some radiation on then and receive back the response this will also constitute a kind of seeing.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I meant the electron itself, if you carry out the test you described you are assuming that there are electrons there and that electrons as you know them are the cause of the phenomena. But since you can't see the electron and its structure you can't really be sure what is happening exactly can you? This is the reason why two or more people can perform the same experiment and give different interpretations for their results because the test didn't prove the existence of electrons rather the effects radiation has on a 'charged' environment and how 'charged' environments influence radiation.

Unless scientists can prove that an electron can exist through physical evidence and show physically its structure and a physical explanation of how it works not the quantum mysticism then we can't be sure it exists or at the very least how they say it exists.

 

[Hawker]

It does matter, because if you define faith as a belief without evidence, then yes, it's easy to ridicule. Just like if you define God as the spaghetti monster, it sounds ridiculous. But then I could just define atheism to my own liking and say it's the belief you can do whatever you want, or evolution as the belief we evolved from monkeys. But these are distortions of the meaning of the words.

Also, now you claim it includes neither proof nor evidence, but you give nothign to back this up.

Actually, the dictionary you quoted gives this example to the 2nd definition:
"He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."

You must be registered for see links

Then the same dictionary defines hypothesis as such:

1 a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.


2 a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.

You must be registered for see links

Then, as I already quoted from wikipedia:

"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence."

You must be registered for see links

So your very own dictionary agrees with wikipedia on what evidence is, and differentiates between evidence for a hypothesis, and proof that that the hypothesis is true.

Do you have evidence for your faith aka the existence of God? Yes or no.

Why does spaghetti monster sound ridiculous, but your god who we never see, hear or smell isn't ridiculous?

 

[Scooby Doo]

Do you have evidence for your faith aka the existence of God? Yes or no.

Yes.

Why does spaghetti monster sound ridiculous, but your god who we never see, hear or smell isn't ridiculous?

You tell me, you are the one comparing God to the spaghetti monster and ridiculing religious people.

Also, I never saw, heard or smelt a black hole, so black holes are just spaghetti monsters too. Doesn't it sound ridiculous?

 

[Hawker]

Yes.

Please provide it.

You tell me, you are the one comparing God to the spaghetti monster and ridiculing religious people.

I'm not comparing your god to anyone. I'm saying that if I believe there is a spaghetti monster it's not the same thign as your belief and so to me it's the only god. If you think it's ridiculing and sounds ridiculous, think about how it actullay differs from your beliefs.

Also, I never saw, heard or smelt a black hole, so black holes are just spaghetti monsters too. Doesn't it sound ridiculous?

It's pointless to bring this up. I don't believe in black holes. There are too many uncertainties with them, so I'll wait for better research results. Till then it doesn't matter to me if they exist or not.

 

[Your Creepy Stalker]

Yes.


You tell me, you are the one comparing God to the spaghetti monster and ridiculing religious people.

Also, I never saw, heard or smelt a black hole, so black holes are just spaghetti monsters too. Doesn't it sound ridiculous?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is something that cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or detected in any way. Believing in The FSA is just as ridiculous as believing in a deity, which cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or detected in any way.

As for Black Holes, they can be observed by their immense gravitational fields. If you tried to hear or smell one, you would probably die, and the whole point of Black Holes is that you cant see them (An object is a black hole if it's gravity is high enough that the escape velocity of the object is equal or greater to the Speed of Light, essentially meaning light cannot escape them.)

 

[Scooby Doo]

Please provide it.

As I said in the other thread, the existence of the universe is in itself evidence for the existence of a Creator. Why? Because from the fact that the universe exists, and from the premise that it had a beginning (as you admitted that you agree there was a Big bang),we can infer that the cause of the beginning was either that the universe randomly popped into existence from nothing (but it's unlikely that something comes from nothing), or a transcendental entity created it: but abstract things like numbers don't create anything, so the best explanation is an intelligent agent.

This is called inference.

Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.

You must be registered for see links

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact.

You must be registered for see links

So yes, I just provided you an evidence.

I'm not comparing your god to anyone. I'm saying that if I believe there is a spaghetti monster it's not the same thign as your belief. If you think it's ridiculing and sounds ridiculous, think about how it actullay differs from your beliefs.

Then please define the spaghetti monster first.

It's pointless to bring this up. I don't believe in black holes. There are too many uncertainties with them, so I'll wait for better research results. Till then it doesn't matter to me if they exist or not.

Okay, so please go and ridicule Stephen Hawking and say that his idea on black holes is evil.

And even if you don't believe in them there is still evidence to support their existence.

 

[Scooby Doo]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is something that cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or detected in any way. Believing in The FSA is just as ridiculous as believing in a deity, which cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or detected in any way.

As for Black Holes, they can be observed by their immense gravitational fields. If you tried to hear or smell one, you would probably die, and the whole point of Black Holes is that you cant see them (An object is a black hole if it's gravity is high enough that the escape velocity of the object is equal or greater to the Speed of Light, essentially meaning light cannot escape them.)

And God is not a physical being either so the whole point is that you can't see smell or touch Him :sdo:

Also, it's not me who brought up that evidence must mean you can hear/smell/see something, it was Hawker's point

And just because you can't detect something scientifically, that doesn't mean that's the only type of evidence.

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

As I said in the other thread, the existence of the universe is in itself evidence for the existence of a Creator. Why? Because from the fact that the universe exists, and from the premise that it had a beginning (as you admitted that you agree there was a Big bang),we can infer that the cause of the beginning was either that the universe randomly popped into existence from nothing (but it's unlikely that something comes from nothing), or a transcendental entity created it: but abstract things like numbers don't create anything, so the best explanation is an intelligent agent.

This is called inference.

Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.

You must be registered for see links

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact.

You must be registered for see links

So yes, I just provided you an evidence.


Then please define the spaghetti monster first.




Okay, so please go and ridicule Stephen Hawking and say that his idea on black holes is evil.

And even if you don't believe in them there is still evidence to support their existence.

So what created the Creator then?

 

[Your Creepy Stalker]

As I said in the other thread, the existence of the universe is in itself evidence for the existence of a Creator. Why? Because from the fact that the universe exists, and from the premise that it had a beginning (as you admitted that you agree there was a Big bang),we can infer that the cause of the beginning was either that the universe randomly popped into existence from nothing (but it's unlikely that something comes from nothing), or a transcendental entity created it: but abstract things like numbers don't create anything, so the best explanation is an intelligent agent.

That only works if something cannot come from Nothing. We have never been able to observe "Nothing" because we have never had a "Nothing" to observe. If something cannot come from nothing, then where does a deity come from? Either there is an endless string of creators, or something (A deity) can come into existance from nothing. And if something can come from nothing, that removes the need for a creator.

 

[Scooby Doo]

So what created the Creator then?

If you define the Creator as created, then you are thinking of a created god. That's not the God I'm talking about.

Also, in order to realize that the Creator is the best explanation for the existence of something, you don't need to have an explanation of the explanation. To know that Bill Gates founded Microsoft, you don't need to know who created Bill Gates.

Also, it'd lead to an infinite regression, so it has to stop at one point.

 

[Your Creepy Stalker]

And God is not a physical being either so the whole point is that you can't see smell or touch Him :sdo:

Also, it's not me who brought up that evidence must mean you can hear/smell/see something, it was Hawker's point

There is no way to know if a deity, or a non physical being can exist because they cannot be detected in any way. The whole "Hear/See/Smell" crap is just an oversimplified version of that. Also, you did use it.

Spoiler

Also, I never saw, heard or smelt a black hole, so black holes are just spaghetti monsters too. Doesn't it sound ridiculous?

Although i suppose i might have missed some sarcasm there.

And just because you can't detect something scientifically, that doesn't mean that's the only type of evidence.

If you can't detect something in any way, there's no reason to assume it exists. It is impossible to detect a deity, or the FSA, so there is no reason to assume they exist.

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

If you define the Creator as created, then you are thinking of a created god. That's not the God I'm talking about.

Also, in order to realize that the Creator is the best explanation for the existence of something, you don't need to have an explanation of the explanation. To know that Bill Gates founded Microsoft, you don't need to know who created Bill Gates.

Also, it'd lead to an infinite regression, so it has to stop at one point.

So why can't it stop at the point of there being no God and space and time existing forever?

 

[Gerkak]

As for Black Holes, they can be observed by their immense gravitational fields. If you tried to hear or smell one, you would probably die, and the whole point of Black Holes is that you cant see them (An object is a black hole if it's gravity is high enough that the escape velocity of the object is equal or greater to the Speed of Light, essentially meaning light cannot escape them.)

Black holes can't be observed. Escape velocity being equal or greater than light is a contradiction, escape velocity means the minimum velocity an object must achieve to escape the gravity of another body, if light could escape, black holes would be visible if light can't escape then it has no escape velocity given how the same scientists say light is the fastest thing in the universe. And since nothing can be faster than light, nothing can escape a black hole meaning no escape velocity.

All scientists do is say yeah you see that point in the sky that stars seem to orbit? It's a black hole

They then show a pulsar(something brighter than even stars) and say you see that? That's a black hole too or at the very least caused by a black hole. The very fact that a theory has such massive contradictions means it can't and shouldn't be taken seriously

Black hole theory fails from a conceptual and geometric stand point

To further put the theory to rest there exists alternative explanations for the supposed observed phenomena thought to be black holes that are supported by evidence not relativity mysticism.

 

[Your Creepy Stalker]

Black holes can't be observed. Escape velocity being equal or greater than light is a contradiction, escape velocity means the minimum velocity an object must achieve to escape the gravity of another body, if light could escape, black holes would be visible if light can't escape then it has no escape velocity given how the same scientists say light is the fastest thing in the universe. And since nothing can be faster than light, nothing can escape a black hole meaning no escape velocity.

Of course nothing can escape a black hole. That's what makes them black holes. If it was possible to travel faster than light, then it would be possible to escape a black hole. We do not know if it is possible to travel faster than light, and we have not observed anything to travel faster than light. but hypothetically, it's possible to escape a black hole by going faster than light.

 

[Gerkak]

Of course nothing can escape a black hole. That's what makes them black holes. If it was possible to travel faster than light, then it would be possible to escape a black hole. We do not know if it is possible to travel faster than light, and we have not observed anything to travel faster than light. but hypothetically, it's possible to escape a black hole by going faster than light.

That shows that the black hole is hypothetical, we are to assume that a body which we can't observe exists, that is the same as saying a tooth fairy exists. Nothing is fact unless proven.

What is even more funny is how we are to believe that a 0 dimensional point has mass do these 'physicists' take people for fools?

Black holes are nothing more than fairy tales conjured in the minds of the relativistic mystics who claim to be physicists.

I'll say it again alternative theories backed by evidence exist that show what is happening

 

[Scooby Doo]

That only works if something cannot come from Nothing. We have never been able to observe "Nothing" because we have never had a "Nothing" to observe. If something cannot come from nothing, then where does a deity come from? Either there is an endless string of creators, or something (A deity) can come into existance from nothing. And if something can come from nothing, that removes the need for a creator.

1) Still doesn't negate that I did provide evidence. Circumstantial one. Which of course doesn't rule out other possibilities, by deifintion. That's what my whole point is about. That evidence is not the same as proof. That's what the dictionaries say, and this convo is the living example to that. If you want to turn this into a discussion that I have to prove that God exists: I never said I can, but you can't disprove it either. Just like you can't prove either that something can come from nothing, so that's only faith too. Faith which means lack of proof. Not lack of evidence as Hawker says.

2) The deity is eternal.

There is no way to know if a deity, or a non physical being can exist because they cannot be detected in any way. The whole "Hear/See/Smell" crap is just an oversimplified version of that. Also, you did use it.
Although i suppose i might have missed some sarcasm there.

I used it to show that Hawker's claim is ridiculous :| If he defines evidence as somethign you can see/hear/touch, then for example black holes have no evidence. Which is obviously not the case, so yes it was sarcasm.

If you can't detect something in any way, there's no reason to assume it exists. It is impossible to detect a deity, or the FSA, so there is no reason to assume they exist.

??? Now you also make the mistake of redefining evidence as something that needs to be detected.

You can't detect that John XY Smith ever existed, he died without offsprings, he had no relatives, there is no record of him ,so there is no reason to think he did exist.

Also, reason means:

1 A cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event

You must be registered for see links

God is a good explanation for the existence of the universe. So yes there is evidence, there is reason to believe. Notwithstanding that I never said I can prove it, especialyl not with a meter or a microscope, but that's why my very first point was that evidence =/= proof. Which I've managed to show, while you didn't show I was wrong about that.

So why can't it stop at the point of there being no God and space and time existing forever?

I never said it can't stop there, but then prove to me that time and space existed forever.

 

[Hawker]

As I said in the other thread, the existence of the universe is in itself evidence for the existence of a Creator. Why? Because from the fact that the universe exists, and from the premise that it had a beginning (as you admitted that you agree there was a Big bang),we can infer that the cause of the beginning was either that the universe randomly popped into existence from nothing (but it's unlikely that something comes from nothing), or a transcendental entity created it: but abstract things like numbers don't create anything, so the best explanation is an intelligent agent.

This is called inference.

Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.

You must be registered for see links

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact.

You must be registered for see links

So yes, I just provided you an evidence.

The meaningful word here is "if". If indeed there is "creation", then there should be a creator. I simply do not accept that there is "creation". Universe does not equal creation. This is a logical fallacy called "illicit major" (specifically your major premise hasn't been established as true).

The word "creation" by definition requires "creator". But you haven't established -- using any logical method -- that creation exists. Each is dependent upon the other for existence, so you've stacked the deck. You say it exists then implore the reader to accept that it exists. This is also called a "special pleading" fallacy. Essentially you're introducing favorable language and details that have not been substantiated (and in this case cannot be substantiated).

I agree, the cosmos exists. Now, for us to move into the realm of "creation" and "creator" you need to demonstrate logically that there is creation.

However, this same logic cannot be applied to the universe because we do not have any reference universes to compare it to, nor have we any evidence of a creator.

If a complex system like the universe requires a creator, then by the same logic that being must require an even more complex creator and so on in an infinite cycle. You can't dodge it by saying well god is the exception. Either you accept that paradox or accept that the universe can exist without a creator, and stop arguing semantics with wordplay.

Considering what I just wrote:

1.So who created God? Who created God's creator? If there is an infinite regress of creators, though, then there is no first creator, no ultimate cause of the universe, no God.

2. Not everything has a cause. Scientists have observed some events that have no apparent cause, that appear to be entirely random. Subatomic particles behave very strangely indeed. This, it is sometimes suggested, confirms that it is possible that the universe, strange though it may seem, came into existence without any cause of its doing so.

Also:


– there is no good reason that supports the existence of god
– all arguments for god can be explained without god
– atheists can’t prove there is no god
– but they can prove there is no good argument for god

Then please define the spaghetti monster first.

The other dude just did it

Okay, so please go and ridicule Stephen Hawking and say that his idea on black holes is evil.

And even if you don't believe in them there is still evidence to support their existence.

There are lots of info on the subject and it's very contradictory. It's not my place analyse this as it's not my field exactly so I'll just wait for future researches. From Hawking especially. Till then I stay neutral on the subject.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links