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.
I understand that relying on science seems right to some people & I won't force them to think otherwise. I stand for free will with an individual's beleifs and lifestyles & only judge someone based on their actions. THAT someone & not their "group". Atheists, Religious groups & Agnostics are all fine in my book as long as they don't strike others down for being on a different page.
My ONLY problem with science is that it's an incomplete, imperfect, constantly changing & unstable construct created by a race that is incomplete, imperfect, constantly changing & unstable. People say they rely on something that's composed of facts & logical evidence when they have sworn up and down on things with logic knowing for a fact that it's true yet turning out it's wrong. We've been doing it for all of our history & everyone does it over the course of their lives.
Putting faith into the core of a Religion's practices (with the sane & peaceful not terrorists or Zealots that tarnish their banner) may seem absurd but putting just as much faith & dependence into something based on facts when it's without ALL the facts and the collection we do have being imperfect to some degree seems equally as absurd. If the human race has ALL of the facts of the universe, past future & present, has complete understanding of that collection & is irrefutably 100% right then I'll listen on how the universe was created & whether or not there's a power higher than organic life. I have no problem with the study of the universe--I find it grand & fascinating; but it is still an imperfect & incomplete construct made by an always imperfect & incomplete race.
The basis of Christianity is that we, as humans, are imperfect (admit), sinful (confess), will never reach the same level of holyness & perfection as the Lord (believe) & require a guiding hand (accept). If we depend soley on ourselves we will fail. Repeatedly. And with a long list with a massive scale from minor & forgettable to complete destruction. There's only one person & one thing that has it all right & I believe in Him, rely on Him & even if I am wrong I'm perfectly fine with my death being the end. But I hope, for everyone's sake, that they accept the only thing that can save them & would otherwise suffer eternal punishment if I'm right.
You have every right to hate those who use religion as an excuse for tyranny. But that's the only thing it is to them--an excuse. Muslim terrorists are a problem with emphasis on "terrorist" not "Muslim". If religion would completely cease to exist everywhere the same thing would still continue to go on with a different list of excuses & complaints. Religion isn't the problem. It's the human race, human condition, human nature & people givin into those things rather than rising above. If I hadn't been a Christion for 2/3rds of my life I can guarantee you I'd be less of a man today than I am now. And my faith in the Lord is what letsme look back 24 hours every day & know that I'm a better man then than I am now.
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". 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.
That all sounds nice, so I commend you for putting effort into typing all that and that you know this and that about fallacies, but I never said that the universe is creation. My argument still stands the universe being used in the sense of cosmos. Because, what I said is that you agree it had a beginning. So the question is what caused this beginning. I used the word cause, and I said that the best explanation is a Creator. I didn't say the universe is a creation so that's why it must have a Creator.
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.
Again, you don't understand what evidence means. It doesn't have to mean something you touch/smell/hear. Just like you can't touch/smell/hear black holes but there is scientific evidence that there are black holes. Proof? No. Evidence? Yes. That was my whole point from the beginning.
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.
But in order to recognize somethign as an explanation, you don't need to have an explanation of the explanation.
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 around the word "creation"
Except that I didn't argue that the universe is creation and so it begs the need for a creator.
Also, to understand that human brains produce complicated things like texts, you don't need to know how that even more complicated brain works. Also, God as a spiritual being, a "bodiless mind", is not necessarily that complicated. Sure He can have very complex toughts but that doesn't mean that God as a spirit is so complicated that it can't be explained in any other way than by postulating another creator.
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.
See you are thinking of a created god. But the God i'm talking about is eternal.
Also, please explain how does it follow that if there is an infinite regression of creators, then there is no creator at all? Now are there infinite creators or not?
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.
I know, but you agreed that there was a Big bang, right? So are you suggesting that the universe just popped into existence from nothing, and that was the Big bang? If so, can you prove it?
Also:
– there is no good reason that supports the existence of god
Having an explanation is not the same as proof. That's the only point I tried to make here. I never told you that I can prove God exists. But proof =/ evidence.
– atheists can’t prove there is no god
– but they can prove there is no good argument for god
You mean that flying spaghetti monster is something that can't be detected? Funny becasue first that's not what you said. You were talking about hearing/seeing/smelling. There is a big difference.
Also, if black holes can be detected, which is still not conclusive proof, but it is certainly evidence: that was my whole point. That evidence and proof are not the same.
He said faith is belief without evidence. Then the dictionary he quoted, says that faith is believing without proof. These are not the same thing. Evidence is not the same as proof.
Evidence implys that something is valid. Proof is irrefutable fact on something being true or false.
You can have evidence that someone did something but it doesn't mean you have proof.
He said faith is belief without evidence. Then the dictionary he quoted, says that faith is believing without proof. These are not the same thing. Evidence is not the same as proof.
Evidence implys that something is valid. Proof is irrefutable fact on something being true or false.
You can have evidence that someone did something but it doesn't mean you have proof.
Wrong. They have been proven to work by showing what we previously though was wrong. Our understanding of the universe changes, but not our understanding of science.
Wrong. They have been proven to work by showing what we previously though was wrong. Our understanding of the universe changes, but not our understanding of science.
How do you defend the rest? (not trying to prove you're wrong--I want your entire view on the matter unlike most others).
It's amazing how far you can get with someone by listening to everything they have to say without the automatic reflex that they're wrong & THINK about what other's say from their point of view. Being unbiased can make life a little more pessimistic (you know my opinion on humanity) but making the highest possible attempt to understand how others think & feel becomes so much easier.
Also you talk about eternal god. From where do you base this conclusion as you just used the beginning and cause argument? Going by that logic god should have a beginning also. Which leads us to the paradox.
Me using the word Creator was my conclusion, not the premise... Check again what I said. The first thing I said is that the universe exists, and my other premise was that it had a beginning: which you agree with.
From these I concluded that the best explanation for the above is a personal agent, hence me using the word Creator.
So no it doesn't, as I above explained, it was not my premise.
Also you talk about eternal god. From where do you base this conclusion as you just used the beginning and cause argument? Going by that logic god should have a beginning also. Which leads us to the paradox.
Obviously it would lead to an infinite regression if the creator was created too etc etc, so it has to stop at some point, and I think it is an eternal God. You could ask, as another guy asked, why not say that the universe is eteranl, but as I replied to him, I don't have a problem if you believe the universe is eternal, but then can you prove it? If not, then it's also just faith.
But as you said ,you agree with me that the universe had a beginning, so the next possible step where the infinite regression can stop is an eternal God. Further creators would be superfluous.
____
Anyway, whether God really exists or not, is totally irrelevant. Your thread is about faith being evil. You conclude that on the premise that faith means believing without proof- which you use interchangeably with evidence, but they are not.
I never said I can prove that God exists, but there are pieces of evidence. You can't just redefine evidence to your own liking. The argument I presented is an evidence, but of course it's not scientific proof, but that was never my point. You may say that this evidence is not good enough for you, but this is still evidence, as per its definition. I gave you the definition from legit sources, evn your dictionary differentiates. I also linked to a guy the meaning of reason: as an explanation for something. So yes faith has its reasons and evidence, whether you think these are good enough or not. An evidence doesn't have to be irrefutable- that's what the word proof means. Now of course you could keep arguing how faith is evil for not having irrefutable proof, but then certain scientific claims are also evil...etc. And you still have to explain how a concept like faith is evil on a naturalistic worldview.
For the above reasons, I think there is not much more to debate about, as the topic is not about whether God exists or not. You only asked for evidence: I gave you. It doesn't prove beyond doubt that God exists, but I never said that, and that's why there is a difference between evidence and proof- which is supported by the dictionaries as well.
Anyway I saw you made this thread because you wanted to continue the debate with Transixx, so I guess he shall take it over from now, I'm tired. Been debating over this for 2 days, and even before that, several times. You people denying that a word means what the dictionaries say, well, I can't help that. I also can't help if your mother tongue makes it harder for you to understand.
It was not a bad debate, at least you bothered investing time and thought in it, unlike many other people. But excuse me if from my part I consider this case closed. You can interpret it in whatever way you wish.
Faith isn't bad on it's own. It's just ignorant to believe something is true without proof or evidence.
It's when people start using their faith in something to harm others that you can call it bad.
Wrong. They have been proven to work by showing what we previously though was wrong. Our understanding of the universe changes, but not our understanding of science.
Science is fundamentally incompatible with Quantum Mechanics:
You must be registered for see links
When you begin to hit quantum mechanics, you enter into a realm where "interpreting results" means projecting one's philosophy upon the very foundations of physics with multiple, exclusive interpretations being equally valid from a logical standpoint.
It could be argued that Alice can only observe a Bob who has observed effects consistent with entanglement. Therefor - material reality is local and exclusive to the observer - or the information contained within the observer's locale. Once information has degraded through the forces of entropy to ambiguity - or irrelevance, then it becomes water under the bridge.
Of course - while the explanation works, logically, it essentially postulates that every 'observer' (however one classifies one of those... it's been experimentally verified that measurement tools become entangled with an entangled system to be measured until 'observed' - so one can argue that only what is observed by the self can be considered to affect material reality; a disturbingly arrogant conclusion that is no less valid) exists in an isolated reality that may only briefly come into contact with the physical realities of other observers.
The questions that belie the interpretation of experiments into QM do not yield a means of testing the universe even further to yield answers to them. We've hit what are, apparently, limits to what can be known about the state of reality in our universe, and must settle on our own personal interpretation of what those results mean and accept that there are other equally valid means of assessing those.
At least until other forces and phenomena are discovered that may change the depth to which we can analyze the phenomena of quantum mechanics.
In either case - none of this actually helps to answer issues of morality.
Realistically, those who can propagate the most in terms of both genetics and ideology win. Why should I not kill other men I run into and breed every woman - or develop the means to make it practical?
Upon what scientific grounds would you protest this personal decision?
The math is there. If I can do this - there is absolutely no reason why I shouldn't - other than the completely irrational belief that the lives of other people are anything other than assistance to or impediments to my own ambitions?
If you would argue that other people are necessary to help build ideas... why are ideas important to build?
If you would argue that I can 'gain more' by 'working with others' - why is it more important to 'gain more' than anything other than what I have set out to do?
You argue as if there are aspects of human behavior that can be taken on logic, alone - but there are many constants you have taken upon faith. You are likely of western influence. You look at the life of the individual as being important to protect. You look at the idea of individual liberty and expression as being fundamentally good and desirable to protect.
You don't question these things, and, likely - consider it revolting to even suggest that these things are not absolute virtues.
Yet these are things that are not proven by science to be -superior- to other ideologies. They may work under certain constraints or be equally plausible to other ideas... but you ultimately take upon faith that these virtues are what should underpin your evaluation of cultural behaviors/trends.
Faith is not something you are permitted to escape in this world.
Faith isn't bad on it's own. It's just ignorant to believe something is true without proof or evidence.
It's when people start using their faith in something to harm others that you can call it bad.
Before I tackle the matter at hand (again), I'll first provide context to the thread and OPs background for creating it.
So, basically it all started in this thread:
You must be registered for see links
In it the the OP stated the exact same things and has been refuted repeatedly. Instead of holding an actual debate, OP kept going in circles, completely dismissing the posts his opponets made (myself being one of them) while insisting his statements are correct despite never providing any valid arguments for them.
So we run around in circles and the thread gets closed, but OP didn't find the outcome satisfying so he pays a visit to me in person. You can see the conversation (in part) on my profile. I say in part because an insult here and there forced me to report it and the message got deleted.
Basically it consisted of OP still insisting he won, while dismissing my points and ultimatively deciding to make an "ownage thread". So we get to this moment.
Now in this thread OP, yet again, repeats his previous (already refuted) points, again implying that my statements about his incompetent debating being true.
There, just a bit of a background for those who don't know what this is about. Now that we got this taken cared of, I'll reply to the OP's statements (despite already having done so). I'll let the audience draw their conclusion.
A few more things are worth noting. First of all, OP is again using his made-up definition of faith being unreasonable due to the "fact" that it's a belief without evidence. Now, in his posts he seems to be confusing faith (in religion) with the religion itself. Now, I have already explained why claiming all religion is "this or that" is a recipe for desister, but instead of repeating it, I'll let those interested find it in the thread above.
Second, OP has openly stated that he lacks basic knowledge of the religions his talking about, claiming that studying religions themselves is unnecessary as he has "talked to a lot of people". This shows quite well how OP isn't qualified for this discussion as subjective experiences cannot be used as facts.
Last, but not least, OP has a tendency to generalize and use straw-mans to back his points up, wich points to terrible intelectual dishonesty (wich is evident in his statements so far). Instead of using valid, objective sources, OP provides quotes and videos of the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens who are one of the "4 horsemen of new atheism", without giving any arguments himself and forcing the opponet to debate with a virtual image of someone else whose arguments ultimatively have nothing to do with the matter at hand, all the while dismissing other sources without any given argument.
A funny, and a bit hypocritical, fact is that OP tends to ignore any longer posts unrightfully deeming them "walls of text" while he himself is responsible for dragging the last debate for multiple pages despite being proven wrong on the first one. After all that he writes a lengthy post himself, repeating all the fallacies from the previous thread.
Now, is any of this relevant? As an argument no, its not supposed to be an argument, but rather insight for why debating with OP is a waste of time. Despite all this, I will provide the arguments asked from me, to ultimatively try and prove that having faith doesn't mean discarding your reasoning.
Ok, so, in the very begining of his thread, OP shows his bias. First he states his own definition of faith, and then proceeds to contradict himself by listing a number of different definitions of faith. Then he points out just one, whilst completely ignoring the rest, implying (as I already said) all faith is blind faith. Now to answer the individual points.
1) OP combines his biased definition of faith once again while mixing the already mentioned arguments of Dawkins into the mix. He states that the only reason why someone is of a certain faith (or religion in this case) is due to that person being born in said culture.
Now, this is wrong on multiple levels. First being the fact he deems humans as blank boards who passivelly wait for someone to write something on them wich they won't question at all. Humans, ofcourse, are not like that. While indoctrination (infamous among atheist circles) can have influence over a child, as a person matures and finds out new things and ideas, they become more self-aware and able to choose their own path.
Second, the argument assumes all religion is dependant on brainwashing, wich is not true. Regardless of wether or not you agree with said religion, generalization is something you, as an intellectual, should avoid in all cases. Not only is religion present all over the world, but these places vary greatly. Some have a great level of education, while others do not, some are secular some are not, some are rich some are poor, some are under a state of war while some are not.
These vast differences point out that one's building of character and way of thinking is not reliant solely on other's influence, but on the state in wich they are born, on the enviroment wich surrounds them. Many factors are to count in when detirmining a person's worldview thus claiming all religious people are who they are due to being raised or indoctrinated that way, is ridiculous.
2) Faith is a personal matter. A matter of believing in something or someone, not a tool to learn new things. Upon new discoveries, faith is built, not vice versa. Faith isn't an empirical method, nor anything independant. Faith is simply belief or acknowledgment of something. This argument points out your understanding of faith is not even clear to you yourself.
3) Again, OP is confusing faith in religion with religion itself. He brings out the very same points that have already been refuted, thus confirming my observations as valid. Instead of repeating myself like a parrot, I'll paste it if someone insists.
Another thing to note is that, OP is again accusing all religions for the (supposed) mischiefs of a few. Another thing I pointed out in the thread above. If necessary I'll paste it here. Tough, you'd be advised to read the previous topic instead as it will be easier to understand.
4) Again making the fallacy of only pointing to one religion while speaking for the whole of religion, OP shows his lack of knowledge on the issues presented at hand, including historical context, nature of Christian doctrines, or the divinity of Jesus Christ.
5) OP repeats his distorted definition of faith, this time under a different fashion. He claims that faith is at odds with science (despite lying in the previous thread how he didn't claim that) by quoting paragraphs from religious scripture wich have nothing to do with the context in wich he presents them. This point has also been answered in the previous thread but I will answer again, if someone insists on further elaboration.
6) OP here makes a straw-man in the fact of him claiming that people of faith will deceive themselves and not propose any arguments whilst completely ignoring any and all arguments their opponets provide. Now this is funny, as this is exactly what the OP is guilty of, while religious people like myself are here writing detailed posts on how he's wrong.
Posts wich he ignores for the xth time claiming his subjective experiences round up for all of religious people.
8) Without any specific details, OP makes an empty statement and lets it fly around like that. Such statements, until fixed, are not worthy of refutal, as there is nothing to refute.
9) Further explanation necessarry as the OP has yet again made it unclear wether he means religion or faith in religion. An ambiguous statement at its best.
10) Again repeats previous points, while proving again he has no knowledge on the context of what he's describing.
In the end, OP posts an already seen video of Richard Dawkins' speech, wich really doesn't help his point all the while strengthening mine - the OP is not qualified for the remarks he's making, lacks basic context of the matter at hand, and relies on other people's arguments (wich themselves are fallacious) all the while not backing up anything at all.
