The Bible mentions faith many times. There are times that we must have faith in what we cannot actually see, touch, smell, hear and taste with our senses. Science is said to not use faith nor it's followers. I know that science uses trial and error to find out how things work. I also know that science learns as much if not more from a failed experiment as it does from one that succeeded.
Believers in Jesus are ridiculed by many because they have faith in a God they have not seen. We haven't touched Him with our hands, we haven't tasted Him with our tongues, we haven't heard Him with our ears and we haven't smelled Him with our noses.
Now I have a question. This question may belong in another forum but I am not sure which one to put it in.
Knowing that many scientists have most likely seen an atom, how many non-scientists have seen one? For those who believe they are real, how do you know that they are real without seeing them or touching them?
I would say scientists start a concept based on faith.At times they make make many mistakes in their initial calculations, struggle for years before coming out with the correct situation.Faith is equivalent to knowing.
It would lead me to conclude that there is a difference in what is understood to mankind and the average individual person. The lack of knowledge and understanding one has about life is lost, when faith is administered to something the mind can not conceive.
Scientists don't operate on faith. They work by belief that their theories are correct, set them forth to be disproved and if not, then become part of our knowledgeable objective reality.
There is a difference between belief and faith. Faith is spiritual belief in something not defined.
A belief is formed on the basis of factual truths we deem to exist in our own objective reality. If you form a belief on something that you do not know is true, then refer to mystical faith.
Either way, the fact that the bible doesn't make this distinction is one of the reasons it is out of context.
But, I want to thank you SirDent for posting this thread. I found it intriguing.
Scientists don't operate on faith. They work by belief that their theories are correct-
so when a believer believes in god , is it wrong?
and when a scientist has belief in his project it is right?
I believe there is a very fine line between faith and belief.Faith can be to know for sure.I become a poet having faith in god although I was called mad by my family and friends when I became one.I had faith in god and today most don't laugh at me any more.
First of all,your perception determines your reality.since your perception is yours alone that makes your reality Subjective not objective.So unless you can stop being you it is impossible for you to have an objective reality,There's no such thing.Secondly,all sciences are based on an agreed upon arbitrary assumption that is unprovable,I challenge you to prove the number One,no body has done it to date so even math is based on faith.also,facts evolve as new information causes revisions.no self respecting scientist would exclude change and revision.the only truly permanent thing is change which makes faith critical to the growth of all things including science.
I agree with you in everything except:
"all sciences are based on an agreed upon arbitrary assumption that is unprovable"
I ask you: Does you TV or your PC woks because arbitrary assumption of scientist...or they really discover things that make them possible to create technology to make you TV works. Do you think your TV works by the faith of scientist?
"so even math is based on faith"
Have you ever wonder why the roof of your house do not fall in your head? I can tell you that there is a mathematical formula that can explain it t you. Ask your engineer, which BA is based on Math and Physics.
<<the only truly permanent thing is change>>
Love that argument. Totally true
It all starts at the number One which is still unproven,you must accept it on Faith or you can't continue.the workings of computers and TVs for that matter began with someone wondering,followed by a belief that had yet to be proven(ask a scientist if he has Faith in what he's working on),That's Faith.The word Faith seems to be a Trigger for some reason.You can't even prove that you exist,non of us can.There is no reality.Absolutes are Carrots that keep the mind trotting along.Is there anybody out there,Who knows.
First off- I don't get how you go from talking about a number then to we don't exist.
What are you smoking or snorting?
My consciousness tells me I am alive. I am a living and breathing human being, kind a like YOU are.
WOW! That was fairly easy to prove. What next?
Let me simplify this.if you cant prove the first digit you either have to have faith that it exists or everything that follows is invalid.Again,can you prove the number one?as far as your existing goes,self validation is NO validation.even external sources are filtered through your perception which brings us back to "self validation is NO validation.Check out Solipsism.
by the way,you should work on your insulting skills,at least try to be a bit more creative.Here's an example.Its clear that your dull mind must be the result of some genetic deformity caused by inbreeding over generations of brother sister Love.Your IQ is clearly just barley high enough to keep you conscious...Just an example..I would never direct such a scurrilous statement at someone as Intelligent as yourself
Well I could debate about your weird philosophy, but because I can not prove that you exist, I am not going to waste my time talking to someone who probably do not exist. And...I am not going to waste my time having faith to create you and then maintaining my faith in you so you do not stop existing during our debate... because you are just an imaginary friend.
First of all,I'm not your Friend.
Why do some of you people insist on being clever when your not!
My "weird" philosophy is weird to you because your mind is to small to grasp it so you feel compelled to insult me in order to maintain your False sense of superiority(arrogance).Ron White was correct when he said"Even education can't fix stupid".You are educated but unfortunately Mr White was correct about you.
Religious faith in god is not the same as trust placed in science by non scientists, which I think is what you are implying.
A non scientist does rely on the judgement of scientists and places trust not only in them, but also science as a process and the theory of knowledge which is fundamental to science, empiricism. A scientific experiment may be repeatable, but a non scientist could not, in practice, verify all scientific theory without help from someone with scientific expertise.
However the trust placed in the practice of science by non scientists is based on evidence. What evidence? Everything that works as a result of applying principles discovered through the practice of science. Every electronic item created today, every vehicle created, every building created, every medicine created etc. These all serve as evidence that science is useful in describing the universe. It also serves as evidence that the main assumption of science (the universe follows a set of rules) is probably true.
So for example someone may not have the understanding to verify the principles of electromagnetism themselves. But they can see the successful results of applying those principles in the form of items around them such as their PC. This constitutes objective evidence for the non scientist that the theory of electromagnetism suggested by scientific experts does indeed accurately describe some aspect of the rules that govern the universe. It also serves as evidence that the process of science itself is successful in discovering those rules and is therefore a good way to accumulate useful knowledge.
If the practice of science consistently made assertions that did not accurately describe the universe, there would be no such evidence of success and science would not be considered useful. As it is, when scientific theories are revised and improved we can clearly see the effect in the form of technological advancement. This is a measure of the success of science as a practice, and is the basis of trust placed in science by non scientists.
So you’re right, the non scientist does place trust in science, but that trust is based on objective evidence such as technological advancement. That's the difference between trust in science and religious faith in god. The former is based on objective evidence (independent of the observer) in the form of successful applications of discovered principles. The latter is based on subjective evidence (dependent on the observer) such as the interpretation of sacred texts, religious experience etc.
This represents two different approaches to knowledge. This difference forms the main bone of contention between theists and non theists. By implying non theists have faith in science, I think you are suggesting commonality between theism and non theism. But although they may appear similar on the surface, religious faith in god and trust in science are very different things because below the surface they stem from two very different approaches to knowledge, and are founded in two very different sets of assumptions. Hope that's helpful in some way.
The problem is that God do not demand Faith from human beings. Faith(as blindness to facts) is what Religious leaders had use through history to perpetuate their purpose, to control peoples minds. Everyone can question actual Science facts, that's why science book get updated when new facts arise. Politicians can be questioned, that's why some of them go to jail. We need to question every single institution in order to assure that we are not been lie. The only institution that had convince people not to question them is religion. Why? Because there are many lies inside of them, that could bury them, if they are reveal to the public. So how do they survive? The invented this concept of Faith, in which they made God said that if you question religion your are not a good believer, because God love's people with Faith, or in other words, people that are religiously blind(They inserted this concept in the Bible ). So people do not goes against Religion because they were convinced that by doing so, they are going against God, which is a free ticket to Hell.
God do not go against it self. If God created the world as it is(governed by actual known NAtural Laws) why would he try to fool you by making you believe that things are different from what it is obviously observe. Is He Mentally Sick? God do not support Religion. God do not need a corrupted institution. God had expose church corruption to all of us through history to free ourselves from religious slavery. You can play favorites if you want, or look the other way... but do not forget that when you defend your corrupted religion, you are messing with Divine Justice.
A great topic, one of my favorites. Like some words in the English language that have more than one meaning, faith is no exception. And, while it may be argued there might be several definitions, the two most prominent and widely incorporated into society are largely misinterpreted as one and the same.
One definition worth discussion is the faith in "what we cannot actually see, touch, smell, hear and taste with our senses". Many examples of this definition of faith can be observed in religions, however some examples of this faith can be observed in other phenomena. It is often referred to as faith in the "supernatural".
Of course, there is the question of religious "experiences" as these would appear to be something that has indeed affected the senses, certainly enough to be recognized and acknowledged as a religious experience. I often ponder what mechanism in the human body could interact with the supernatural realm in such a manner?
The other widely used definition is the faith in the consistent or the highly probable. For example, we're confident the Earth will keep turning and that the sun will consistently come up the next day. Only some catastrophic comic event could change that but there is a very low probability of that happening and our faith is reaffirmed each morning as the sun shines through once again.
So, we have two good working definitions, faith in that which is beyond nature and faith in the consistency of that we expect to occur each and every time.
To apply it to your opening paragraph, the faith in which the Bible refers would most likely be the first definition, while the faith in which scientists build working models of the world around us is the faith in consistency and high probability, that which acts in the same way each and every time it is observed.
There are a great number of people who ridicule each other for the faith they have in their religions. One religion will even ridicule another. Non-believers will ridicule believers, believers will ridicule non-believers.
It will most likely depend on which of the two definitions of faith are being employed. If the faith one uses is faith in consistency and probability, it could be difficult to apply faith in that which can't be seen or heard to the world around them.
Well actually, we touch atoms every day. In fact, we breath in atoms of hydrogen and nitrogen to stay alive.
Of course, you're most likely referring to seeing a single atom or something of that nature.
If someone really wanted to see an atom or at least do enough research into atoms to get a good working understanding, there is a great deal of experimental data and hard evidence available that would satisfy their curiosity.
Just having faith in atoms simply because someone says so isn't really a working understanding and it would only serve to demonstrate that faith in the consistency of scientific research would answer a great many questions about topics such as atoms, how they work, how they help us see, smell, taste and touch the world around us.
I don't like what a lot of scientists try to do, and that is prove God wrong! Man is always trying to fool people, especially those who want to follow God. To me that is just the devil playing dress up. 1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: As far as faith, Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Which means that faith alone should give those who truly have faith and truly believe in God the assurance, confidence, and conviction. Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. We should all yield to God's will and not our own. A lot of times man try to be so smart, but in reality they are so dumb, trying to figure out how God works! That is really being foolish on a lot of scientists part. 1 Corinthians 3:18-20 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, the lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. No one can even come close to the works nor thoughts of God. Isaiah 55:8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 2 Corinthians 5:7 For we walk by faith, not by sight.
quote: I don't like what a lot of scientists try to do, and that is prove God wrong!
No they don't. Scientific laws(in plain words, what is objectively seen in nature) are as they are because God (or what ever God is) created them that way. Gravity is not some lie science create to prove God wrong. We see it manifestation every day in our life. I do not really care to believe in gravity or not. I do not need to have faith in it...it is just there. We do not prove God wrong by defending gravity!
There are many application of science that are part of your daily activities(and the best of all, you do not need faith for them to work). Who has the merits of the creation of cars, pc, water purification process, medicines, air conditioners, sunblocks, tylenol for you headache...etc? You do not need faith in science for them to work, nor faith in scientist. They just work because scientist discover how things work in Earth.
How easy is for you calling scientist liars, but you bought their lies when you buy your personal computer, and the drugs for any illness.
That's an interesting statement to make. I would very much like to know which branch of science is trying to do that, is it biology, cosmology or some other branch? Could you please clarify?
Maybe there are some scientists who try and prove God wrong, but the majority do not. I agree with the rest of your post.
You say faith is believing and trusting in things you cant see. Well your bible says the opposite my friend!! Heb 11-1 says Faith is= EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN. Wow did you hear that. Faith isnt believing in things invisible. Faith is SEEING THE INVISIBLE, because seeing the things not seen is your evidence!! you got faith the wrong way around!!!
Short story long, the word "atom" was just that at it's creation, a word. As science advanced that word was proven right. An atom is just a building block, and if you can physically see something, like say a piece of charcoal, that you know is made of coal, which is carbon, then you know the atom exists. It's just one of those many chemical elements. Just keep breaking that coal down further and further.
So, it's really just a word to describe the really small stuff that makes up what you physically see.
You can see a spec of coal on your finger, and you know that it can become even smaller, and smaller, and smaller....
Oh yeah, you can't see an atom looking into a microscope. You would have to take a picture of it using transmission electron microscopes, field-ion microscopes, and scanning tunneling electron microscopes.
http://www.dmturner.org/Teacher/Library … mPart3.htm
OK. What makes up an atom? Let's look at that shall we? Science says an atom has a nucleus which consists or protons and neutrons. Electrons rotate or orbit the nucleus. How do non-scientists know this to be true?
I have more questions but want to go slowly with this.
Again, these are just words to describe the bigger picture. if you know that the charcoal was real, and then you broke it down to the spec of charcoal, and you know that that is real, then you broke it down further, and you know that the atom is now real. Well they said, ok then what makes up the atom and these are the words that were used to define atomic structure. You know the atom exists, because the word atom, that was just a word, and then proven, because you can see your charcoal is there for you to see.
The real question is, where do they come from, and why do they come together in the first place? That answer, I believe, is from the Alpha and Omega.
I am going to bed now. One more question.
If the nucleus is made up of protons and neutrons with electrons rotating around it, why do the electrons not move out of place when we know that they are negatively charged and protons are positively charged and positive and negative attract?
I apologize for the run-on sentence.
Sir D, the old Bohr model of the atom resembling a miniature solar system is an oversimplification. But the answer is similar to what happens in macro systems - orbits are stable states. Sticking with the simple model, electrons can and do move to a different orbit, but can't exist between them.
Anyway, the point of your question so far seems to be about observation. Our senses are very limited. We can see only a tiny part of the electromagnetic spectrum, for example. But we have been able to extend our senses with instrumentation, letting us 'see' or at least detect and measure more and more.
Why should I accept the existence of let's say the pi-meson? Because I have seen pictures produced in particle accelerators showing the path followed by such particles on collision events. I have measured the paths and carried out the calculations that confirm that the particle's mass, velocity etc are consistent with what the theory says a pi-meson will be.
Of course I can't absolutely know that the pictures were not fabrications. There is always room for doubt. But, as required by scientific method, the design and method of operation of the accelerator is published. With the time, money, and professional help, I could in theory build my own and repeat the experiment. In other words, scientific knowledge is not 'just' faith. It is applied method.
By the way, I was a student then. I've still got the books but I couldn't do it now. Aging brain
I believe you need to take a course on Physics haha
The difference between scientists and non-scientists is the fact that we have scientific proof that "such and such" exists.
But with people that believe in religion, you don't have any proof, just a belief structure based on faith.
But not only do you need to figure out why you believe in your religion but you also have to figure out why your religion is right and the others wrong.
Very few religious people can openly accept all the other religions.
Science is science in India, in Russia and in the U.S. Science isn't different in any country or even Universe.
The laws of science are equal everywhere in the Universe. Religion is based on belief, faith and perception which is different in places across the world. And when we find life outside of Earth, they will have their own religious belief. And religion is not provable or disprovable. You just have to hope it really exists if you believe it
I work in a research lab where the majority of the Scientist are Atheist. When they introduce a protocol or new work the call it a hunch, theory or idea. If it works they write a positive paper. If it doesn’t work they write a negative paper. Faith is never in the equation.
People who have experienced God DO have proof. Just like when the moon landing was being disputed, either in spoof or for real. The men who were THERE have proof but they can't prove it to you.
Faith means that you really don’t know and don’t require any evidence.
Individuals that believe by faith don’t know the truth and don’t want to be told the truth.
Faith is destroyed by facts every time.
Faith keeps people in the dark.
Yes, ionerice, if what you had faith in wasn't trustworthy. If you had faith in your husband/wife but that was destroyed by him/her doing things that proved your faith was misplaced, it was a useless faith.
Saying all people who believe by faith don't know the truth is too much, you don't know all people. If they don't want to be told what you consider the truth, it's often because what you think is truth is wrong. Some will let you tell them because they realize you have no way of knowing more than you already know; they can try to tell you about how much more there is than perceived by the physical senses but the rest is up to God. If "he" hasn't revealed anything to you, you can't know and it's not your fault.
Faith is just a belief with the action included, it is usually based on emotions, gut, without logic, but it is the starting point of logic.
You have to believe first
Not really a religious man, more of a spiritual - so from that viewpoint:
when my son was young I attempted to share the joy of discovery philosophy and spiritualism holds with him.
a question that came up was, "Poppa, what is faith?"
I was stymied, then inspired, I took his hand and led him to where morning sunlight streamed through the windows facing the Roaring Fork River. "Close your eyes,' I told him.
He closed his eyes.
"Do you feel the light?" I asked him.
"Uh huh," he answered.
"Do you taste it, see it, or smell it?"
"That's faith, hun, you just feel it."
Maybe not the best way to explain it, but to a five year old, I think it worked. By the by, he spent the next five years with a deep conviction of the truth of egyptian deities (think he liked how they looked;)
Molecular structures have been visually observed with an atomic force microscope.
The logic behind molecular structures had been theorized according to observable phenomena: 2 parts oxygen combined with 1 part carbon yields carbon dioxide, for example, or electrolysis yields hydrogen gas and oxygen gas, etc.
If you don't believe the image from the AFM is real, you could conceivably visit the laboratory where it was observed and ask them to reproduce it for you.
On the other hand, if you believe in religion and are absolutely convinced God spoke to you, you do not have a reproducible way to demonstrate this to another person. This is why it's a matter of faith only.
Sometimes there's an intersection. When religious fundamentalists insist the earth is only 6,000 years old when carbon dating alone can prove ages up to ten times as old, their faith is trumping a process that draws its source from observable phenomena.
Have you seen the atom for yourself? This is what I am trying to get at. It isn't about scientific evidence. It is about those who are not scientists who believe what science says. It doesn't matter if it has been tested a millions times with the same outcome. Anyone who is not apart of the test or direct the test must believe it on faith.
You make a good point. For all we know they could have photo shopped an image, and said look what we found.
There is a big difference.
Science could commit fraud...but as I said, It can be questioned without feeling guity of going to hell.
Religion on the other hand, could commit fraud, and then uses it power to condemn to hell anyone who try to go against them. Why?, because God love religiously blind people according to them.
There is no difference between anything, because I simply made a statement that focused on one thing. I wasn't comparing anything.
That's how you use the word difference. Like the difference between cats and dogs. Or, the difference between men and women etc..
What are you talking about? You state that science could commit fraud, and offer no consequence. You state that religion could commit fraud, and you are condemned to hell. Those statements are preposterous, and are a complete injustice to science and religion. I'm sure your "big difference" isn't biased. LOL.
quote<< "You state that science could commit fraud, and offer no consequence. ">>
No I didn't.
No scientist will tell you that you are a bad person which need to be saved because you do not believe in atoms.
quote<<You state that religion could commit fraud, and you are condemned to hell. >>
You love to misquote me, don't you?
Do not fool your self...you know what I am talking about. Religion loves to condemn those who are not their slaves in their believe.
quote<<<<Those statements are preposterous, and are a complete injustice to science and religion. I'm sure your "big difference" isn't biased. >>>
"Science could commit fraud...but as I said, It can be questioned without feeling guity of going to hell. "
Where is the consequence?
"Religion on the other hand, could commit fraud, and then uses it power to condemn to hell anyone who try to go against them. Why?, because God love religiously blind people according to them."
Where is the consequence? Oh, never mind, the religious say you are going to hell because they got caught in a lie.
You are just looking for a way to impose your philosophy on life into both science and religion. How would you know what any scientist would do? There are many religious scientists.
Like I stated, a complete injustice to both. Again there is no "big difference" because my original statement wasn't comparing anything. I just noted that Sir D's comment was plausible.
In case I did not make my self clear what I try to explain was the difference between believing in science and religion. Science can made mistake. But since science had not pretend to be the Word of God, there is not a big issue in changing facts as evidence appear.
Religion on the other Hand, claim that they receive revelation directly from God. And that He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. So there is no update in the beliefs they claim. And if you ever try to go against that: You are lacking Faith...without faith, God does not like you. Your are doom.
I wish you would have said this three posts ago. However, there is one flaw. If you lack faith GOD still loves you all the same. The difference is he just won't know you at your time of judgment.
It's not a good point at all. Do you think we would have advanced to having photoshop if we hadn't first learned molecular theory?
As I said in my previous comment, if any trust is placed in science by non scientists (which I agree it is), then it is not based on whether someone has personally seen an atom or not. It is based on evidence that the practice of science is good at accurately describing the universe.
Technological advancement for example is evidence of the accumulation of knowledge gained through scientific practice. Someone doesn't need to personally verify every scientific theory to be able to see that the application of those theories are successful. Your PC is evidence that scientific method is successful. Trust placed in science by non scientists is based on such evidence.
Faith in god by a theist is not the same as trust placed in science by a non scientist. One is formed on objective evidence (the visible success of science as a method), the other is based on subjective evidence (how successful someone feels their faith in god has been).
Therefore someone who trusts in science as a method (including some theists) can point to objective evidence that demonstrates the success of that practice. Whereas the nature of evidence suggested for the success or usefulness of religious faith, makes it inscrutable.
It all comes down to an evidence based approach to truth vs. a non evidence based approach. These two approaches are exemplified by religious faith in god and trust placed in science, but they are not the same. The assumptions at the foundation of each are very different.
Again, all I'm saying is that there is an aspect of his point that is plausible. I don't agree with him, but it could be true. Don't root for science only when it's convenient, and you have the upper hand.
You know what? I've actually heard of people telling others that, that questioning what they tell you about God means you're doubting God's trustworthiness. Obviously all it really means is you don't know if they really know what they're talking about.
And if God can't handle searching and questions then who cares? We can't know without it being revealed so it's kind of up to him to prove it to us - and he does. Besides, asking questions for more understanding isn't the same as calling God or anyone else a liar.
Faith is not a gift from God. Faith is a lie created by man to control people's mind. Faith move you away from the real divine truth.
God vs. Religion
Think for your self. You have to know the truth and the Truth will set you free.
PD- When I talk about "faith" here, I refer to the concept of blindly believing anything. I limit my comments to that specific term.
Faith in God is gift from god that he wants us to keep.
Church is a good thing when we go there to grow in our faith
God did not give us a religion.
Faith in Religion is a cheep counterfeit
Religiousness blocks our vision of the truth.
God wants us to have a relationship with him.
Church is a good thing when we go there to grow in our faith **hummm**
God did not give us a religion.**I agree**
Faith in Religion is a cheep counterfeit**I agree**
Religiousness blocks our vision of the truth. **I agree**
God wants us to have a relationship with him. **I agree...but I do not see God in an anthropomorphic way**
we are not too diferent at all.
I believe that if God wanted to appear to any creature that he would disguise himself in similar form as the creature he speaks with.
I think that Church can be a place to be introduced to God.
Kinda like a blind date. When after the date a relationship is established, then it was a good thing.
Also I think than about half of the people going to church are not fully indoctrinated into religiosity. Good people doing the best that they can. Their real worship happens at home in the privacy of their home,neighborhood and work place.
Hungry people looking for a place to consume good nourishment.
dentist, faith defined that way is what causes so much trouble. I don't see that as a biblical way to define faith but realize that many apparently do. And "all" the atheists on these forums seem to take it that way, no wonder they ridicule faith. If I came up with a ridiculous definition for atheism, people would ridicule that too.
TMinut I agree. In a broad sense, Faith could have other better meanings. Limiting faith to what i say will make no justice to the term. But the thing is that many people see faith that way, and religious institution had use this type of "faith" for manipulation during the course of history.
I once hear a christian saying that Dinosaurs did not existed, and that God put the fossils there to prove our faith!!
I do have faith in a superior being. I believe in miracles,spiritual things, etc. But I will never use faith as "a fact" to argue that i belong to the right religion,...or that I have the true holy book because my faith proves it. Or that the bible is the Word of God because the Bible says is the word of God...And my Faith proves it. That's the type of faith
I am against
I have seen the visible image of the invisible GOD.
I need no faith to believe, I have seen.
This does not happen to many.
Having said that, it is greater to believe without seeing.
That is faith.
I wonder why it's supposed to be greater without seeing. Because you have to be so close to God that you can know without relying solely on restricted physical senses perhaps?
I remember when a friend of mine, a professor of mathematics at the Naval Academy, decided he would prove mathematically that God does not exist. He shocked himself by proving God DOES exist and became a believer. It was pretty funny but I admit I don't understand his proof at all.
I find some of the comments posted to this thread, pretty odd. And, I say 'odd', because some people are literally saying that mankind is 'trying' to prove 'god' is wrong.
First off, mankind is NOT trying to prove 'god' wrong, because first they would have to admit he exists.
I found that argument interesting and a failure. To prove someone wrong, you must acknowledge that they exist first. Which you can do by touch, seeing or hearing them. If you can smell them, beware- some people might not be like you in that department and you could be in for trouble. But, I digress.
For those of you who are believer- Yes, I do get it. But, any argument you bring to the table with reference to 'god' or his supposed 'will', I would like to remind you- mankind only recognizes 'god' or his supposed 'will', because religion exists.
If religion didn't exist- WE wouldn't be having this conversation.
But it does, so we are. Sorry, but people were praying to GOD long before "religion" or his formal "supposed will" existed.
You know- your response is ignorance in it's greatest mode. I've never seen such wit from someone, like you displayed for me.
But it does, so we are. Is the dumbest statement you could possibly come back with, to my finishing statement of my post. Just because, you fail to see reality. MANKIND CREATED IT! That means they MADE IT UP.
How difficult is that to understand?
And, as for you other comment- people have been praying to god for longer than religion has been around- How would YOU know?
YOU wouldn't have a clue, what was happening then. And, just to let you know, in case you didn't know-
HUMANS WERE NOT ALWAYS CONSCIOUS!
And, had you done a single bit of research on the human race. Then, you would have known this FACT.
I love it when you post your philosophies on life, because it detracts from what little credibility you have left each time.
"Not to rain on your parade, but religion was brought about by accident. Only later did become wide-spread, because those who were in power at the time of it's inception, were religious leaders who believed that mankind MUST serve a higher authority.
Religion is a business and nothing more. It was created by man, so as to control society, later governments were added as a reinforcement, for those who chose not to follow religious leaders. Even, at certain times, the 'church' has wiped out civilizations, just to maintain their control.
You want to talk about religion. Understand what it is first and what it is not?"
You're right I wouldn't have a clue what was happening then, but I guess you would, because you were obviously there, LOL.
Furthermore, YOU have no clue what religion is. Just because you made up your own definition for it, doesn't mean anyone else acknowledges it.
Really? I'm glad you like to start this post of with insults. I've never stated that I lived at that time. How ever, history does have it's lessons, and apparently you've not learned enough yet. It's obvious, because if you're a believer, which I am taking by your posts- that you really don't have a clue? You really don't have a clue.
It's so sad. I don't make up things- I see them as they are, unlike you. I open my eyes and actually look thru them. I absorb more knowledge in one day and transform it into wisdom, then you do in any given week. So, please, spare me the righteous attitude. You're beginning to bore the hell out of me.(and believe it hell doesn't exist either, like you're so called precious 'god' or his heaven, which you so much want to be a part of.)
If you were even half as smart as you think you are, then you wouldn't have even acknowledged my remarks. Yet, you come to insult me and make yourself appear justified in defense of your faith. Your pathetic control of your own emotions has the better of you and you're making emotional decisions. This is not a good thing, just in case, you didn't know.
But, as far as what I've learn, by doing what I needed to find out, is that religion is BASED on a specific code of ethics and is for a higher cause.
That is EXACTLY what religion IS! Step back and look at it. It gives you special ethics to live your life by and asks you to take a leap of faith for a 'higher' cause.
Come on people- Let's keep it real.
It wasn't meant to be an insult it's the truth. You make outlandish claims with no proof to back anything up.
You state this:
"YOU wouldn't have a clue, what was happening then. And, just to let you know, in case you didn't know- "
"Religion is a business and nothing more. It was created by man, so as to control society, later governments were added as a reinforcement, for those who chose not to follow religious leaders. Even, at certain times, the 'church' has wiped out civilizations, just to maintain their control."
You seriously see no conflict in those statements? TMINUT got it, I got it, and you still don't get it. You're the one who posted it and you don't get it.
You kill me LOL.
What claim have I made that isn't truth?
Religion was MAN-MADE...FACT!
Religion IS a code of ethics and for a higher cause. FACT!
Science had defined 'Reality'. DUH! God doesn't exist in it! FACT!
Let me know if you need any more FACTS?
Actually, again- What claims are untrue?
If I have left anything out- please let me know and I'll be sure to clear it up.
The FACT is that you come at me, with your religious intellect and expect me to cave like others. And, if someone agrees with you and not me, then it's obvious that they misunderstood me.
If you're confused on anything, I'll be glad to straighten you out. There is no doubt about that. I've got all that I need, because history and science has done of the work.
The FACT that you come at me with the pathetic argument of saying "PROVE HE DOESN'T EXIST!"- you're obviously missing my point to begin with.
Reality says he doesn't exist. Science has defined reality. Inside reality- god does NOT exist. That's why it is called a mystical leap of faith. Now, I would have thought you knew that.
Again people, let's KEEP IT REAL!
Religion is a BILLION dollar business. It also was formed for a specific reason- Control People. Plain and Simple!
Like I said, you don't get it. Tminut got it, I got it, but you don't and you posted it. You're just looking for a soap box to stand on. Congratulations, you've stated your philosophy.
A man on Hubpages once said:
"if you were even half as smart as you think you are, then you wouldn't have even acknowledged my remarks."
Confucius say, man with many words lose his voice.
You belive what you believe, and I'll believe what I know.
You know, what you don't realize? Is that you were NOT suppose to say anything at all.
DUH? You are suppose to simply ignore me. That's what you are taught by your religious faith. Yet, you run your mouth?
So much for your pathetic faith. It shows you don't really get it and apparently TMinut doesn't either. IF YOU have faith in 'god', then you are to KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT in the face of adversity and move on.
Yet, you continue to come. Do you SEE how blind you are? Can you see? Seriously, if you were a TRUE believer, then you and I, wouldn't be having this conversation.
Since, you apparently can't get over yourself long enough to have a rational thought go through your head, I'll never be able to get your to understand.
I've learned all I am going to. Thank you very much for time.
Again, people KEEP it real. Deal with the facts we as a race have and leave the mystical garbage for your dreams.
Oh, sorry I didn't realize you were still on your soapbox.
"Since, you apparently can't get over yourself long enough to have a rational thought go through your head, I'll never be able to get your to understand."
LOL, Just because I quoted something you said, doesn't mean I am going to abide by it. I don't care what you meant by it. That's my whole point, and that's why you still don't get it. You make remarks about how believers are supposed to believe in a GOD that you have no faith in.
Oh, please wise CAGSIL let us all know how we are supposed to be. Show us the way, LOL
That's True my friend and that's a great discovery. Yes, people were praying to God long before Religion...so you prove to your self already that Religion and God are two separate things. Religion was created to establish how was God and what he demand of man. They write down their understanding of God according to the believers perspective...in that specific period of Time. So when religion start forming they created holy books which describes their thoughts about God. But that is all what it is. It is not God reveling it self to human kind through the Bible...but human kind reveling their thoughts about God.
I never said GOD and religion aren't "two separate things," so I haven't proven anything to myself. Lastly, the BIBLE was written and passed to generations, because GOD wanted it to be. I forgot you were there with Cagsil when it was written, so you two know all about it's creation. My apologies. I've got dibs on the Delorian when you two are done with it.
The only thing you have to do do know this thing is to study history and some theology.
An by the way. God has nothing to do with the Bible origin. God do not read the Bible...well may be he does...but he get's mad when people like you dares to say that Bible is his Words. If you at least leave him to speak to you, instead of putting words in his mouth...
LOL, ok, whatever you say. Next time you speak to GOD tell him I'm sorry for making him mad.
You can play favorites...or look the other way. Or you can search for the truth. You have to know the truth, and the truth will set you free. God can make you free from religion slavery.
Mr. Swineburn claims to have done it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/11/arts/ … tails.html
I would like to see what the calculations were actually based uopn. This can't be the whole story. The basis of the calculations had to be non-sensical, because there is a 0% probability that Jesus or any man came back to life after being dead and decomposing for three days. You know, full well, that this makes no sense.
You can read his book. It does make sense, he used Bayes Theorum.
where h given e and k = .97
You can check his work if you don't agree. I haven't checked his work, but I also don't think he would go around to promote it if it was incorrect. He would look like a fool if he did that.
Why not? Religion does it every single time a book is sold.
There is NO guarantee that anything in the bible's of religion, that any of it is real facts. It's ridiculous what people don't see, yet promote themselves.
A continuous motion of one person perpetuating a lie, so someone else can take advantage of others. How pathetic is this?
Faith is to be in two things- Yourself and Others. That's it!
Ok then PHILOSOPHER go check his work on Bayes Theorum, and then spew your nonsense. At least Mr. Swineburn Philosophizes and backs it up with probable proof. Mr Swineburn isn't writing the BIBLE he's using a proof to explain the resurrection. If you doubt the man so much use Bayes theorum and prove him wrong.
Bayes' Theorem relates the "direct" probability of a hypothesis conditional on a given body of data, PE(H), to the "inverse" probability of the data conditional on the hypothesis, PH(E).
What do you suppose was the given body of data? I think that is where the confusion lies.
Even stranger is when I told someone about it online and they replied that biblically, that's incorrect and that the bible says no one can come to believe in God through his intellect! The things people choose to argue about...
I was in another forum the other day and someone posted a list of things that I guess their bible had in it. Check this out-
"mime, conscience and subconscious"
Someone posted that, as how people are suppose to live.
This instantly told me exactly what the church doesn't want people to REALIZE about their own religion.
The word "mime" - told me all I needed to know about religion. A "mime" mimic's other peoples' movement, so believers are suppose to mimic(not think for themselves) what they are told to. And, if they don't, then they are to FEAR damnation.
They are trying to force people into neglecting their own consciousness. How screwed up is that?
Religion only exists because God exists. People had to figure out how to respond to finding that out. And people being what they are, they respond in unique ways but each decides they have THE right way.
Not to rain on your parade, but religion was brought about by accident. Only later did become wide-spread, because those who were in power at the time of it's inception, were religious leaders who believed that mankind MUST serve a higher authority.
Religion is a business and nothing more. It was created by man, so as to control society, later governments were added as a reinforcement, for those who chose not to follow religious leaders. Even, at certain times, the 'church' has wiped out civilizations, just to maintain their control.
You want to talk about religion. Understand what it is first and what it is not?
ediggity, that's funny to read - in the book I read a couple of days ago (Gut Feelings, The Intelligence of the Unconscious), Bayes's Rule that takes into account every evidence possible and using all sorts of complex calculations, doesn't beat out intuition.
--------------Edited to add-----------
It's still scientifically considered the more scientific way to statistically prove the likelihood of future events but is taking a beating. It's used for so many things (stock market, sports predictions, much more) but intuition may be even better in certain types of situations.
cagsil said: And, as for you other comment- people have been praying to god for longer than religion has been around- How would YOU know?
He knows that the same way you "know" that religion was started by accident. Guess you're both incredibly old.
by Phocas Vincent21 months ago
Is it possible to truly be religious as well as believe in the evidence of science with theories such as evolution, the Big Bang and dinosaurs existing prior to man not along side? (Please keep it clean and civil guys,...
by thirdmillenium20 months ago
It is quite understandable for the rationals to pity the believers for their purported ignorance and obstinate adherence to their religious beliefs. They think they know the truth which may well be the case. What I do...
by pay2cEM5 years ago
This is a hypothetical question. If in fact whatever religion you happen to believe in was not true, what would it take to persuade you? Obviously, the more severe the charge, the more evidence we demand in order to...
by Alan7 months ago
A basic rule of scientific inquiry is that you start from something you already know, something that can be proven, repeatedly, by other investigators in exactly similar circumstances. From something that is known...
by lizzieBoo5 years ago
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind, " according to Einstein. The new fundamentalist secularism, as lead by the likes of Hitchens, Dawkins and and Hawking, is...
by Tim Mitchell2 years ago
Does belief require something to be a known (to know) to exist? Does to know something mean there is belief (rather than simply suggest) that it exists? If there are more than a singular known existing as truths, then...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.