U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-05-2010, 08:36 AM
 
5,463 posts, read 5,789,187 times
Reputation: 1803

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
Faith is the ability to beleive what you can not prove
Science can not prove the origin of man
so by definition it is faith
Nothing can be proven to an absolute degree of certainty. That doesn't make everything faith. Or if it does, it make the term useless since if everything is faith telling us so just means it is part of "everything". But we knew that already - anything is already part of everything, so adding faith to it is a useless qualifier.

And in that case, not all faith is equal. You can have "faith" the sun will rise tomorrow, and "faith" the sun won't. But just because you use the word faith to describe both of them doesn't make them equally likely or reasonable beliefs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2010, 08:44 AM
 
5,463 posts, read 5,789,187 times
Reputation: 1803
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
Science as a whole does not rest on faith. however there are things within the large tent called science that can not be proved. science can not prove the origin of man.
Pregnancy is pretty well understood.

And don't confuse "can not" with "haven't yet".

Quote:
So to believe there is some scientific explanation for man you have to place your faith in science.
Do you mean "believe there is an explanation now", or "believe science may eventually explain"? No one believes the former (i.e. that humans know everything), and it's hardly a stretch to think that science will continue to find answers based on the fact it has done so quite well in the past.

But you're totally off base here since you don't seem to understand that science doesn't care about absolute proof. That's one of the reasons why it is so successful. Instead of worrying about airtight logical deductive proofs, it works on generating the best models of reality based on the evidence. Those models are never proven 100% totally perfect, but if they consistently provide accurate explanations and predictions, they are useful and considered good theories.

All of this "absolute truth" nonsense is relegated to the philosophy and religious types to fight about. Science takes a much more pragmatic approach to getting actual work done in the real world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 08:56 AM
 
5,463 posts, read 5,789,187 times
Reputation: 1803
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
As I have said from the start in either case Atheist or religion on the point of the origin of man both sides must have faith.
One has faith in religion
One has faith in science
So you're saying that if a Christian uses the tools or results of science, they have two faiths? For example, when you're using the internet you're practicing your faith in science - splitting your faith between it and God. There's quite a few examples in the Bible where God mentions he has issues with you having faith in things other than it. I'm not sure why you'd do that if you really do believe, but that's between you and your god after you die.

Not that this is a real concern - it's apparent to everyone you're just playing word games.When you use the results of science there's no faith involved, just like when people who believe differently use it. The faith in science is really "trust in the loads of independent objective observations and rigorous methods used to construct scientific theories", while the faith in religion is "believing without evidence or in spite of it".

Its pretty obvious you haven't given this much thought and are just anxious to convince yourself that non-believers have faith regardless of what the logical consequences are of thinking this way. I think it's time for some introspection. Decide if believing the results of science are faith or are not faith. And then act accordingly - if it is faith, you need to pick either your religious faith or your "faith" in science. If you really believe what you're saying, have the courage to be consistent with that belief.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 09:52 AM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,955,016 times
Reputation: 909
I don't have faith in science either. As Scarmig pointed out several times, expecting something to happen because of a history of past experiences is not faith. We can expect the sun to come up tomorrow because it has a track record of some 4.5 billion years of doing that.

If you're claiming that anything we don't know is considered faith, we take the logical end of this argument to the entire "brain in a vat," where we can't really know anything, and everything is taken on faith. Ergo, as KCfromNC said, the word faith becomes meaningless.

If we make the assumption that we can know things, when there are things that we know, and knowledge trumps faith by definition. Faith is the belief in things you don't know. Not having a belief of something is not faith, also as Scarmig pointed out.

So, expecting the sun to come up tomorrow is not faith. Not having an answer to what happened before the Planck time, not faith.

The scientific method is a self-correcting system. It also has a track record of discovering truth. Geocentrism vs. Heliocentrism being one such fantastic example. The Theory of Evolution, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, the Theory of Gravity, the Wave-Particle theory. All perfectly valid, considered "knowable" working theories of how the world works.

It doesn't require faith to believe in something that time again as been shown to discover truth. We have evidence that science works to uncover mysterious. We also know that science may not discover everything, particularly the science that relies on modern physics. Our physics absolutely breaks down below the Planck time, and below the Planck temperature.

So no, as an atheist, I don't have faith in science or the scientific method. It's been shown to work in the past, there is no reason to suspect it will not continue to work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 10:31 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,482 posts, read 8,522,512 times
Reputation: 2525
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarmig View Post
With regards to the case of the origins of man, it has been proven. We know the ancestral lineage of man through the (scientifically proven) theory of evolution using many tools and points of evidence.

So no, the origin of man from a scientific viewpoint is not an issue of faith, because that is an answerable question. Things such as the origin of the universe, that is an "unanswerable" question. Things such as the existence of intelligent life in other galaxies is an unanswerable question simply because the scope of human existence is too infinitesimal to discover the necessary evidence.

But the origin of man? Relatively easy.



Again I ask you if you understand why an atheist would not want to use a word that has religious connotations with regards to his hope and choice in science as the preferred method of discovery. Do you empathize with that desire?
The word has more than religious definitions. It is you choosing only to read the word in a religious context. I understand nd an Atheist believes science will discover the origin of man. That very belief shows faith in science

Where has the TOE proved the origin of man?
is there a missing link?
If there is a missing link where did that ape/man come from?
TOE does not discuss origin except to say man evolved from an ape/man being.
So if you accept it as a theory, because it is only a theory as the missing link has never been found, but if you accept it and man came from ape. where did the ape come from because then the origin of man would be pre TOE discussion
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,482 posts, read 8,522,512 times
Reputation: 2525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
I don't have faith in science either. As Scarmig pointed out several times, expecting something to happen because of a history of past experiences is not faith. We can expect the sun to come up tomorrow because it has a track record of some 4.5 billion years of doing that.

If you're claiming that anything we don't know is considered faith, we take the logical end of this argument to the entire "brain in a vat," where we can't really know anything, and everything is taken on faith. Ergo, as KCfromNC said, the word faith becomes meaningless.

If we make the assumption that we can know things, when there are things that we know, and knowledge trumps faith by definition. Faith is the belief in things you don't know. Not having a belief of something is not faith, also as Scarmig pointed out.

So, expecting the sun to come up tomorrow is not faith. Not having an answer to what happened before the Planck time, not faith.

The scientific method is a self-correcting system. It also has a track record of discovering truth. Geocentrism vs. Heliocentrism being one such fantastic example. The Theory of Evolution, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, the Theory of Gravity, the Wave-Particle theory. All perfectly valid, considered "knowable" working theories of how the world works.

It doesn't require faith to believe in something that time again as been shown to discover truth. We have evidence that science works to uncover mysterious. We also know that science may not discover everything, particularly the science that relies on modern physics. Our physics absolutely breaks down below the Planck time, and below the Planck temperature.

So no, as an atheist, I don't have faith in science or the scientific method. It's been shown to work in the past, there is no reason to suspect it will not continue to work.
If you're claiming that anything we don't know is considered faith, we take the logical end of this argument to the entire "brain in a vat," where we can't really know anything, and everything is taken on faith. Ergo, as KCfromNC said, the word faith becomes meaningless.

Know I have said if you believe in something that you can not prove then that belief is based on faith
The definition of faith is to believe in what you Can not prove. Science can not prove the origin of man. So if your belief that the origin is TOE or the big bang you put your faith in the fact that science will someday prove it

If we make the assumption that we can know things, when there are things that we know, and knowledge trumps faith by definition. Faith is the belief in things you don't know. Not having a belief of something is not faith, also as Scarmig pointed out.
When there is no proof in the facts you choose to beleive it is faith. that does not mean a religious definition of faith.

So, expecting the sun to come up tomorrow is not faith. Not having an answer to what happened before the Planck time, not faith.

believing the sun will come up is certainly faith. You believe the past experiences will make it come up again. But there is that small chance that the sun will burn out tonight . So until the sun does come up tomorrow you do not have a fact that is provable
The scientific method is a self-correcting system. It also has a track record of discovering truth. Geocentrism vs. Heliocentrism being one such fantastic example. The Theory of Evolution, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, the Theory of Gravity, the Wave-Particle theory. All perfectly valid, considered "knowable" working theories of how the world works.
Correct and science can prove things. However science has never proved where or what the origin of man is. You can look at the facts you wish to and beleive the facts you wish to. Belief in a facts that can be proved is still the definition of faith


It doesn't require faith to believe in something that time again as been shown to discover truth. We have evidence that science works to uncover mysterious. We also know that science may not discover everything, particularly the science that relies on modern physics. Our physics absolutely breaks down below the Planck time, and below the Planck temperature.

Science works to uncover mysteries.Science has never proved the origin of man. Some in science believe the origin is the big bang theory some the TOE, but neither has ever been pr oven when it comes to the origin of man
So no, as an atheist, I don't have faith in science or the scientific method. It's been shown to work in the past, there is no reason to suspect it will not continue to work.[/quote]
Atheists always have faith, not in a religion. If you believe one thing in your life that can not be proven then you have faith that science or time will prove it
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,923 posts, read 9,678,093 times
Reputation: 2406
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post

is there a missing link?
No.

Quote:
If there is a missing link where did that ape/man come from?
What ape/man

Quote:
TOE does not discuss origin except to say man evolved from an ape/man being.
No it doesn't.

Quote:
So if you accept it as a theory, because it is only a theory as the missing link has never been found, but if you accept it and man came from ape. where did the ape come from because then the origin of man would be pre TOE discussion
It might be better if you were to actually learn what the ToE says before you ram your foot in your mouth.


I think the above has given us a clue folks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 10:52 AM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,302 posts, read 3,761,274 times
Reputation: 2524
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
Faith is the ability to believe in that which you can not prove.

A person of religion has faith because it can not be proved god created man.

An atheist must have faith because they can no prove the origin of man or the universe. So they put their faith in the fact that life was one big accident. But they can not prove that so they to must have faith .

Both sides have faith, one in a god , one in a cosmic accident.
Neither can be proved.

Now the Atheists will all come here and say they have no faith. To say that means they cant prove the origins of the universe and man and then they will say they do not have faith in what they believe.
I disagree with your description of what faith is.
I cite two different Bibles.
a. Now Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
b. Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of things of realities though not beheld.

In both definitions the words "evidence" and "evident" are used. This is not blind belief. It requires evidence. From this as I said your definition of faith does not agree with what the Bible stated. Your definition does not require evidence whatsoever, just blind acceptance.

Now, based on whatever physical evidence is there the atheist are at least more close to what may be a reality than believing that Jesus was born from a virgin.

You may not have seen a child eat a cake but when you see that the cake was messed with and what appears as cake smell and frosting on his mouth and hands most likely you believ he ate some of that cake regardless of how much he denies it. Is that faith? Maybe to some degree because you do have some type of evidence.

There is not much evidence in saying someone was born from a virgin. There are more scientific principles to support how they believe in the origins of the universe. That may still be faith but they have a lot more evidence the the virgin account.
I still believe in God even though I cannot prove his existence. However, based on my own logic and reasoning I simply do not accept that much of the principles of physics at random produce some things that to me required some type of intervention for some things to happen.

That is my logic even though in some pure logic principles that may not have some support. Sometimes people have being right out of pure instinct when they have made some conclusions even though everyting around them did not support thier conclusions and it did not make sense.

You have a great day.
El Amigo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 10:53 AM
 
2,893 posts, read 5,172,487 times
Reputation: 1973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
No.

What ape/man

No it doesn't.

It might be better if you were to actually learn what the ToE says before you ram your foot in your mouth.


I think the above has given us a clue folks.

Most definitely.


wjtwet, go learn the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, then revisit the theory of evolution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2010, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,482 posts, read 8,522,512 times
Reputation: 2525
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo View Post
I disagree with your description of what faith is.
I cite two different Bibles.
a. Now Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
b. Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of things of realities though not beheld.

In both definitions the words "evidence" and "evident" are used. This is not blind belief. It requires evidence. From this as I said your definition of faith does not agree with what the Bible stated. Your definition does not require evidence whatsoever, just blind acceptance.

Now, based on whatever physical evidence is there the atheist are at least more close to what may be a reality than believing that Jesus was born from a virgin.

You may not have seen a child eat a cake but when you see that the cake was messed with and what appears as cake smell and frosting on his mouth and hands most likely you believ he ate some of that cake regardless of how much he denies it. Is that faith? Maybe to some degree because you do have some type of evidence.

There is not much evidence in saying someone was born from a virgin. There are more scientific principles to support how they believe in the origins of the universe. That may still be faith but they have a lot more evidence the the virgin account.
I still believe in God even though I cannot prove his existence. However, based on my own logic and reasoning I simply do not accept that much of the principles of physics at random produce some things that to me required some type of intervention for some things to happen.

That is my logic even though in some pure logic principles that may not have some support. Sometimes people have being right out of pure instinct when they have made some conclusions even though everyting around them did not support thier conclusions and it did not make sense.

You have a great day.
El Amigo
I do not cite a bible i cite the dictionary
Faith is beleif is something you can prove
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top