The assumption of a God (Jews, believe, exist, Christ)

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by Jremy

I know exactly what you mean.

Really? What are the grounds upon which you base your conclusions?

It will take a whole lot to show that. Science is ultimately based on assumptions, just as much as religion. That is why the OP is horribly inaccurate and blatantly one-sided. I'm not talking about the findings of science but the means whereby it arrives at those findings. There are two options:

1. The means (presumably empiricism) are assumed to be true and, therefore, not questioned, or
2. The means are provable by appealing to something else, in which case the thing appealed to is the higher authority. This new authority then needs to be proven. If not, it is the unquestionable authority.

Do you even know the meaning of the word empiricism? Or are you like another poster that has his own private meanings for particular words?

empiricism....A pursuit of knowledge purely through experience, especially by means of observation and sometimes by experimentation; A doctrine which holds that the only or, at least, the most reliable source of human knowledge is experience, especially perception by means of the physical senses. ..

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Do you even know the meaning of the word empiricism? Or are you like another poster that has his own private meanings for particular words?

empiricism....A pursuit of knowledge purely through experience, especially by means of observation and sometimes by experimentation; A doctrine which holds that the only or, at least, the most reliable source of human knowledge is experience, especially perception by means of the physical senses. ..

Now I am getting the "mother-in-law-itis" treatment you usually reserve for God . . . "ignore Him and refer only to what He does." I'm flattered. Your compatriots might question your faith in experience . . especially if it is just your own personal experience. Perhaps you need to qualify your definition?

[nezlie]

Originally Posted by Nikk

Just because the majority believes in a hypothesis does make it true!

It does when the facts are there to back them up! What do the few that refute evolution present as fact to back their contentions?

Originally Posted by Nikk

Sounds great in theory, but this is not how science works. For example the geological colume found in the text books does not exist anywhere in nature. In fact, many layers of supposedly older material lies upon younger material, or layers separated by supposedly millions of years touch at locations with no reworking or errosion between. Why are the science text books not corrected? Because scientist have bought into the idea of long age and pre-set dates to specific rock layers and cannot turn back regardless of new evidence. This has happened with many scientific theories.

I realize that body of knowledge of geology can be conflicting with young earth beliefs. But it doesn't make sense to nilly willy dismiss legitimate physical causes and explanations that account for disruptions in the earth's strata in different locations around the planet to rationalize one's religious beliefs. The Earth is not a static system, and there are many seismic activities that happen in one area that do not happen in another, e.g., erosion which can wipe out rock layers in a particular location, periods in time where nothing might be deposited in one place while deposition is going on in other areas, uplifting of layers and superimposing layers in different places where there is activity originating from deep within the Earth. The Geologic column is not something that exists uniformly all around the Earth; it is a representation of what has happened to Earth over its lifetime, derived from observation of the column itself as well as radiometric dating. Ever notice how different geologic events happen in different parts of the globe?

Originally Posted by Nikk

Many medicines of the past and even ancient past are still good medicines. It may be that we have faster acting products or more potent products, but ancient medicines have proven to be quite effective in many cases. I think you are using a bad example to support your affair with modern medicine. Which by the way is based on standard practice methods and not historical science methods as found in evolution!



science is a work in progress, however evolution is not science! It is merely a story that evolutionist have attempted to prop up and support with scientific data. If the scientific data does not support the evolutionary hypothesis, it is discarded. Does this sound like science? No, that is why evolution is not science.

Yes, the bible is based on writtings of the past. But the truth is the truth regardless how old it is!

I'll be going for my new flu shot next year. Why, because evolution is at work and new strains will mutate and develop and they can infect us.
In your last statement, I hope you are referring to some personal spiritual belief that you consider to be your own individual truth and not some form of an 'absolute truth.'

[Jremy]

Originally Posted by nezlie

It does when the facts are there to back them up!

The evidence is always subject to interpretation (do all scientists agree always?) and personal bias, and even if those interpretations are true, they are always subject to modification when additional information is discovered.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Jremy

That's irrelevant. The revelation itself is objective. Natural phenomena are also objective, yet they can be interpreted in different ways by different scientists. Nobody is above subjectivity. We cannot escape ourselves, though we might wish we could achieve such neutrality and impartiality.

Interestingly, I rather keenly (desperately?) wanted to see a particular result in my efforts to prevent the generalized mass murder of pesky polar bears in the Canadian Arctic in the late '70s and early '80s. The oil company's proposal was predictable ("Shoot 'em all!"), and my initial research "wanted" to come to some conclusions I could force those morons to use.

But, on review by one of my colleagues, in the end, I saw where I"d sorta-kinda "cooked" the results in my original conclusions. So, my own natural, human subjectivity, fed by good intentions mind you, were working against me, and if I had succeeded in enforcing those mangament options, a lot of "innocent" or just curious bears would have been shot where they stood.

In fact, the broader basis for scientific conclusions almost ALWAYS prevents singular interpretation. Even if someone works alone, the final say on whether their results get published rest with peer review, and frankly, some of those who have unique knowledge in a particular area are or may be slightly jealous of someone else's funding sources or success, so they can be quite difficult and demanding in their reviews. Which all proves to be a good thing because it surely minimizes subjectivity.

I agree. There is a limitation to what we know. Scientific theories and models are often modified or improved upon by subsequent findings. Thus, there is much conjecture in science. The models we form based on the "evidence" are always subject to change by later "evidence," thus indicating that there is a fallibility to it.

Well, yes, but you also tend here to throw all scientific achievement into some "questionable" bag. That's simply not so; the design of most modern studies limits the outcome. I once heard a real good definition of science, as follows:

"It's the process of asking Mother Nature simple questions, one at a time."

Design is everything, and if the question asked is not too all-encompassing (i.e.: a study to answer the question "Does enzyme A react with material B under certain stated conditions?" is going to succeed where a question "What is the meaning of the universe?" cannot.)

And yet you enter discussions like this seemingly with the attitude that science is infallible and that the one who has faith is trusting in a fallible foundation. What you don't see, or are not willing to admit, is that you stand on no surer footing than the theist, despite your claims to the contrary.

You compare incomparables. You are knowingly trying to slide into your discussion a level of constant fallibility and bias that simply does not exist. The proof of this is in the simple statistics of how many research studies are successful in coming to solutions which then go on to prove their utility and "correctness". AS with, for instance, antibiotics, or bridge design, or stealth bomber technology or DNA modifying drugs or a better toaster. By your over-simplification, none of, or let's say, 50% of, these things would fail.

In fact, in my last career position, I was involved in some studies where automotive designs were "crashed" within the constraints of a computer, with no need to wreck an actual model. This has now evolved to the point where, for instance, Ferrari, does not have to destroy 2 or 3 million-dollar machines in order to sell only 10 of them into this market. In real-world "proofing" studies, why golly-gee, the modeling procedure works better than actual crashing, and can be re-run with multiple parameters. such is the evolution of your "fallible" science.

You have to start with the presupposition that empiricism--or rationality, or something else--is unprovable; otherwise you could not hold to it as an authority. That is why I say that you are on no surer footing than I am, who start with the Bible.

Wrong. We don't just launch into unknown territory without at least some logical objective and a good, peer-reviewed design. Christianity, not so much. We start from a point of rational, valid hypothesis, and then design a process to at least remove some (or hopefully all) of the alternatives. We often only sort it out partially, and then make some initial conservative conclusions.

That's a good example, and thank you for sharing that. First of all, I would question whether all biologists agree about evolution. Are you sure about that?

Not sure who said that, but by a huge measurable percentage, most all biologists believe in Evolution, because it's been proved for one thing. Not, we don't know exactly how each and every key element might work in eahc and every case, but those tiny details are all under active investigation, at a level unheard of even 10 years ago. To assume, as per such notable sites of intellectual honesty as Answers in Genesis or The Creation Institute is to subject yourself to their lens of dishonesty and deceit, all also proven.

Second, the very fact that the process through which it occurs is under debate merely shows that the scientists who so debate are not free from their humanness. They are subject not only to their own limitations of knowledge but also to their own biases.

Yes, the details of it are under constant review in aid of improvements or detailed understanding, but the overall fact of it's occurrence, (especially in comparison to the totally implausible "Insta-Poof" genesis alternative).

But, let me make this abundantly clear, NOT the overall concept. That's been proven, and what such a model predicts is then, reliably, in every instance, also reliably found in subsequent field observations. That same "proofing" of predictions is also, BTW, where the Christian Genesis model collapses on itself at every turn, and is, yes, thusly dismissed absent any newer evidence. It simply stumbles along, quoting very old problems in science that have long ago been corrected or clarified. Rather sad, actually, when the "latest" dismissals are presented, and they fail so abjectly on the principles of simple logic and rationality. Such are the effects of faith.

Originally Posted by nezlie

In terms of significance, evolution is accepted by the significant majority of biologists.

The beauty of science is that its conclusions are never closed, never considered 'absolute.' If new evidence to the contrary surfaces about anything, it can be presented and openly evaluated. Who would want to be using medicines to treat today's illnesses that were used a hundred years ago or even a few years ago just because they were in use then? I think that the reasons there are questions on the table concerning the processes used in evolution is because satisfactory answers have not yet surfaced that most can agree on. Science is a work in progress; religion is based on the writings of the past.

Precisely, but this open-mindedness is thrown back in our faces by such scientific luminaries as NIKK. See below for a stunning example....

Originally Posted by Jremy

I'm glad you see that science is a "work in progress." I agree. It also needs to be pointed out that science is grounded upon unprovable foundations, just as religion is.

Wrong again. It is grounded on careful research design that hopefully leads to reasonable deductions which feed rational conclusions. With, most often nowadays, some caveats and stated limitations. Do you read a lot of pure scientific journal articles, Jremy? Especially the "Conclusions" section? You might find it illuminating!

If it is grounded on empiricism, then empiricism is its ultimate authority, which it does not question. That means it is no surer a foundation than the Bible, at least from the atheist's vantage point, since both are presupposed.

Well, that's a big and frankly erroneous assumption. Science's conclusions are based, yes, on evidence, Oh. My. God. No! Not factual, provable reproduceable EVIDENCE? How can we trust such stuff?

Far better to throw ourselves to the ground, rumps in the air, and pray that the tsunami will miss us, or that the plague, which MUST be The Devil's Handiwork and surely not a rampant outbreak of flea-borne yersina pestis spp., will be smitten by self-flagellation! You betcha!

I've found in threads like this one that the real problem is that the atheist seems most unwilling to admit this. There may be some exceptions to this, but generally that is the problem that plagues the atheist.

Wrong again. Boy.... you're not batting too good today, Jremy.... We do readily admit to the human-nature failings of even honest scientific research. But it's the more all-encompassing automatical dismissal of those conclusions (but strangely limited only to those that run amok of Christianity) that plagues the theist mindset.

BOXCAR stated, regarding the existence of the sun in the sky:

We agree that one is simply a rational conclusion, and the other is built on faith. But what is the difference between the two? I think you'll find that it all hinges on the statistical probability. Based on the evidence, it's almost statistically certain that the sun is in the sky. But you don't statistical certainty doesn't exist for the creation of the Sun, so it is a matter of faith.

I'd add, Boxcar, that our understanding of the sun is also based on direct observation and prediction as well as pure statistics. Perhaps you also meant that.

Originally Posted by Nikk

Just because the majority believes in a hypothesis does make it true!

Well, yes it can, if enough people with brains and tools and subsequent analysis based on predictions carry it through and report it into a reliable database. That outshines wailing-wall pronouncements and "heart-felt" faith-based beliefs.

Not to put too fine a point on it, NIKK, but you step on your own private parts here, with your own quote, don't you? The so-called Christian majority believes partly because they want to belong to a mass of similar believers. They are not distinguished by their independent critical thinking skills, else they'd not be in the predicament they now find themselves in.

Sounds great in theory, but this is not how science works. For example the geological colume found in the text books does not exist anywhere in nature. (REALLY?) In fact, many layers of supposedly older material lies upon younger material, or layers separated by supposedly millions of years touch at locations with no reworking or errosion between. Why are the science text books not corrected? Because scientist have bought into the idea of long age and pre-set dates to specific rock layers and cannot turn back regardless of new evidence. This has happened with many scientific theories.

Read any modern geological text books lately? Or ever? Your statement is unfounded, inaccurate and simply put, an outright lie. The geological column is altered, predictably, in many locations, but other gross movement factors, but then, we find the following:

A sequence of layers identified as ABCDEFG, toppped with some lava that dates, by reliable isotopic analysis, to be aged "Y" years.

Then, we find, in another study area, the following sequence: GFEDCBA, bottomed by lava of the same age as in our other study area. Now, as a junior geologist in training, after thoughtful study, what can you conclude about those sequences, grasshopper? You can yell "See!! God did it, and these sequences are out of "synch" with simple lay-down chronology! God is great!"

Or....

You might also note that one group is simply the inverse of the other, and that the Earth's crust is quite turbulent (I live near Mt. St. Helens, BTW...) and that there are proven instances of entire columns inverting themselves as tectonic plates impact each other. Or, you can willingly dismiss all the evidence and come to the subjective conclusion you WANTED to come to all along...

Documented example (read it and weep...):

http://www.geology.ohio-state.edu/~v.../xfig17_19.jpg

Many medicines of the past and even ancient past are still good medicines. It may be that we have faster acting products or more potent products, but ancient medicines have proven to be quite effective in many cases. I think you are using a bad example to support your affair with modern medicine. Which by the way is based on standard practice methods and not historical science methods as found in evolution!

No-one has said old, proven remedies don't work. They were found partly by luck,and partly by an ancient version of trial and error "science". They didn't continue to utilize remedies that failed, now did they, tho' this is typical of how Christianity works even today, suggesting that God created the universe in an impossible fashion, and if you don't believe it, you're going to hell!

Modern scientific evaluation of potential new drugs simply speeds up the process of discovery through the thoughtful, step-wise application of logic. It's also unlikely that the ancients would have ever discovered, say, Enbrel or some other highly complex formulation that must be "built" in the lab. It's design, BTW, is based on a detailed understanding of what was necessary for the drug to achieve, and because of the basics of previous scientific research, they could thereby "create" a designer drug. BTW, I hope you never need it, but if you do, you might want to give a short prayer to bioscience.

science is a work in progress, however evolution is not science! It is merely a story that evolutionist have attempted to prop up and support with scientific data. If the scientific data does not support the evolutionary hypothesis, it is discarded. Does this sound like science? No, that is why evolution is not science.

Yes, the bible is based on writtings of the past. But the truth is the truth regardless how old it is!

WRONG, wrong wrong. Totally wrong. Each and every key element of the fact of evolution is now based on observable, predictable factual, naturally occurring events. Not to mention that once you have that "theory" and you go forth all open-minded and stuff, into the field, why guess what? You find exactly what it predicts. Pretty strong stuff. But if we apply those same processes to a Godly Genesis, ka-thud. The sound of a big fat pile of mud hitting the ground.

Originally Posted by Nikk

Great! Now show me a cat evolving into a dog so I can observe it myself! Even rifleman continues to site some biologist who has found bacteria evolving into...guess it!....guess it!....BACTERIA. Then he hides behind the fact that evolution is unobservable because it happens in such minute incriments over such vast periods of time that it is accually undetectable. (I do? where did I hide?)

(BTW, I know the hypothesis of evolution. I was just poking fun using the cat evolving into dog above. I know that someone will next attack my edu-mah-cah-shun based on that statement!).

Well, no NIKK, there's so much more to poke at with you... For instance, as regards your scientifically illiterate insistence that evolution produce an entirely new genera, not just a new species, instantly. and quickly. As in a bacteria evolving into, say, a marine mammal in one step. An entirely new bacterial species, capable of entirely different things than it's ancestor, is the definition of a species. As I've said, the Church does NOT get, conveniently, to alter those definitions when the facts show themselves.

(BTW, I'm also completely convinced now, that even if a bacterium evolved overnight into a dolphin, you'd just claim it was "the hand of god". In other words, your knowledge is forever fixed, as you once so honestly admitted to me.)

I think that you can just show us examples of non-living matter becoming living matter. Oh that is right! That is Abiogenesis and it has nothing to do with evolution (except lie at the center of the theory).

See. I told everyone there was lots more to poke at with you. Nope; sorry. No sale here. Much as you'd like to conflate and promote that abiogenesis (origins of life) is linked to how existing life diversified (Evolution), it won't wash with those who know how to think. Of course, there is a big audience of those who prefer not to, and to cling to incorrect definitions, so go for it. Just don't expect respect from those of us engaged in more thoughtful and honest debate.

Agnositic Soldier, Creationist do not have a problem with mitosis, because it is observable. We have a problem with the poorly supported hypothesis of evolution, a story that masqurades as science. Yes, I know there are millions of books on evolution and many scientific papers and everyone says millions of years ago when talking about dinosaurs or the caveman. But this is just a multitude of documentation of a misled, unsupported hypothesis. It does not matter how many time a lie is repeated, it does not make it the truth!

Let's re-paste your last line, but in front of a mirror, shall we? Quoteth NIKK, but as regards the bible:

"It does not matter how many time a lie is repeated, it does not make it the truth!"

The grossly inaccurate and hate-based assumption that all of evolutionary science's people (as opposed to all other less-theistically challenging scientists...) are stumbling around in a fog of assumptive bias is so improbable on it's face that it's patently laughable. There's too much internal jealousy within the mind of man, even scientists, that such stuff is impossible. Not to mention that little fact of predictability truthed back out in the real world. Sorry, NIKK: a new bacterium out of an earler rorm, all documented in exacting detail, is proof of evolution as we've defined it. As per Jack Nicholson; "You just cant handle the truth!", and the implications of Evolution are simply too far reaching for devout Christians to ever accept it, even when it's stepping on their toes..

That's not even covering the repeated lies told by theists about the proven facts of science. Of course, some of it is simply illiterate confusion, and is to be expected by those who truly do not understand scientific research, or hate it's potential for unearthing the facts. But most of it is purposeful. And hardly "Christian".

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend

If there was evidence you wouldn't need faith. Faith is your vehicle for belief when evidence is unavailable.

A quote worth repeating, yeah, memorizing!

Originally Posted by Jremy

Fair enough. I will rephrase: "Faith sees the revelation and wants to acknowledge it."

But, you must admit, Jremy, absent some logical and corroborating "evidence", that acknowledgment might be based on wishful thinking or subjectivity or mass beliefs. It's often socially difficult to go against those masses. Just look at Darwin's struggles, despite that he had the truth on his side....

Originally Posted by nezlie

It does when the facts are there to back them up! What do the few that refute evolution present as fact to back their contentions?

I realize that body of knowledge of geology can be conflicting with young earth beliefs. But it doesn't make sense to nilly willy dismiss legitimate physical causes and explanations that account for disruptions in the earth's strata in different locations around the planet to rationalize one's religious beliefs. The Earth is not a static system, and there are many seismic activities that happen in one area that do not happen in another, e.g., erosion which can wipe out rock layers in a particular location, periods in time where nothing might be deposited in one place while deposition is going on in other areas, uplifting of layers and superimposing layers in different places where there is activity originating from deep within the Earth. The Geologic column is not something that exists uniformly all around the Earth; it is a representation of what has happened to Earth over its lifetime, derived from observation of the column itself as well as radiometric dating. Ever notice how different geologic events happen in different parts of the globe?

it was worth repeating and highlighting, so I did. Thx, nezlie!

[Jremy]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Interestingly, I rather keenly (desperately?) wanted to see a particular result in my efforts to prevent the generalized mass murder of pesky polar bears in the Canadian Arctic in the late '70s and early '80s. The oil company's proposal was predictable ("Shoot 'em all!"), and my initial research "wanted" to come to some conclusions I could force those morons to use.

But, on review by one of my colleagues, in the end, I saw where I"d sorta-kinda "cooked" the results in my original conclusions. So, my own natural, human subjectivity, fed by good intentions mind you, were working against me, and if I had succeeded in enforcing those mangament options, a lot of "innocent" or just curious bears would have been shot where they stood.

In fact, the broader basis for scientific conclusions almost ALWAYS prevents singular interpretation. Even if someone works alone, the final say on whether their results get published rest with peer review, and frankly, some of those who have unique knowledge in a particular area are or may be slightly jealous of someone else's funding sources or success, so they can be quite difficult and demanding in their reviews. Which all proves to be a good thing because it surely minimizes subjectivity.

Minimizes, perhaps, but does not eliminate. I would even doubt whether it just minimizes subjectivity. The subjectivity occurs just as much as in religion because the starting point of science must be presupposed, whether that starting point is the observable world or something else. If, on the other hand, it is questioned and established by something else, then the thing appealed to is the higher authority. Nobody keeps questioning authority after authority after authority, so everyone has some unquestionable, unprovable foundation. That is unavoidable. The only question that remains is, "Why do people choose the particular starting point that they do?" It must be because they want to. In that sense, the atheist is just as subjective as the theist. In the realm of faith I start with revelation, the Bible. In the realm of science, you probably start with natural phenomena that you observe. Or maybe something else. The point is that we both have a starting point that we don't question. I don't see how you can avoid that because if you don't have a starting point you could never come to any conclusions. A house cannot be built in mid-air, and likewise a truth claim has to rest on some kind of foundation.

Well, yes, but you also tend here to throw all scientific achievement into some "questionable" bag. That's simply not so; the design of most modern studies limits the outcome. I once heard a real good definition of science, as follows:

"It's the process of asking Mother Nature simple questions, one at a time."

Design is everything, and if the question asked is not too all-encompassing (i.e.: a study to answer the question "Does enzyme A react with material B under certain stated conditions?" is going to succeed where a question "What is the meaning of the universe?" cannot.)

I see what you mean here, and I don't doubt that through science we can learn much about the natural world. My aim here is not to tear down science but to show that, if it is fallible and limited, it comes across as sheer arrogance to act as if it had all the answers. You may not come across this way, but many on this board make that error. Science is good for the realm to which it applies, and even then there is always some doubt as to whether its conclusions are truly final since it is an ongoing process of learning. Yet atheists claim with 100% certainty that God does not exist as if science had made some final conclusion about it. Thus to think that is wrong for two reasons: trying to have science make a final claim in an area over which it has no jurisdiction, and doing so in spite of science's always-learning character.

You compare incomprables.

I don't think so. Science and faith are both comparable at least in this respect: They both rely on some unprovable foundation to arrive at their respective conclusions. Understandably many atheists don't want to admit this because doing so would shatter their beloved assumption that all along they have been on superior ground.

Wrong. We don't just launch into unknown territory without at least some logical objective and a good, peer-reviewed design.

I didn't say you did quite that. I was talking about having an unprovable starting point. It seems from what you've said that your unprovable starting point is the very concept of the scientific process, i.e., you formulate a hypothesis and then test it. This is evident in these words:

Christianity, not so much. We start from a point of rational, valid hypothesis, and then design a process to at least remove some (or hopefully all) of the alternatives. We often only sort it out partially, and then make some initial conservative conclusions.

Following this process requires that you first buy into it; otherwise you wouldn't use it. On what authority do you deem this process to be the right one, or do you simply presuppose it to be the correct process?

[LogicIsYourFriend]

Originally Posted by Jremy

The only question that remains is, "Why do people choose the particular starting point that they do?" It must be because they want to. In that sense, the atheist is just as subjective as the theist. In the realm of faith I start with revelation, the Bible. In the realm of science, you probably start with natural phenomena that you observe. Or maybe something else. The point is that we both have a starting point that we don't question.

These starting points are not equal.

Empiricism is based on observation, i.e. the only link you have to the world you experience and partake in.

Faith is a blind guess, a guess without observation, i.e. a guess about something that you have no link to.

It's like the difference between believing that there is a computer in front of you, which you can see, versus believing that there is a computer at some specific longitude/latitude far away from you that you've never been to, and you can't talk to anyone who has ever been there either.

[tgnostic]

Originally Posted by Bud235

Why is it necessary to assume there is a God?

Look, God-worshipers don't really know there is a God or not -- it's a totally faith-based act to believe: they bang their heads on the ground praying, pay for their religion, ready themselves for anything their religion calls for ... but, no one really sees nor hears from God. Worse, despite all the religious acts, there's no miracles, just faith.

We assume that the big-bang is the only theory of the universe from the achieved realistic point by the Computer. Therefore, either computers die or God dies. Woops, but God was dead already. What is certain then for the Intuition about Morals?

[Jremy]

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend

These starting points are not equal.

They are not the same, but they are both starting points.

Empiricism is based on observation, i.e. the only link you have to the world you experience and partake in.

So, then, your ultimate authority is observation. Is your observation questionable?

Faith is a blind guess, a guess without observation, i.e. a guess about something that you have no link to.

No. Wrong. It is not a blind guess. That is the typical atheist response, based on a lack of understanding. Faith is a response to revelation. And saying that revelation is not testable or measurable doesn't accomplish anything because that assumes that the rules of science apply to revelation.

[sanspeur]

If faith is based on revelation, then I have to say your foundation is not sound, if it exists at all.