Riahlize's Waterfall
You can't really disprove or prove God completely,
This type of statement implies a very ignorant understanding of the Burden Of Proof principle.
There was proof for God, so you as a atheist try to give answers to that.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
-You buy a lotto ticket that is played nation-wide.
--You win.
---Did God make you win?
..
..
-You are told to pick a number between one and one million.
--You guess the number right on the first try.
---Did God tell you what the number was?
..
..
-You need to paint a pineapple with your teeth....blindfolded.
--You end up painting a very detailed pineapple.
---Did God make you do that?
..
..
-You tell a friend to pick any card out of a mega-deck combined of 20 decks and NOT to reveal their card to anyone. Then have them place it back and shuffle the whole deck while you're not in the room.
--You come back in the room and on the first try you pick out their card they chose.
---Did God tell you which card it was?
Do I need to go on... or are you understanding the faulty logic that your example and mine all seem to have in common?
In my opinion all atheism will go to hell when they die as they never believe in Jesus our mighty saviour. I advise all atheism all people to start believing as death is like a blind hand. It will sweep you away without realising it.
Someone can say this about any religion. Why should I believe Jesus is real over Krishna?
Please don't think that I am in any way trying to discredit "the scientific method"....but are you are saying that the conclusions we come to by utilizing the scientific method are not fundamentally dependent on our judgments and perceptive ability?ou do realize hat we are always working with incomplete data sets, and none of our controls are without flaw, right?
No. I am saying the facts that the scientific method demonstrates are not dependent upon humans being there to acknowledge it. Those facts exist without our judgment saying they do. The scientific method helps us remove most, if not all, of that obstacle of only being true by human acknowledgment. It's designed to check our judgment and to depend on the universes laws. Our conclusions may be subjective or flawed, but the facts aren't.
As I see it, we may mitigate, but we cannot escape that all of our judgments are subjective when it comes down to it.
Not all, some of them are tested by a method dependent on outside/universal laws.
I don't see faith as "belief without evidence" I think of it more like not being paralyzed by the realization that not all evidence has been taken into account. I have great faith in the scientific method but I realize that it is a set of improvable standards.
Faith is not dependent on the evidence. If you have a belief based on faith, whether objective evidence supports your belief or is lacking in supporting your belief, you still believe in it.
It's a belief held, just because. No logic. Science is the very opposite of that. Everything is based on some type of evidence and if there isn't then that belief is not held.
I apologize for my lack of clarity. I didn't know how to word my argument so that it covered all doubts I could think of.
I'm going to try it again...
The Scientific Method (the process I was describing) helps prove things objectively, so that it's validity is not dependent on us being there to point it out (human recognition/ acknowledgment). Because of this, we can test our reason as well.
It works because we've tested our ability to think logically. We've developed a method that--while is still observed by humans who are using reason--removes much of the dependence of human recognition.
But to have faith in reason to me sounds counter-intuitive.
And when those variables change, our conclusion changes as well! Magical, right?! If we had faith that it was true, our conclusion would not change because the evidence changed.
Time is only the measuring OF change.
Just a couple questions, how do you justify why:
-When you press the "on" button on a coffee pot, most of the time it'll turn on?
-When you call someone, most of the time you call the person you intended to call?
-When you want to stand up and you make the conscious effort with your body to stand up, most of the time you stand up?
-When you turn on a light switch, most of the time it turns on?
-When you turn the nob to open a door, most of the time it opens?
I can go on.
Each human invention we have is made for a specific purpose, it was designed to do something. If it's not possible to predict LOGICALLY instead of just believing it'll work, that this invention will perform it's intended duty each time; why do we have all these inventions?
If reality is SO unpredictable to where we cannot use this method to predict what the future outcome may be with it's evidence considered; why are we right a lot of the time?
Simply because we CAN be wrong, simply because we are NOT right ALL the time does NOT MEAN IT'S FAITH. It's not all or nothing. I do not agree with what you said, why I did "throw in those statements about how we can be incorrect if we're missing information" is because it's true and that is the only way we can be wrong.
Take in a deep breath. We believe that we will keep breathing because we have NO EVIDENCE to conclude that something will effect our breathing. If there is something that will effect it, either we see it or we don't. If we see it, we would change our conclusion to think that we will not continue breathing or breathing will be effected (or whatever the case may be) BASED on the evidence. If we don't see it, we were not living on faith that we were to keep breathing, it was a mistake of evidence on our part. We're not all knowing enough to see all the information, but that doesn't mean it's faith.
Your "logic" implies that absolutely no facts exist on Earth and that there is no logic, yet you use mathematics, which is completely logic based, and what you believe to be logical outcomes based on evidence to argue your claims. You are refuting your own argument.
Let's use one example for both faith and logic. The topic will be whether evolution is real.
Person A uses faith. Person B uses logic/evidence. Person C is challenging Person A and B's beliefs.
Scenario #1 with Person A:
Person A: Microevolution is false.
Person C: Why?
Person A: Because it is. / Because it's not true. / Because I believe so.
---------------------------------------
Scenario #2 with Person A:
Person A: Microevolution is true.
Person C: Why?
Person A: Because it is. / Because it is true. / Because I believe so.
----------------------------------
Note: Both scenarios with Person A can vary, they can offer evidence, but if their opinion will not change if the evidence no longer supports their belief, then it is faith.
---------------------------------------
Scenario #1 with Person B:
Person B: Microevolution is true.
Person C: Why?
Person B: Because we have observed that creatures change according to their environment, they will adapt to the change. Take for example, diseases. Diseases mutate a lot because of all the vaccines and other cures we have to fight against them. The disease is trying to survive just like anything else, therefore it must change to fight the cure and make an immunity to that particular cure.
Person C: What if evidence later shows that Evolution is not true, and that what you described above is actually something different than Evolution?
Person B: Then I will accept microevolution is false and change my view.
Are you kidding me? I'm seriously wondering how exactly you miss the fact that repetitive past results, with the same variables each time; DO in fact produce the same results in the future? We do not assume that it will, we've simply pointed it out that if we set up the same type of scenario again and again, the same result will occur. Our entire method is based off the method itself. Evidence.
Seriously, do you not understand how the Scientific Method works? It has nothing to do with faith, it is ALL dependent upon evidence.
If I push the button to turn my computer on, and it turns on each time. I can logically conclude that so long as each part is in working or that it should keep turning on in the future. And the reason I can conclude this is because nothing in that would have changed. This has been shown again and again. If my computer doesn't turn on, it's because I missed information that would allow me to conclude the computer may not turn on, perhaps a cable is disconnected which is required to have my computer turn on.
This is evidence based. I don't assume my computer will turn on regardless of whether or not a required cord is plugged in.
We have rules of logic, understanding of reality, and experience of accuracy and inaccuracy that help us from being swallowed in a whole of paranoid philosophical doubts.
Faith = Belief that is not based on evidence.
Belief = Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.
Logic = The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
Faith is to believe something (regard something as true) regardless of what the evidence says (if it’s on your side or not). Faith is a belief held that is independent of what evidence says, it does not change to fit evidence.
When I get into my car and try to start it up, and believe that it will start; it is not because I have faith it will start. It is because using evidence (as in my conclusion[what I believe will happen] is dependent on evidence) that my car has never had any problems starting up before and all things have been checked yesterday, I can conclude that my car will start. This is logic.
People may question or believe whatever they want, but if it's not based on evidence (regardless of whether in reality there IS evidence or not for the belief) and they hold it as true; it's faith.
If their belief is completely dependent on whatever the evidence says, it's not faith.
Just think of all the different versions of "god" out there. We can have a general idea of what you're saying, but we're not going to know too much. Way too easy to misunderstand something.
For general purposes, you can use it. But if you want to get into any actual, sincere, deep, philosophical and/or meaningful discussion, the word is practically useless.
