Matt Dillahunty Literally Destroys Theist's "faith" Defense.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

From Wiki...

 

The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the quantum excitation of the Higgs field,[6][7] a fundamental field of crucial importance to particle physics theory[7] first suspected to exist in the 1960s. Unlike other known fields such as the electromagnetic field, it has a non-zero constant value in vacuum. The question of the Higgs field's existence has been the last unverified part of the Standard Model of particle physics and, according to some, "the central problem in particle physics".[8][9]

 

The presence of this field, now believed to be confirmed,

 

What's your feeling on this one Jeff, please. I'm looking for how this differs from faith.

 

*I haven't taken any offense...we're good. I appreciate you saying so. I've thought about non-belief, I just am unable to turn belief off Jeff. I'm as capable as anyone to consider logic in the non-belief mode. But as I have stated many times here during my stint, I'm not going to rule out things unknown for several reasons. And granted, God anything might be just one big hoax on humanity, or a misunderstanding, or a myth. Just not going to rule it out because we can't prove it or disprove it. Right now, I don't see faith as unreliable as the dude in the video.

 

It differs because it's based upon evidence.  

 

The evidence dictates what is taken to be true.

 

Faith requires no evidence to believe what is true.

 

As we can see here.

 

Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3.

 

1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 

2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

Christians who read the Bible literally need no evidence to believe by faith in the above.

 

In fact they go out of their way to deny the evidence in favor of what the Bible tells them is true.

 

Where does it say no evidence? What you see as evidence vs. what I see may be totally different....i.e. training yourself to be a scientist.

 

 

Seriously?

 

Read it again.

 

Paraphrasing verse 1... Faith is confidence in what is not seen  = no evidence is seen.

 

Paraphrasing verse 3... By faith (not visible evidence) it's understood that God created the universe.

 

No visible evidence!

 

The identity of the creator is accepted by faith, not by evidence.

 

No evidence, only faith!

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

From Wiki...

 

The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the quantum excitation of the Higgs field,[6][7] a fundamental field of crucial importance to particle physics theory[7] first suspected to exist in the 1960s. Unlike other known fields such as the electromagnetic field, it has a non-zero constant value in vacuum. The question of the Higgs field's existence has been the last unverified part of the Standard Model of particle physics and, according to some, "the central problem in particle physics".[8][9]

 

The presence of this field, now believed to be confirmed,

 

What's your feeling on this one Jeff, please. I'm looking for how this differs from faith.

 

*I haven't taken any offense...we're good. I appreciate you saying so. I've thought about non-belief, I just am unable to turn belief off Jeff. I'm as capable as anyone to consider logic in the non-belief mode. But as I have stated many times here during my stint, I'm not going to rule out things unknown for several reasons. And granted, God anything might be just one big hoax on humanity, or a misunderstanding, or a myth. Just not going to rule it out because we can't prove it or disprove it. Right now, I don't see faith as unreliable as the dude in the video.

 

It differs because it's based upon evidence.  

 

The evidence dictates what is taken to be true.

 

Faith requires no evidence to believe what is true.

 

As we can see here.

 

Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3.

 

1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 

2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

Christians who read the Bible literally need no evidence to believe by faith in the above.

 

In fact they go out of their way to deny the evidence in favor of what the Bible tells them is true.

 

Where does it say no evidence? What you see as evidence vs. what I see may be totally different....i.e. training yourself to be a scientist.

 

 

Seriously?

 

Read it again.

 

Paraphrasing verse 1... Faith is confidence in what is not seen  = no evidence is seen.

 

Paraphrasing verse 3... By faith (not visible evidence) it's understood that God created the universe.

 

No visible evidence!

 

The identity of the creator is accepted by faith, not by evidence.

 

No evidence, only faith!

 

No, there might be confidence in an unseen God but still be evidence FOR God. Not sure vs 3 makes your point either.

[Jeff]

From Wiki...

 

The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the quantum excitation of the Higgs field,[6][7] a fundamental field of crucial importance to particle physics theory[7] first suspected to exist in the 1960s. Unlike other known fields such as the electromagnetic field, it has a non-zero constant value in vacuum. The question of the Higgs field's existence has been the last unverified part of the Standard Model of particle physics and, according to some, "the central problem in particle physics".[8][9]

 

The presence of this field, now believed to be confirmed,

 

What's your feeling on this one Jeff, please. I'm looking for how this differs from faith.

 

*I haven't taken any offense...we're good. I appreciate you saying so. I've thought about non-belief, I just am unable to turn belief off Jeff. I'm as capable as anyone to consider logic in the non-belief mode. But as I have stated many times here during my stint, I'm not going to rule out things unknown for several reasons. And granted, God anything might be just one big hoax on humanity, or a misunderstanding, or a myth. Just not going to rule it out because we can't prove it or disprove it. Right now, I don't see faith as unreliable as the dude in the video.

I know very little about physics but I don't think that it is considered to be proven based on faith. It would be in response to measurement and the scientific method.

Speculating based on measurable cause and effect is deduction and not just wild faith. When the evidence points elsewhere then that proposed solution will be dropped quickly. Faith would say "evidence be damned, I believe in the Higgs boson particle no matter what I see or measure".

 

I cannot fathom how you can say that you disagree about the unreliability of faith. Pick any other unprovable thing besides your god argument to have blind faith in and then tell me how it's most likely real using your exact same thinking. You are making an exception for your god with nothing more to back up you assertion for faith than the actual faith in question.

[Guest end3]

 

From Wiki...

 

The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the quantum excitation of the Higgs field,[6][7] a fundamental field of crucial importance to particle physics theory[7] first suspected to exist in the 1960s. Unlike other known fields such as the electromagnetic field, it has a non-zero constant value in vacuum. The question of the Higgs field's existence has been the last unverified part of the Standard Model of particle physics and, according to some, "the central problem in particle physics".[8][9]

 

The presence of this field, now believed to be confirmed,

 

What's your feeling on this one Jeff, please. I'm looking for how this differs from faith.

 

*I haven't taken any offense...we're good. I appreciate you saying so. I've thought about non-belief, I just am unable to turn belief off Jeff. I'm as capable as anyone to consider logic in the non-belief mode. But as I have stated many times here during my stint, I'm not going to rule out things unknown for several reasons. And granted, God anything might be just one big hoax on humanity, or a misunderstanding, or a myth. Just not going to rule it out because we can't prove it or disprove it. Right now, I don't see faith as unreliable as the dude in the video.

I know very little about physics but I don't think that it is considered to be proven based on faith. It would be in response to measurement and the scientific method.

Speculating based on measurable cause and effect is deduction and not just wild faith. When the evidence points elsewhere then that proposed solution will be dropped quickly. Faith would say "evidence be damned, I believe in the Higgs boson particle no matter what I see or measure".

 

I cannot fathom how you can say that you disagree about the unreliability of faith. Pick any other unprovable thing besides your god argument to have blind faith in and then tell me how it's most likely real using your exact same thinking. You are making an exception for your god with nothing more to back up you assertion for faith than the actual faith in question.

 

The point in my opinion Jeff, is there was a time when we didn't have the means to detect this particle, but just "something's there". Now, consider we have very little understanding about the brain, emotions, etc. Why is it that we would just dismiss this inability to understand as blind faith rather than saying, ok, maybe we might find God through all of this evidence we see pointing to "something" beyond our understanding. What if the people responsible for the Higgs boson were not faithful in following the unknown... How is this different? I hear you saying that because it's so wild, it's invalid? Would it be acceptable if we called Christianity a theory? Not trying to be an ass...just seems like very close parallels to science and I'm not satisfied with saying that NONE of the religious theories are unreal.

[Jeff]

 

 

From Wiki...

 

The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the quantum excitation of the Higgs field,[6][7] a fundamental field of crucial importance to particle physics theory[7] first suspected to exist in the 1960s. Unlike other known fields such as the electromagnetic field, it has a non-zero constant value in vacuum. The question of the Higgs field's existence has been the last unverified part of the Standard Model of particle physics and, according to some, "the central problem in particle physics".[8][9]

 

The presence of this field, now believed to be confirmed,

 

What's your feeling on this one Jeff, please. I'm looking for how this differs from faith.

 

*I haven't taken any offense...we're good. I appreciate you saying so. I've thought about non-belief, I just am unable to turn belief off Jeff. I'm as capable as anyone to consider logic in the non-belief mode. But as I have stated many times here during my stint, I'm not going to rule out things unknown for several reasons. And granted, God anything might be just one big hoax on humanity, or a misunderstanding, or a myth. Just not going to rule it out because we can't prove it or disprove it. Right now, I don't see faith as unreliable as the dude in the video.

I know very little about physics but I don't think that it is considered to be proven based on faith. It would be in response to measurement and the scientific method.

Speculating based on measurable cause and effect is deduction and not just wild faith. When the evidence points elsewhere then that proposed solution will be dropped quickly. Faith would say "evidence be damned, I believe in the Higgs boson particle no matter what I see or measure".

 

I cannot fathom how you can say that you disagree about the unreliability of faith. Pick any other unprovable thing besides your god argument to have blind faith in and then tell me how it's most likely real using your exact same thinking. You are making an exception for your god with nothing more to back up you assertion for faith than the actual faith in question.

The point in my opinion Jeff, is there was a time when we didn't have the means to detect this particle, but just "something's there". Now, consider we have very little understanding about the brain, emotions, etc. Why is it that we would just dismiss this inability to understand as blind faith rather than saying, ok, maybe we might find God through all of this evidence we see pointing to "something" beyond our understanding. What if the people responsible for the Higgs boson were not faithful in following the unknown... How is this different? I hear you saying that because it's so wild, it's invalid? Would it be acceptable if we called Christianity a theory? Not trying to be an ass...just seems like very close parallels to science and I'm not satisfied with saying that NONE of the religious theories are unreal.

No.

How is this different?

Measurable, predictable models that could be tested indicated that this particle should exist.

Likewise, Planets that we could not originally view were predicted by measurable, predictable, testable means.

Not the same in any way.

 

You are employing magical thinking here and trying to match it to PREDICTABLE, MEASURABLE, TESTABLE scenarios.

How is your belief in your god or any god at all in any way one of those three. Try it. You cannot predict with greater accuracy than a coin toss over time. You cannot measure in any way that differs from any other emotion in that part of the brain... You can try to test if you employ proper methodology to remove your ability to get the results you want, but I doubt you will like the data.

 

Geez. I wish I knew more science now. Bill Nye help me!

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

From Wiki...

 

The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the quantum excitation of the Higgs field,[6][7] a fundamental field of crucial importance to particle physics theory[7] first suspected to exist in the 1960s. Unlike other known fields such as the electromagnetic field, it has a non-zero constant value in vacuum. The question of the Higgs field's existence has been the last unverified part of the Standard Model of particle physics and, according to some, "the central problem in particle physics".[8][9]

 

The presence of this field, now believed to be confirmed,

 

What's your feeling on this one Jeff, please. I'm looking for how this differs from faith.

 

*I haven't taken any offense...we're good. I appreciate you saying so. I've thought about non-belief, I just am unable to turn belief off Jeff. I'm as capable as anyone to consider logic in the non-belief mode. But as I have stated many times here during my stint, I'm not going to rule out things unknown for several reasons. And granted, God anything might be just one big hoax on humanity, or a misunderstanding, or a myth. Just not going to rule it out because we can't prove it or disprove it. Right now, I don't see faith as unreliable as the dude in the video.

I know very little about physics but I don't think that it is considered to be proven based on faith. It would be in response to measurement and the scientific method.

Speculating based on measurable cause and effect is deduction and not just wild faith. When the evidence points elsewhere then that proposed solution will be dropped quickly. Faith would say "evidence be damned, I believe in the Higgs boson particle no matter what I see or measure".

 

I cannot fathom how you can say that you disagree about the unreliability of faith. Pick any other unprovable thing besides your god argument to have blind faith in and then tell me how it's most likely real using your exact same thinking. You are making an exception for your god with nothing more to back up you assertion for faith than the actual faith in question.

 

The point in my opinion Jeff, is there was a time when we didn't have the means to detect this particle, but just "something's there". Now, consider we have very little understanding about the brain, emotions, etc. Why is it that we would just dismiss this inability to understand as blind faith rather than saying, ok, maybe we might find God through all of this evidence we see pointing to "something" beyond our understanding. What if the people responsible for the Higgs boson were not faithful in following the unknown... How is this different? I hear you saying that because it's so wild, it's invalid? Would it be acceptable if we called Christianity a theory? Not trying to be an ass...just seems like very close parallels to science and I'm not satisfied with saying that NONE of the religious theories are unreal.

 

No.

How is this different?

Measurable, predictable models that could be tested indicated that this particle should exist.

Likewise, Planets that we could not originally view were predicted by measurable, predictable, testable means.

Not the same in any way.

 

You are employing magical thinking here and trying to match it to PREDICTABLE, MEASURABLE, TESTABLE scenarios.

How is your belief in your god or any god at all in any way one of those three. Try it. You cannot predict with greater accuracy than a coin toss over time. You cannot measure in any way that differs from any other emotion in that part of the brain... You can try to test if you employ proper methodology to remove your ability to get the results you want, but I doubt you will like the data.

 

Geez. I wish I knew more science now. Bill Nye help me!

 

Jeff, there was one time when we didn't have the means to test and predict. Can you envision that we might be at that same point where we don't have the means to detect God? And again, the point is, does faith have any certainty. He is saying it is uncertain. I'm saying not always.

[Jeff]

Faith is ALWAYS uncertain. That is what makes it faith. It is called something else otherwise.

 

That's god's problem and not ours if there is one. Replace "god" with "space alien lizard-overlords" and your argument is no different.

 

End. It's wishful thinking.

 

if there is a god, they have given you nothing to go on. They have given nothing that is not easily attributable to some other condition or emotion or illness.

 

Nothing but wishful thinking on our part and sometimes fear of the unknown drives this belief.

 

I look back at the areas of my life where I was unhappy and I'm now very happy and I see a common theme. I was not able to function the way I needed while always making allowance for an invisible, magical, "can't prove he doesn't exist" being. Illogic does not play well with real life and it often damages people. It damaged me for years and I'm still fixing it.

 

I don't think I can offer more here for now but who knows.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

From Wiki...

 

The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the quantum excitation of the Higgs field,[6][7] a fundamental field of crucial importance to particle physics theory[7] first suspected to exist in the 1960s. Unlike other known fields such as the electromagnetic field, it has a non-zero constant value in vacuum. The question of the Higgs field's existence has been the last unverified part of the Standard Model of particle physics and, according to some, "the central problem in particle physics".[8][9]

 

The presence of this field, now believed to be confirmed,

 

What's your feeling on this one Jeff, please. I'm looking for how this differs from faith.

 

*I haven't taken any offense...we're good. I appreciate you saying so. I've thought about non-belief, I just am unable to turn belief off Jeff. I'm as capable as anyone to consider logic in the non-belief mode. But as I have stated many times here during my stint, I'm not going to rule out things unknown for several reasons. And granted, God anything might be just one big hoax on humanity, or a misunderstanding, or a myth. Just not going to rule it out because we can't prove it or disprove it. Right now, I don't see faith as unreliable as the dude in the video.

 

It differs because it's based upon evidence.  

 

The evidence dictates what is taken to be true.

 

Faith requires no evidence to believe what is true.

 

As we can see here.

 

Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3.

 

1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 

2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

Christians who read the Bible literally need no evidence to believe by faith in the above.

 

In fact they go out of their way to deny the evidence in favor of what the Bible tells them is true.

 

Where does it say no evidence? What you see as evidence vs. what I see may be totally different....i.e. training yourself to be a scientist.

 

 

Seriously?

 

Read it again.

 

Paraphrasing verse 1... Faith is confidence in what is not seen  = no evidence is seen.

 

Paraphrasing verse 3... By faith (not visible evidence) it's understood that God created the universe.

 

No visible evidence!

 

The identity of the creator is accepted by faith, not by evidence.

 

No evidence, only faith!

 

No, there might be confidence in an unseen God but still be evidence FOR God. Not sure vs 3 makes your point either.

 

 

End,

 

Yes, the author of Hebrews would agree with you that humans can see the whole world as evidence for God.  But he isn't talking about the world today or the world in his time, but about the world before humans existed.  He's talking about the five days of creation before Adam was made.  That is when the universe was formed, according to the scriptures.  There were no humans around to witness the God creating light, the stars, the sun, the Moon, etc.  So these events have to be accepted as historical fact... by faith.  These events cannot be investigated by looking at today's world because what is visible today is no guide to what was invisible to human eyes, then.

 

Important Point!  

Please understand that the ancient Jews had no concept of investigative or forensic science.  The notion of looking at the natural world to discover how it might have been in the past is a purely Greek mode of thinking.  Now, look again at the last part of verse 3 and I'll add in some helpful words for you.  "...so what is seen (by any human eyes today) was not made out what was visible (to human eyes then)."   Or putting it another way - the visible world today (which we can take as evidence for God) wasn't made out of anything humans eyes ever saw.  And because the Jews weren't scientists they had no place for evidence in their thinking and simply accepted by faith what their scriptures told them was true.

 

They accepted by faith (not evidence) that God made the world as the first two chapters of Genesis records.  No evidence required.

 

The very words of Hebrews spell it out.  "By faith (not evidence) we (the Jews) understand that the universe was formed at God's command."

 

Do you see it now?

[Guest end3]

Faith is ALWAYS uncertain. That is what makes it faith. It is called something else otherwise.

 

That's god's problem and not ours if there is one. Replace "god" with "space alien lizard-overlords" and your argument is no different.

 

End. It's wishful thinking.

 

if there is a god, they have given you nothing to go on. They have given nothing that is not easily attributable to some other condition or emotion or illness.

 

Nothing but wishful thinking on our part and sometimes fear of the unknown drives this belief.

 

I look back at the areas of my life where I was unhappy and I'm now very happy and I see a common theme. I was not able to function the way I needed while always making allowance for an invisible, magical, "can't prove he doesn't exist" being. Illogic does not play well with real life and it often damages people. It damaged me for years and I'm still fixing it.

 

I don't think I can offer more here for now but who knows.

Let me ask you this please. Just off the cuff...the Bible talks about levels of Heaven. Was Paul just tripping or are does this match multiverses? Does multiverses kinda point to levels of Heaven? Does in my book. Did math and science just now get to the possibility of multiverses? Is it called faith or is it now called science because of our own egos. Can we think with such clarity we only think in "factual" sequence?

[Guest end3]

Bottom line, we can say fact lead us to fact, but that would only be serving our own egos since once something becomes known, we say, yeah, we did that with science. Pure stupidity Jeff....it was fact before we knew it for ourselves.

[Jeff]

 

Faith is ALWAYS uncertain. That is what makes it faith. It is called something else otherwise.

 

That's god's problem and not ours if there is one. Replace "god" with "space alien lizard-overlords" and your argument is no different.

 

End. It's wishful thinking.

 

if there is a god, they have given you nothing to go on. They have given nothing that is not easily attributable to some other condition or emotion or illness.

 

Nothing but wishful thinking on our part and sometimes fear of the unknown drives this belief.

 

I look back at the areas of my life where I was unhappy and I'm now very happy and I see a common theme. I was not able to function the way I needed while always making allowance for an invisible, magical, "can't prove he doesn't exist" being. Illogic does not play well with real life and it often damages people. It damaged me for years and I'm still fixing it.

 

I don't think I can offer more here for now but who knows.

Let me ask you this please. Just off the cuff...the Bible talks about levels of Heaven. Was Paul just tripping or are does this match multiverses? Does multiverses kinda point to levels of Heaven? Does in my book. Did math and science just now get to the possibility of multiverses? Is it called faith or is it now called science because of our own egos. Can we think with such clarity we only think in "factual" sequence?

Man you can ask me anything you want. I'll even go offline with you if you ever want to just talk privately.

 

I have several responses but they really don't matter. You have the ability to literally believe anything you want and it's all the same.

 

No I don't think whoever wrote that book had any special insight.

 

I can point out logical arguments for how one can read whatever they want into just about anything they read or see or hear, "Oh that horoscope fits me perfectly", but you already know such things.

 

Sorry. But just no. It's not even mildly interesting as a potentially related matter.

[midniterider]

This is a beautiful thing. If this isn't the ultimate "CHECKMATE (insert any religion label here)" argument, then I don't know what is.

 

https://youtu.be/Oj28OkKshTk

 

Matt is pretty sharp.

[Guest end3]

 

 

Faith is ALWAYS uncertain. That is what makes it faith. It is called something else otherwise.

 

That's god's problem and not ours if there is one. Replace "god" with "space alien lizard-overlords" and your argument is no different.

 

End. It's wishful thinking.

 

if there is a god, they have given you nothing to go on. They have given nothing that is not easily attributable to some other condition or emotion or illness.

 

Nothing but wishful thinking on our part and sometimes fear of the unknown drives this belief.

 

I look back at the areas of my life where I was unhappy and I'm now very happy and I see a common theme. I was not able to function the way I needed while always making allowance for an invisible, magical, "can't prove he doesn't exist" being. Illogic does not play well with real life and it often damages people. It damaged me for years and I'm still fixing it.

 

I don't think I can offer more here for now but who knows.

Let me ask you this please. Just off the cuff...the Bible talks about levels of Heaven. Was Paul just tripping or are does this match multiverses? Does multiverses kinda point to levels of Heaven? Does in my book. Did math and science just now get to the possibility of multiverses? Is it called faith or is it now called science because of our own egos. Can we think with such clarity we only think in "factual" sequence?

 

Man you can ask me anything you want. I'll even go offline with you if you ever want to just talk privately.

 

I have several responses but they really don't matter. You have the ability to literally believe anything you want and it's all the same.

 

No I don't think whoever wrote that book had any special insight.

 

I can point out logical arguments for how one can read whatever they want into just about anything they read or see or hear, "Oh that horoscope fits me perfectly", but you already know such things.

 

Sorry. But just no. It's not even mildly interesting as a potentially related matter.

 

Lol, this debate has been going on a long time now. Surprised you and I didn't get it solved as smart and handsome as we are. But I appreciate the effort. Thanks J.

[midniterider]

Jeff: You are employing magical thinking to direct your life End. This is a bad plan.

 

When magical thinking causes harm, I agree that it's a bad plan.

 

But for those Christians who don't seem particularly afflicted with religious related mental illness I think Jesus is mostly a "Yes man" that agrees that you should buy that house, take that job, you know, live like all the other non-religious folk. Jesus seems to mostly be a friend in one's head that doesn't suggest someone do anything outlandish. Or so, that was my experience in church.

[midniterider]

 

No, I can walk to Mr. Jones's house by taking two lefts and a right.....OR I can get to Mr. Jones's house by faithfully following Mr. Jones's dog...

 

 

Fallacy of equivocation regarding the use of "faith", I'm thinkin. How about finding Mr. Jones' house by following Jesus? I bet the dog is more helpful.

[LogicalFallacy]

Where does it say no evidence? What you see as evidence vs. what I see may be totally different....i.e. training yourself to be a scientist.

Let me help you. BAA used a different bible version. The King James sates:

 

Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11&version=KJV

 

It is saying Faith is the evidence for things we can't measure/see/feel/physically contact etc etc

 

Essentially it's saying, for example, I have an invisible mini unicorn on my shoulder, how do I know its there? By faith. Essentially there is no evidence that the unicorn is there, but I have faith.

 

Incidentally I can pray to this unicorn, I can worship it, and at times it will answer my prayers, heal the sick etc at the same rate at which God answers yours. I can claim that its a timeless immaterial being beyond space and matter. At this point to believe in my unicorn I'm saying "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

Replace "unicorn" with "God" and you have your argument.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Faith is ALWAYS uncertain. That is what makes it faith. It is called something else otherwise.

 

That's god's problem and not ours if there is one. Replace "god" with "space alien lizard-overlords" and your argument is no different.

 

End. It's wishful thinking.

 

if there is a god, they have given you nothing to go on. They have given nothing that is not easily attributable to some other condition or emotion or illness.

 

Nothing but wishful thinking on our part and sometimes fear of the unknown drives this belief.

 

I look back at the areas of my life where I was unhappy and I'm now very happy and I see a common theme. I was not able to function the way I needed while always making allowance for an invisible, magical, "can't prove he doesn't exist" being. Illogic does not play well with real life and it often damages people. It damaged me for years and I'm still fixing it.

 

I don't think I can offer more here for now but who knows.

Let me ask you this please. Just off the cuff...the Bible talks about levels of Heaven. Was Paul just tripping or are does this match multiverses? Does multiverses kinda point to levels of Heaven? Does in my book. Did math and science just now get to the possibility of multiverses? Is it called faith or is it now called science because of our own egos. Can we think with such clarity we only think in "factual" sequence?

 

 

End, 

 

You've offered Jeff an either/or choice.  

 

Either, Paul was tripping or the three heavens are multiverses.  

 

Doing this is known as the fallacy of a false dilemma.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma  

 

There could be more than just two options here.

 

If you didn't know that you were making this kind of error in logic, then here's your chance to learn from this mistake.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

For what it's worth End, we could look at where the Bible describes God's activity in terms of evidence and not faith.

 

Where people needed no faith to see what He did - because it was clearly and undeniably visible to them.

 

This would help demonstrate how faith is about things we do not see, but evidence is about things we do see.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[dangitbobby83]

End, no one has brought this up, but your dog argument holds no water. 

 

The dog has knowledge of where the house is to a point - but you are trusting that is where the dog wants to go. He might lead you off to the middle of the city, then be lost himself simply because he got distracted by a squirrel. 

 

You are assuming one condition is true and the remaining possibilities will not happen: the dog will lead you to the house.

 

This is what all religions do - start with a single condition and assume all remaining possibilities are incorrect. Then, in discussions such as this, these remaining possibilities are discarded or ignored. You want to believe Christianity is true - in whatever form that takes for you.

 

The problem is - there are likely hundreds of christian doctrines that would very much declare you incorrect and going to hell. You ignore these possibilities of being true. You also ignore the hundreds of other religions who make claims like you do - based on faith - and in some of these other religions, you would be headed straight for hell. 

I'm sure you reject Islam, Hinduism...you likely do not believe the Greek God's exist, nor do you likely believe that we are living in a computer simulation and this creator was simply a programmer in the universe up from here. If you were being intellectually honest, you would admit these possibilities exist, but in order to believe in any of them, evidence needs to be presented. 

 

The fact is - you believe what you believe without any evidence whatsoever. You (and billions of other people) reject all other possibilities before the discussion starts. 

Many of us on this thread are simply telling you - faith will not lead you to the truth unless it's supported by verifiable, objective evidence. There is no verifiable, objective evidence for any religion's claims - but as a matter of intellectual honesty, I will believe in a religions claims when this evidence is presented. You, and most every person who believes in a religion, will reject all possibilities except one and will believe that one without evidence. 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Dang it Bobby, you can't just reject faith like this. I mean, it's Faith! It's the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen!

 

I mean, when you sit down on a chair, you have faith that the chair won't poof out of existence. You believe in a chair. And you can't believe in the God who created the chair?

 

We know things by faith. Because ... well, it's faith.

 

Only believe.

[Guest end3]

 

No, I can walk to Mr. Jones's house by taking two lefts and a right.....OR I can get to Mr. Jones's house by faithfully following Mr. Jones's dog...

 

Fallacy of equivocation regarding the use of "faith", I'm thinkin. How about finding Mr. Jones' house by following Jesus? I bet the dog is more helpful.

 

No, Jesus would say love your neighbor....probably much faster than the dog.....hence the subscription to Christianity.

[dangitbobby83]

Dang it Bobby, you can't just reject faith like this. I mean, it's Faith! It's the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen!

 

I mean, when you sit down on a chair, you have faith that the chair won't poof out of existence. You believe in a chair. And you can't believe in the God who created the chair?

 

We know things by faith. Because ... well, it's faith.

 

Only believe.

Yes, that is typical apologetic nonsense. It's simply redefining the word faith. (I know you are being sarcastic, but I figured I would argue the point)

 

What you describe is "in good faith" - faith that is backed by some evidence. The chair, for instance:

 

1. Has multiple people able to see it and sit in it. 

2. I have sat in it in the past.

3. Can be tested in a scientific sense - we can measure it, crush it, crush other things with it, break it apart, view under a microscope and so forth.

 

Interestingly enough, we also know things cannot just disappear, as it would violate several well established physical principles and laws.

 

However, assuming that it does indeed disappear, because I'm going to be intellectually honest and say that there might be a tiny possibility that it could happen, there is likely an actual reason for it to do so that does not require me giving up rationality or reason.

 

It is possible the chair could disappear because of advanced technology - a super advanced alien with a sense of humor could teleport the chair right from underneath me. From my perspective, it disappeared. From his, it was simply moved through space - which, given enough time and understanding of the universe, could one day happen. (Unlikely, as we currently understand it, but not necessarily outside the realm of possibility)

 

Thus - If I am to redefine terms like some apologists do - I am atheist in regards of the chair disappearing. I do not believe it will happen based on evidence. However, as agnostic, I cannot assume with 100% certainty the chair will disappear. If it does, then I will not be like theists and assume GOD DID IT. I will be open to the most natural explanations first and seek to discover why it happened. 

[Guest end3]

 

Dang it Bobby, you can't just reject faith like this. I mean, it's Faith! It's the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen!

 

I mean, when you sit down on a chair, you have faith that the chair won't poof out of existence. You believe in a chair. And you can't believe in the God who created the chair?

 

We know things by faith. Because ... well, it's faith.

 

Only believe.

 

 

Yes, that is typical apologetic nonsense. It's simply redefining the word faith. (I know you are being sarcastic, but I figured I would argue the point)

 

What you describe is "in good faith" - faith that is backed by some evidence. The chair, for instance:

 

1. Has multiple people able to see it and sit in it. 

2. I have sat in it in the past.

3. Can be tested in a scientific sense - we can measure it, crush it, crush other things with it, break it apart, view under a microscope and so forth.

 

Interestingly enough, we also know things cannot just disappear, as it would violate several well established physical principles and laws.

 

However, assuming that it does indeed disappear, because I'm going to be intellectually honest and say that there might be a tiny possibility that it could happen, there is likely an actual reason for it to do so that does not require me giving up rationality or reason.

 

It is possible the chair could disappear because of advanced technology - a super advanced alien with a sense of humor could teleport the chair right from underneath me. From my perspective, it disappeared. From his, it was simply moved through space - which, given enough time and understanding of the universe, could one day happen. (Unlikely, as we currently understand it, but not necessarily outside the realm of possibility)

 

Thus - If I am to redefine terms like some apologists do - I am atheist in regards of the chair disappearing. I do not believe it will happen based on evidence. However, as agnostic, I cannot assume with 100% certainty the chair will disappear. If it does, then I will not be like theists and assume GOD DID IT. I will be open to the most natural explanations first and seek to discover why it happened.

 

Did you read the entire thread Bob?

[Fweethawt]

 

 

No, I can walk to Mr. Jones's house by taking two lefts and a right.....OR I can get to Mr. Jones's house by faithfully following Mr. Jones's dog...

Fallacy of equivocation regarding the use of "faith", I'm thinkin. How about finding Mr. Jones' house by following Jesus? I bet the dog is more helpful.

No, Jesus would say love your neighbor....probably much faster than the dog.....hence the subscription to Christianity.

But Jesus would also say to hate your family whereas the dog, regardless of how slow he is to say, "love your neighbor", would never tell you to hate your family.

 

Dog - 1

Jesus - 0

 

 

Dogs don't really talk, End. And neither do snakes.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So if you and I Prof were performing an analysis on the same instrument by the same analytical method, we very likely would not come up with the exact same answer.

Pardon the tardiness of my response; I've been having some difficulty understanding how an "analytical scientist" who "does objective 14 hours a day, in two different labs" would fail to comprehend random and systemic error.  I wouldn't think you would need this explained; but the reason robustness is one of the main goals of method development is that it produces reproducibility, while taking into account subtle differences between analysts concerning such things as technique, equipment, reagents/solutions, and instrumentation.  The differences between your data set and mine should fall within an acceptable range of the target data, assuming we both have adequate training.  This is further demonstrated by the use of both positive, and negative, controls; and often further amplified by means of a standard curve punctuated on either end by a low- and high-anchor, or by a LLOQ and a ULOQ.

 

It is down to the scientist developing the experiment to ensure the robustness of his/her assay; and any scientist worth his salt will spend considerable time and energy verifying that said experiment can be performed by even the most recently hired, level I analyst fresh out of college.  This is also why method transfers and validations are an important part of collaborative science between researchers and the corporations who contract with them.  If a researcher develops an assay which cannot be replicated by another lab or by a company wishing to test the product of the research, then the results of that researcher's work are called into question (this is also, mind you, the point of peer review), often leading to the publication of a retraction.  Embarrassment is not the only potentially painful result.

 

Thus, slight differences in the results of our respective analyses of an experiment mean little to nothing; as safeguards and controls should be in place to account for them (CVs within 20% etc).  The only time a scientist should concern himself is if the data sets are so radically different as to denote something horribly awry with either the experiment itself, or with the analyst performing it.

 

As we are on the subject of reproducibility, I should point out that faith completely, utterly, and unmistakably fails when it comes to replication.  Two men have faith that their children will be healed of some god-awful disease.  One man embraces a completely healthy kid a week later; the other embraces a coffin, shakes his fist at the sky and laments the cursedness of life.  This happens all the time, in every part of the world, in every religious setting.  You might have faith that you believe leads you to "truth"; but my faith, which was in every form and fashion identical to yours, led me to a different "truth".  Thus, the results of faith simply cannot be replicated, no matter how much of a tolerance you build in to the experiment.  This is why faith and science are, at the very end of the day, incompatible; and also why you are in constant conflict with your own faith in the light of your scientific training and experience.

 

Consider this great "experiment" called "life".  Do the results seem reproducible to you?  Does the "experiment" seem like it was designed by a competent scientist?  Orange people become president while black people wonder if their lives matter?  What kind of control group to we have?  If you would but apply the scientific method, in its most basic form (observe, hypothesize, experiment, conclude), to the faith you so desperately cling to, you would easily see that faith is a failure.