Please explain this Bible discrepancy

[Vigile]

That's why it is faith too.

Knowing something is imposible untill you really know it.

There is a huge difference from thinking you know it(faith & reason) and really knowing something.

 

 

Not really getting your point.

 

Also, I'm a bit confused why you underlined "assumed" since I was not talking about making an assumption, but was refering to an "assumption" or a "taking on of" risk.

[Hero of Hyrule]

Not really getting your point.

 

Also, I'm a bit confused why you underlined "assumed" since I was not talking about making an assumption, but was refering to an "assumption" or a "taking on of" risk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

O sorry. The point is that when you base something you do not really know(all his tools are good) you automatically include some faith.

 

Well...I might be horrible wrong..what's the definition of faith?

[Hero of Hyrule]

Google definitions of faith without a connection to religion:

 

Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests

 

 

 

complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"

 

 

 

Aceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason.

 

A convinced belief; a condition of mind fully satisfied; next to actual knowledge. We have faith the sun will rise to-morrow morning, but the knowledge can not be actual until after sunrise.

 

 

 

Belief without evidence

 

 

To trust. Confidence, belief. Confidence, reliance, belief esp. without evidence or proof. Belief based on testimony or authority. What is or should be believed; a system of firmly-held beliefs or principles; a religion. Oxford Dictionary

[Vigile]

Let me try it this way.

 

My business is trading stocks. In this business I deal heavily with probabilities. Certain behaviors and patterns tend to repeat themselves in the market. Not every time, but often enough that you can make a profitable living trading if you know what to look for.

 

Now then, here's an overly simplified example of what I deal with. Let's say that Microsoft (MSFT) sees a high volume trading day the day after it released its quarterly earnings. I assess from the position of the current price and from the volume of buying interest that MSFT will continue to trade higher over the next few days. Based on probabilities extrapolated from past behavior I find that it is reasonable to put some money into MSFT with the intention of selling it at a higher price over the coming days.

 

Do I have faith that MSFT will go up? No. Do I know that MSFT will go up? No. In fact I prepare for the worst by placing a stop order below my entry price just in case I am wrong and MSFT goes down instead of up. I take on risk based on a pattern of behavior.

 

In fact, I don't have to be right every time to remain profitable. As long as I make more money when I'm right than I lose when I'm wrong I can continue to be profitable.

 

To me the Stanley tool question is the same. I don't know if Stanley's garden implements are any good or not, but I am willing to risk a few dollars to find out. I also know when I buy his tools that they might be lemons. It's reasonable to assume that they are not based on past experience.

[Amethyst]

Vigile del Fuoco1, let's just say that you buy tools for building things. You try many different manufacturer's brands and find that Stanley products seem to do better than the others by far. So you continue to expand your tool collection and now buy Stanley with continually impressive results. You find that they do the job great, last a long time, and now you put your faith behind that name when you go to buy a new tool. You now have faith in Stanley products. It started from doubt, that is why you tried different name brands in the beginning, and now have come to have faith, a convicted belief in their great value above others.

 

That's not faith, it's testing a hypothesis and finding it valid. AKA the scientific method, which is the opposite of faith. If you don't believe me, go and sit in on a science class.

[Vigile]

Google definitions of faith without a connection to religion:

 

 

It's good that you brought in the definitions. We should have started there. I was arguing against faith in the religious sense of the word, as in the assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen variety.

 

The reason I was arguing it at all is that christians are famous for telling everyone that we all employ faith in our daily lives in an effort to try and win points; e.g., we all have faith that the sun will rise. Or, it takes a greater leap to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation.

 

That kind of hogwash.

[spamandham]

That's why it is faith too.

Knowing something is imposible untill you really know it.

There is a huge difference from thinking you know it(faith & reason) and really knowing something.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

By such a loose definition of faith, all induction becomes faith. But faith is not merely an probabilistic guess about the unknown (induction), it is an presumption of knowledge about the unknown.

 

Induction: "I've had good experiences with Stanley tools in the past, so they probably use high quality designs, materials, and manufacturing processes. I'm going to buy a Stanley screwdriver instead of the Home Depot brand. If it fails, I will reassess my belief that they are high quality."

 

Faith: "I hope that Stanley tools are the best, therefore they are. If I buy a Stanley screwdriver and it fails, it's because I was thinking impure thoughts while I was using it. It's failure is my fault, because I know Stanley tools are the best."

[Vigile]

By such a loose definition of faith, all induction becomes faith.  But faith is not merely an probabilistic guess about the unknown (induction), it is an presumption of knowledge about the unknown. 

 

Induction:  "I've had good experiences with Stanley tools in the past, so they probably use high quality designs, materials, and manufacturing processes.  I'm going to buy a Stanley screwdriver instead of the Home Depot brand.  If it fails, I will reassess my belief that they are high quality."

 

Faith: "I hope that Stanley tools are the best, therefore they are.  If I buy a Stanley screwdriver and it fails, it's because I was thinking impure thoughts while I was using it.  It's failure is my fault, because I know Stanley tools are the best."

 

Thanks for stating this much more efficiently than I was able.

[Sokudo Ningyou]

By such a loose definition of faith, all induction becomes faith.  But faith is not merely an probabilistic guess about the unknown (induction), it is an presumption of knowledge about the unknown. 

 

Induction:  "I've had good experiences with Stanley tools in the past, so they probably use high quality designs, materials, and manufacturing processes.  I'm going to buy a Stanley screwdriver instead of the Home Depot brand.  If it fails, I will reassess my belief that they are high quality."

 

Faith: "I hope that Stanley tools are the best, therefore they are.  If I buy a Stanley screwdriver and it fails, it's because I was thinking impure thoughts while I was using it.  It's failure is my fault, because I know Stanley tools are the best."

 

 

That's about it. "Faith" correlates with "Hope" or "Wish." You don't necessarily have faith in your trusty dishwasher that it will do the job it's done for years, you know it will, because it's proven itself to be a functional piece of equiptment. You have faith that a reconditioned vaccum cleaner will work, because it's been stated to be just as good by someone else, if not many others, but as you personally have not yet put it through a trial run, you don't know. Faith in what is an unanswerable question is just that; a wish.

[Hero of Hyrule]

Well, I agree with the above posts. It seems my own definition of faith was too loose.

 

You learn something new everyday.

[Amanda]

The word 'faith', many times used in the 'book' evolved from the word that has a meaning 'to be persuaded'. Having been persuaded, one then has faith. There are other meanings of 'faith' from the 'book' having evolved from a word meaning to 'be reliant on'.

 

Couldn't these kinds of faiths also apply to science and the experimental process, till something shows one differently? Not that science is wrong, or the 'book' is wrong, just that our understandings could be refined and our perceptions are refining, still continuing with our faith in science ..... uhumm... or in my case, also the 'book'. Perhaps some of your interpretations have progressed to unsupported outcomes yielding lack of continued faith in the book, ... and of course that is ok for you, and even so... I think it is ok for those of us who still see values for us to continue with some degree of faith in the book.... as long as any of all these beliefs are NEVER at the expense of another.

 

It seems there are people that have 'blind faith' in science. Such as Stephen Hawking says this or Einstien says that... so we just believe it. I think I have more blind faith in science than I do of the book. Yet, I do read their scientific theories and they seem to make sense to me... yet I am in no way with the abilities to mathmatically verify their veracity. I just put faith in what I have come to know of their reputation in the community, considering comments of those that do know how to validate their processes of discovery. Faith is not owned by science or the 'book', it is a characteristic of all men to put where and how they choose.

[Amethyst]

Having been persuaded, one then has faith. There are other meanings of 'faith' from the 'book' having evolved from a word meaning to 'be reliant on'.

 

Couldn't these kinds of faiths also apply to science and the experimental process, till something shows one differently

 

No, because in science, you're not being persuaded by other people. (At least, you shouldn't be.) Observing something with your own senses and taking note of it is not the same thing as being persuaded by another human being. Please go and read a science textbook from the library or something, and get a good understanding of the scientific process. Or at least do a google search on it.

[spamandham]

The word 'faith', many times used in the 'book' evolved from the word that has a meaning 'to be persuaded'. Having been persuaded, one then has faith. There are other meanings of 'faith' from the 'book' having evolved from a word meaning to 'be reliant on'.

 

If you use one defintion in one context, and another deifinition in another, and then try to equate them by means of the common word "faith", you are equivocating, which is an attempt at deception, whether you realize that's what you're doing or not. Here, you are probably only deceiving yourself with such a tactic.

 

Pick a definition and stick with it.

[Ouroboros]

No, because in science, you're not being persuaded by other people.  (At least, you shouldn't be.)  Observing something with your own senses and taking note of it is not the same thing as being persuaded by another human being.  Please go and read a science textbook from the library or something, and get a good understanding of the scientific process.  Or at least do a google search on it.

(my comment to that you say “Observing something with your own senses…”)

 

But do you really? Don't you take a lot of science by trust? Maybe not persuaded, but you do take what they say for truth and you do believe they're honest in their reporting.

 

I have read many different scientific theories, but not necessarily tested them.

 

For instance, I haven't done any quantum physics tests at CERN and done the mathematics required to see that the quantum physics really works. Neither have I charted two planes, and bought two atomic clocks, and sent the planes two different directions to prove Einstein’s relativity.

 

So I must say that even I when I read scientific literature and magazines, take their word for it, and trust that they don't pull a prank on me.

 

On the other hand if a scientist would give false information, other scientists would find out and refute the proofs and theories, so science is a self balancing system. Even if some of the scientists have less integrity, still the large majority have a high integrity. And this I can trust, because most scientists are not self serving.

 

And if you doubt something in science, you could get to the source and find the information and test results and make your own judgment.

[Sokudo Ningyou]

(my comment to that you say “Observing something with your own senses…”)

 

But do you really? Don't you take a lot of science by trust? Maybe not persuaded, but you do take what they say for truth and you do believe they're honest in their reporting.

 

I have read many different scientific theories, but not necessarily tested them.

 

For instance, I haven't done any quantum physics tests at CERN and done the mathematics required to see that the quantum physics really works. Neither have I charted two planes, and bought two atomic clocks, and sent the planes two different directions to prove Einstein’s relativity.

 

So I must say that even I when I read scientific literature and magazines, take their word for it, and trust that they don't pull a prank on me.

 

On the other hand if a scientist would give false information, other scientists would find out and refute the proofs and theories, so science is a self balancing system. Even if some of the scientists have less integrity, still the large majority have a high integrity. And this I can trust, because most scientists are not self serving.

 

And if you doubt something in science, you could get to the source and find the information and test results and make your own judgment.

 

I doubt any of us are experts in quantum theory or anything close to understanding how Planck Time and Planck Length work, but the general purpose of science -- to observe and question and understand -- is what makes science less of a joke than religion. No, I can't figure out quantum physics, but science has described gravity and how it works pretty damn close to what I've observed it doing. Science has figured out how to harness electricity to make these nifty machines we're communicating on right now. Science has also made it easier for fundamental jackasses like Pat Robertson to use television to reach out and brainwash thousands of people. I don't have faith in science, because I don't need it; I know it works.

 

(Plus, there's a whole lot of it that has nothing to do with my daily routine anyway, so does it matter to me if they discover something, realize they've screwed up, and try again? Not particularly. But it does matter that they realize their mistake. Religion has a problem with that.)

[spamandham]

But do you really? Don't you take a lot of science by trust? Maybe not persuaded, but you do take what they say for truth and you do believe they're honest in their reporting.

 

While this is true, you are not taking the word of one man. Generally, the results have to be confirmed many times over by others who have a vested interest in ripping any new theory to shreds (because it's fun to show how stupid someone else was).

 

So even this level of trust is just another induction.

 

On the other hand if a scientist would give false information, other scientists would find out and refute the proofs and theories, so science is a self balancing system. Even if some of the scientists have less integrity, still the large majority have a high integrity. And this I can trust, because most scientists are not self serving.

 

Cold fusion. The news networks made a big deal out of it before it was independently confirmed. If you believed in cold fusion based on only the initial report because you wanted it to be true, then that would be faith.

 

I'm sure there were/are many cold fusion faithful out there.

[Amethyst]

So I must say that even I when I read scientific literature and magazines, take their word for it, and trust that they don't pull a prank on me.

 

I agree to an extent, but now we have to question the so-called "scientific studies" because a lot of them are funded by biased organizations. It's a matter of searching the Internet to see which studies are funded by whom; then you know which ones to take with a grain of salt.

 

I have read many different scientific theories, but not necessarily tested them.

 

For instance, I haven't done any quantum physics tests at CERN and done the mathematics required to see that the quantum physics really works. Neither have I charted two planes, and bought two atomic clocks, and sent the planes two different directions to prove Einstein’s relativity.

 

True, but you can do the Internet or library research to see if others have gotten the same results, and whether or not they hold up over time. One test by itself is meaningless, but if the results have been duplicated and can be compared, then you're not just blindly believing in them.

[Kryten]

All this talk of the mustard seed reminds me of Matthew 12:31-32, where Jesus instructed the world that it (the mustard seed) was the smallest of all seeds. All you need is the tiniest amount of faith, it says here.

 

Matthew 13:31-32

31He told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches."

 

Actually the orchid seed is smaller, so it's no wonder Christians today can't discern God's Will or coax Him into answering a prayer. I guess you need not the SMALLEST of faith, but the second-to-the-smallest amount of faith. Or third-smallest, or wherever mustard ranks... Good luck calculating that.

[Amanda]

Pick a definition and stick with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To me they're the same thing. I have faith by having been persuaded to be reliant on these meanings... as I perceive them to be... until I find reason not to do so. The reliance is by persuasion.

 

I'm in no way saying that anybody else should, must, or does... just me... and that is how I do it. If you don't agree, that is fine with me and totally up to you. One good thing about life is that everyone gets to believe how they believe.

[dulce]

About the, "Let's make man in our image" stuff, I was always told this....brace yourselves cuz it don't make no damn sense.

 

That was god talking to jesus. Since god is jesus, god was talking to himself. god knows all, so he knew jesus was coming, so it was really just god talking to himself in the future. Just like when jesus was praying to god in the garden, that was man god talking to spiritual god. Again, god was talking to himself. I don't know about you guys, but this god sounds pretty damn schitzo to me.

[spamandham]

About the, "Let's make man in our image" stuff,  I was always told this....brace yourselves cuz it don't make no damn sense.

 

That was god talking to jesus.  Since god is jesus, god was talking to himself.  god knows all, so he knew jesus was coming, so it was really just god talking to himself in the future.  Just like when jesus was praying to god in the garden, that was man god talking to spiritual god.  Again, god was talking to himself.  I don't know about you guys, but this god sounds pretty damn schitzo to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

A somewhat better apologetic is that the plural is merely a self recognition of royalty, much like a king or queen might refer to themself in the plural.

 

I have no idea if that was common in the 6-7th century BCE when most of the OT was penned.

[Ouroboros]

I doubt any of us are experts in quantum theory or anything close to understanding how Planck Time and Planck Length work, but the general purpose of science -- to observe and question and understand -- is what makes science less of a joke than religion. No, I can't figure out quantum physics, but science has described gravity and how it works pretty damn close to what I've observed it doing. Science has figured out how to harness electricity to make these nifty machines we're communicating on right now. Science has also made it easier for fundamental jackasses like Pat Robertson to use television to reach out and brainwash thousands of people.    I don't have faith in science, because I don't need it; I know it works. 

 

(Plus, there's a whole lot of it that has nothing to do with my daily routine anyway, so does it matter to me if they discover something, realize they've screwed up, and try again?  Not particularly.  But it does matter that they realize their mistake. Religion has a problem with that.)

 

And the basic difference between science and religion is that science only makes claims to what can be tested, at least by other scientists, while religion makes claims to things that are regards to your personal life, and when we do test them personally, there's always an explanation to why it didn't work this particular time. Which is nothing less than fraud and deceit.

[Ouroboros]

While this is true, you are not taking the word of one man.  Generally, the results have to be confirmed many times over by others who have a vested interest in ripping any new theory to shreds (because it's fun to show how stupid someone else was).

 

So even this level of trust is just another induction.

Cold fusion.  The news networks made a big deal out of it before it was independently confirmed.  If you believed in cold fusion based on only the initial report because you wanted it to be true, then that would be faith.

 

I'm sure there were/are many cold fusion faithful out there.

Yes, I agree. One of the differences are that religion never gets tested (often not allowed to be tested) by peers or by seculars. While science gets tested by people of different religions and beliefs. Even sometimes by people that are not certain about some theories. Like Cold Fusion...

 

Actually most of the scientist around the world believed the news, but still went to work to test it. And by testinging and proving the CF to be false alarm, that to shows the strength of science. There's not built in agenda to lie, hide and falsely create belief systems and avoid the tests of time and reality to break it apart.

[Isak The Newt]

Oh, im a were-fork, i turn into a hidious fork that pillages towns near my home and kill bears that i see, then i mutilate some golfers ... oh but you wont ever seem like this, it only happens when no ones looking and i have psychic powers and i can read minds, but i can already tell your gonna ask me to read your mind!! OOH THERE IT GOES, !! see! I'm all powerful and mighty! Make me your king, i command it!!!!! or ill do some weird voodoo-forky stuff on you!

 

 

-edit: sorry this had nothing to do with the entire thread except flame christians... [/hijack]

[Amanda]

So, if there is a god, we can still go to heaven if we don't believe in the Judeo Christian one, correct?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thankful, I'm thankful it is not MY job to 'save' the world. You can believe however you want... as far as I'm concerned. It is my personal belief that the God I hold in esteem, never throws anyone away.... not you or anyone else.