A Challenge For All Christians

[JamesG]

You know you are a real Christian when you meet these conditions

 

1. the holy spirit fills you up and you follow Christ in all aspects of your life

2. Actions wont get you to heaven only faith can

3. Faith alone is not enough you need good works

4. You must abandon all your belongings

5. You must abandon your family

6. You must obey your family

7. You must repent

8. repenting is not necessary

9. You need grace

10. Grace is a gift not everyone receives this

11. Sin comes from the heart you can enter heaven when you sin

12. All are guilty and only a few can receive salvation

 

 

if you can complete these 12 steps congratulations you have completed Atheists Anonymous and here is your chip of salvation

[Guest end3]

Christians, I challenge you to provide proof that faith is better than facts. Here is your chance to argue for faiths sake and forever set the record strait for yourselfs and your god.

Define "better".  

 

And we can have faith in something we know to be factual.

 

Are you saying faith in something unknown or never experienced?

[Guest r3alchild]

 

 

Christians, I challenge you to provide proof that faith is better than facts. Here is your chance to argue for faiths sake and forever set the record strait for yourselfs and your god.

Define "better".

 

And we can have faith in something we know to be factual.

 

Are you saying faith in something unknown or never experienced?

I wont define better in my own words but post the universal english meaning from free dictionary

bet·ter 1  (btr)

adj. Comparative of good.

1. Greater in excellence or higher in quality.

2. More useful, suitable, or desirable: found a better way to go; a suit with a better fit than that one.

3. More highly skilled or adept: I am better at math than English.

4. Greater or larger: argued for the better part of an hour.

5. More advantageous or favorable; improved: a better chance of success.

6. Healthier or more fit than before: The patient is better today.

 

Faith and facts school two diffrent types of thought, the first requires no facts to exist and the second require no faith to exist. The only question you have to ask is which school of thought is more honest.

[Guest end3]

Pardon if I am misunderstanding as I do that regularly, but as I see it you are defining faith as something always unknown...and that choice.  Seems reasonable that subjective faith could easily be better that "facts".  Or else something held in faith becomes known and then gives us two points to compare "better".

 

Also seems reasonable that "honest"  by your definition is given to something we have already experienced.....by default making it more "honest" to believe such.

[mymistake]

 

Christians, I challenge you to provide proof that faith is better than facts. Here is your chance to argue for faiths sake and forever set the record strait for yourselfs and your god.

Define "better".  

 

And we can have faith in something we know to be factual.

 

Are you saying faith in something unknown or never experienced?

 

 

 

Sorry End, but knowledge destroys faith.  Faith is accepting something without knowledge.  Once you know you can't unknow so you can't take it on faith.  Knowledge makes faith impossible.  That works both way - you can't have faith in the thing that was true or an idea that is false once you know.

[JamesG]

HI end I really enjoyed our conversation about ego good to see you resurface =D.  Faith in my opinion is believing in something in substitution of evidence for said belief. This implies that you can have faith to believe in something but evidence will trump that faith every time. For example I have faith that we will not launch a nuclear weapon at north Korea tomorrow. When tomorrow comes and we don't launch a nuclear missile at north Korea I have evidence to substantiate my faith earlier. In the case of applying this logic to god. One can have faith that god exists however if there is evidence to suggest otherwise it would supersede that faith. So in no way imho will faith be better than facts as far as

 

Belief

Real world application

making decisions in life.

 

the last part I will elaborate on.

 

I have faith that my neighbor is a terrorist because I had a message from god and it said to trust him and kill your neighbor to save thousands turns out the neighbor is just a little old lady incapable of doing any harm to any one by any means. Now you have a decision to make trust your faith or trust the evidence which will inform you better?

[Guest r3alchild]

Pardon if I am misunderstanding as I do that regularly, but as I see it you are defining faith as something always unknown...and that choice.  Seems reasonable that subjective faith could easily be better that "facts".  Or else something held in faith becomes known and then gives us two points to compare "better".

 

Also seems reasonable that "honest"  by your definition is given to something we have already experienced.....by default making it more "honest" to believe such.

No I mean what is comparatively better when trying to make an approach to facts about knowable things. The reason I left christianity was because I could never be sure about faith itself. It seemed that my faith was always defined by my subjective experiences and rejection of any contrary facts. To me this seemed counter productive to critical thinking and questioning any given belief. So after many months of de-conversion I am here today asking "does any christian know how faith is better than facts" what I am saying is help me understand how I can overcome the facts I know now about christianity with the faith that never did.

[BlackCat]

 

It seemed that my faith was always defined by my subjective experiences and rejection of any contrary facts. To me this seemed counter productive to critical thinking and questioning any given belief. 

I relate to that.  I was worried about having to suspend 'common sense' and accept stuff in the Bible that went against science and common sense.  I came to believe (whilst still a Christian) that you have to go with your understanding or with the 'facts' in the first instance.  You have to be true to your own thinking processes etc.  I figured that God would not have a problem with this.  I came to realise that a lot of claims of Christianity aren't even in the Bible e.g the inerrancy of the Bible, the teaching of eternal conscious torment, and this red herring about faith being the pinnacle or the most important thing in a believer's experience of God etc. 

 

 

So after many months of de-conversion I am here today asking "does any christian know how faith is better than facts" what I am saying is help me understand how I can overcome the facts I know now about christianity with the faith that never did.

 

I don't know any Christian who would say that faith is better than facts.  It can't be.  Faith is only necessary when you don't have all the facts, but you need to have some facts to base your faith on.  Remember when Paul talks about seeing through a glass darkly?  To have any faith in 'Christianity' you need to know what it's about and what it claims and then assess those claims etc.  I don't quite understand your last sentence. 

 

[Guest r3alchild]

 

It seemed that my faith was always defined by my subjective experiences and rejection of any contrary facts. To me this seemed counter productive to critical thinking and questioning any given belief.

I relate to that. I was worried about having to suspend 'common sense' and accept stuff in the Bible that went against science and common sense. I came to believe (whilst still a Christian) that you have to go with your understanding or with the 'facts' in the first instance. You have to be true to your own thinking processes etc. I figured that God would not have a problem with this. I came to realise that a lot of claims of Christianity aren't even in the Bible e.g the inerrancy of the Bible, the teaching of eternal conscious torment, and this red herring about faith being the pinnacle or the most important thing in a believer's experience of God etc.

 

 

So after many months of de-conversion I am here today asking "does any christian know how faith is better than facts" what I am saying is help me understand how I can overcome the facts I know now about christianity with the faith that never did.

 

I don't know any Christian who would say that faith is better than facts. It can't be. Faith is only necessary when you don't have all the facts, but you need to have some facts to base your faith on. Remember when Paul talks about seeing through a glass darkly? To have any faith in 'Christianity' you need to know what it's about and what it claims and then assess those claims etc. I don't quite understand your last sentence.

 

That last sentence was about how any type of faith I could have now will be subject to all the facts that I know are contrary to the bible and would be ineffective in re-converting me. As to what you stated about the bible not being the typical subject matter that most christians claim it to be and saying it can be interpreted a different way leaves one bewildered in finding cohesion in faith. As for paul and his glass darkly, I believe that the only cure to that type of condition is death.

[Guest end3]

 

Pardon if I am misunderstanding as I do that regularly, but as I see it you are defining faith as something always unknown...and that choice.  Seems reasonable that subjective faith could easily be better that "facts".  Or else something held in faith becomes known and then gives us two points to compare "better".

 

Also seems reasonable that "honest"  by your definition is given to something we have already experienced.....by default making it more "honest" to believe such.

No I mean what is comparatively better when trying to make an approach to facts about knowable things. The reason I left christianity was because I could never be sure about faith itself. It seemed that my faith was always defined by my subjective experiences and rejection of any contrary facts. To me this seemed counter productive to critical thinking and questioning any given belief. So after many months of de-conversion I am here today asking "does any christian know how faith is better than facts" what I am saying is help me understand how I can overcome the facts I know now about christianity with the faith that never did.

 

Let's suppose you choose facts/information in lieu of faith.  A question for you please is, what has this information done to faith and was there a purpose to faith at all?

[Guest end3]

HI end I really enjoyed our conversation about ego good to see you resurface =D.  Faith in my opinion is believing in something in substitution of evidence for said belief. This implies that you can have faith to believe in something but evidence will trump that faith every time. For example I have faith that we will not launch a nuclear weapon at north Korea tomorrow. When tomorrow comes and we don't launch a nuclear missile at north Korea I have evidence to substantiate my faith earlier. In the case of applying this logic to god. One can have faith that god exists however if there is evidence to suggest otherwise it would supersede that faith. So in no way imho will faith be better than facts as far as

 

Belief

Real world application

making decisions in life.

 

the last part I will elaborate on.

 

I have faith that my neighbor is a terrorist because I had a message from god and it said to trust him and kill your neighbor to save thousands turns out the neighbor is just a little old lady incapable of doing any harm to any one by any means. Now you have a decision to make trust your faith or trust the evidence which will inform you better?

I hear you.  Faith has appealed to me as a tool specifically for the inability to view reality.....x(faith) is more appealing than y(reality).  In that, faith imo, could easily be "better" for a person at a specific point in their life.  I don't know that facts or information negate faith as we address our reality, rather allows us to "hold on" WHILE addressing reality.  Also in doing that, I think maybe it teaches us.

 

Edit:  Looked a little into elementary particles....not much...but my question is, you said it wasn't classical physics, but i can't find anything  that is not theory at that level.....just an extremely casual observance...please don't beat me up for my ignorance...lol. 

[Guest r3alchild]

 

 

Pardon if I am misunderstanding as I do that regularly, but as I see it you are defining faith as something always unknown...and that choice.  Seems reasonable that subjective faith could easily be better that "facts".  Or else something held in faith becomes known and then gives us two points to compare "better".

 

Also seems reasonable that "honest"  by your definition is given to something we have already experienced.....by default making it more "honest" to believe such.

 

No I mean what is comparatively better when trying to make an approach to facts about knowable things. The reason I left christianity was because I could never be sure about faith itself. It seemed that my faith was always defined by my subjective experiences and rejection of any contrary facts. To me this seemed counter productive to critical thinking and questioning any given belief. So after many months of de-conversion I am here today asking "does any christian know how faith is better than facts" what I am saying is help me understand how I can overcome the facts I know now about christianity with the faith that never did.

Let's suppose you choose facts/information in lieu of faith.  A question for you please is, what has this information done to faith and was there a purpose to faith at all?

Facts destroyed the bibles reliability as for faith my purpose was to always have it.

[JamesG]

 

HI end I really enjoyed our conversation about ego good to see you resurface =D.  Faith in my opinion is believing in something in substitution of evidence for said belief. This implies that you can have faith to believe in something but evidence will trump that faith every time. For example I have faith that we will not launch a nuclear weapon at north Korea tomorrow. When tomorrow comes and we don't launch a nuclear missile at north Korea I have evidence to substantiate my faith earlier. In the case of applying this logic to god. One can have faith that god exists however if there is evidence to suggest otherwise it would supersede that faith. So in no way imho will faith be better than facts as far as

 

Belief

Real world application

making decisions in life.

 

the last part I will elaborate on.

 

I have faith that my neighbor is a terrorist because I had a message from god and it said to trust him and kill your neighbor to save thousands turns out the neighbor is just a little old lady incapable of doing any harm to any one by any means. Now you have a decision to make trust your faith or trust the evidence which will inform you better?

I hear you.  Faith has appealed to me as a tool specifically for the inability to view reality.....x(faith) is more appealing than y(reality).  In that, faith imo, could easily be "better" for a person at a specific point in their life.  I don't know that facts or information negate faith as we address our reality, rather allows us to "hold on" WHILE addressing reality.  Also in doing that, I think maybe it teaches us.

 

Edit:  Looked a little into elementary particles....not much...but my question is, you said it wasn't classical physics, but i can't find anything  that is not theory at that level.....just an extremely casual observance...please don't beat me up for my ignorance...lol. 

 

what is appealing is not always better in terms of physical or mental health. Of course there are some circumstances where someone having faith to get through the hard times when one could otherwise not is plausible. However, this does not mean reality cant produce the same net results.  having faith in emotionally draining circumstances could theoretically stall development and progression. like coping with the loss of a loved one. People tend to hold on to them longer than they should because they believe they are in heaven instead of facing the reality that they have passed and can no longer influence are lives in this world. Holding on can keep depression lingering. So there is no real substantial evidence on either side of the argument that faith superseding reality can be of benefit.

[BlackCat]

 

That last sentence was about how any type of faith I could have now will be subject to all the facts that I know are contrary to the bible and would be ineffective in re-converting me. As to what you stated about the bible not being the typical subject matter that most christians claim it to be and saying it can be interpreted a different way leaves one bewildered in finding cohesion in faith. As for paul and his glass darkly, I believe that the only cure to that type of condition is death.

 

 

Ah, I get you now.   I'm not too bothered by the fact that the bible is full of errors (which I didn't know prior to leaving Christianity).  It's ironic but knowing this is actually a relief as it holds out some hope that Jesus' claims could be true.  I now don't have to fret about the weird stuff in the bible that sounded loud alarm bells.  The bible is as 'corrupted' it seems, as everything else in this universe or rather it is 'breaking down' (chinese whispers and copying errors and maybe blatant lies inserted or more likely it's a collection of older traditions of other religions).   I got to the point where I was so pissed off with the Bible or rather the inability to understand a lot of it e.g Revelation, and the fact that everyone's got their own understanding of verses, that I had to put it away.  I remember praying to God that regardless of all the confusion reading the Bible creates, could He break through all that with His Holy Spirit and just confirm that He really was there and that Jesus was His Son etc.  All the other stuff wouldn't have been that important.  I'm still waiting for that confirmation.  I'm not holding my breath.    

[JamesG]

 

 

That last sentence was about how any type of faith I could have now will be subject to all the facts that I know are contrary to the bible and would be ineffective in re-converting me. As to what you stated about the bible not being the typical subject matter that most christians claim it to be and saying it can be interpreted a different way leaves one bewildered in finding cohesion in faith. As for paul and his glass darkly, I believe that the only cure to that type of condition is death.

 

 

Ah, I get you now.   I'm not too bothered by the fact that the bible is full of errors (which I didn't know prior to leaving Christianity).  It's ironic but knowing this is actually a relief as it holds out some hope that Jesus' claims could be true.  I now don't have to fret about the weird stuff in the bible that sounded loud alarm bells.  The bible is as 'corrupted' it seems, as everything else in this universe or rather it is 'breaking down' (chinese whispers and copying errors and maybe blatant lies inserted or more likely it's a collection of older traditions of other religions).   I got to the point where I was so pissed off with the Bible or rather the inability to understand a lot of it e.g Revelation, and the fact that everyone's got their own understanding of verses, that I had to put it away.  I remember praying to God that regardless of all the confusion reading the Bible creates, could He break through all that with His Holy Spirit and just confirm that He really was there and that Jesus was His Son etc.  All the other stuff wouldn't have been that important.  I'm still waiting for that confirmation.  I'm not holding my breath.    

 

I hear you there. for a while roughly 3 years I just accepted the fact that the truth had been lost in the annals of history with know way of the original copies ever resurfacing again. So I just believed in what I thought my version of god would be like. This of course led me to realize that I was just guilty of manifesting my own god >.<

[Guest end3]

 

 

HI end I really enjoyed our conversation about ego good to see you resurface =D.  Faith in my opinion is believing in something in substitution of evidence for said belief. This implies that you can have faith to believe in something but evidence will trump that faith every time. For example I have faith that we will not launch a nuclear weapon at north Korea tomorrow. When tomorrow comes and we don't launch a nuclear missile at north Korea I have evidence to substantiate my faith earlier. In the case of applying this logic to god. One can have faith that god exists however if there is evidence to suggest otherwise it would supersede that faith. So in no way imho will faith be better than facts as far as

 

Belief

Real world application

making decisions in life.

 

the last part I will elaborate on.

 

I have faith that my neighbor is a terrorist because I had a message from god and it said to trust him and kill your neighbor to save thousands turns out the neighbor is just a little old lady incapable of doing any harm to any one by any means. Now you have a decision to make trust your faith or trust the evidence which will inform you better?

I hear you.  Faith has appealed to me as a tool specifically for the inability to view reality.....x(faith) is more appealing than y(reality).  In that, faith imo, could easily be "better" for a person at a specific point in their life.  I don't know that facts or information negate faith as we address our reality, rather allows us to "hold on" WHILE addressing reality.  Also in doing that, I think maybe it teaches us.

 

Edit:  Looked a little into elementary particles....not much...but my question is, you said it wasn't classical physics, but i can't find anything  that is not theory at that level.....just an extremely casual observance...please don't beat me up for my ignorance...lol. 

 

what is appealing is not always better in terms of physical or mental health. Of course there are some circumstances where someone having faith to get through the hard times when one could otherwise not is plausible. However, this does not mean reality cant produce the same net results.  having faith in emotionally draining circumstances could theoretically stall development and progression. like coping with the loss of a loved one. People tend to hold on to them longer than they should because they believe they are in heaven instead of facing the reality that they have passed and can no longer influence are lives in this world. Holding on can keep depression lingering. So there is no real substantial evidence on either side of the argument that faith superseding reality can be of benefit.

 

The Christian message seems somewhat specific and would think it would be interesting to lay that message over this statement to see if they join in any kind of insight...if this makes sense.  I agree that a future reality can be "better" or can produce the same results, but the state of "faith" is a necessity to get us from a horrific point "a" to a "better" point "b"......specifically because we can't grasp reality nor make it better at our will.

[Guest r3alchild]

 

 

That last sentence was about how any type of faith I could have now will be subject to all the facts that I know are contrary to the bible and would be ineffective in re-converting me. As to what you stated about the bible not being the typical subject matter that most christians claim it to be and saying it can be interpreted a different way leaves one bewildered in finding cohesion in faith. As for paul and his glass darkly, I believe that the only cure to that type of condition is death.

 

 

Ah, I get you now.   I'm not too bothered by the fact that the bible is full of errors (which I didn't know prior to leaving Christianity).  It's ironic but knowing this is actually a relief as it holds out some hope that Jesus' claims could be true.  I now don't have to fret about the weird stuff in the bible that sounded loud alarm bells.  The bible is as 'corrupted' it seems, as everything else in this universe or rather it is 'breaking down' (chinese whispers and copying errors and maybe blatant lies inserted or more likely it's a collection of older traditions of other religions).   I got to the point where I was so pissed off with the Bible or rather the inability to understand a lot of it e.g Revelation, and the fact that everyone's got their own understanding of verses, that I had to put it away.  I remember praying to God that regardless of all the confusion reading the Bible creates, could He break through all that with His Holy Spirit and just confirm that He really was there and that Jesus was His Son etc.  All the other stuff wouldn't have been that important.  I'm still waiting for that confirmation.  I'm not holding my breath.  

De-Conversion countdown

[BlackCat]

 

 

 

That last sentence was about how any type of faith I could have now will be subject to all the facts that I know are contrary to the bible and would be ineffective in re-converting me. As to what you stated about the bible not being the typical subject matter that most christians claim it to be and saying it can be interpreted a different way leaves one bewildered in finding cohesion in faith. As for paul and his glass darkly, I believe that the only cure to that type of condition is death.

 

 

Ah, I get you now.   I'm not too bothered by the fact that the bible is full of errors (which I didn't know prior to leaving Christianity).  It's ironic but knowing this is actually a relief as it holds out some hope that Jesus' claims could be true.  I now don't have to fret about the weird stuff in the bible that sounded loud alarm bells.  The bible is as 'corrupted' it seems, as everything else in this universe or rather it is 'breaking down' (chinese whispers and copying errors and maybe blatant lies inserted or more likely it's a collection of older traditions of other religions).   I got to the point where I was so pissed off with the Bible or rather the inability to understand a lot of it e.g Revelation, and the fact that everyone's got their own understanding of verses, that I had to put it away.  I remember praying to God that regardless of all the confusion reading the Bible creates, could He break through all that with His Holy Spirit and just confirm that He really was there and that Jesus was His Son etc.  All the other stuff wouldn't have been that important.  I'm still waiting for that confirmation.  I'm not holding my breath.    

 

I hear you there. for a while roughly 3 years I just accepted the fact that the truth had been lost in the annals of history with know way of the original copies ever resurfacing again. So I just believed in what I thought my version of god would be like. This of course led me to realize that I was just guilty of manifesting my own god >.<

 

 

Yes, I'm sure I've done that during my time as a 'Christian' even.  I don't even fret about 'God' now.   I'm here for the taking if He chooses to confirm to me that He is real but I'm resigned to that being highly unlikely, so I just get on with my life as best I can.    

[mymistake]

 

The Christian message seems somewhat specific and would think it would be interesting to lay that message over this statement to see if they join in any kind of insight...if this makes sense.  I agree that a future reality can be "better" or can produce the same results, but the state of "faith" is a necessity to get us from a horrific point "a" to a "better" point "b"......specifically because we can't grasp reality nor make it better at our will.

 

 

 

Which Christian message is the "somewhat specific" one?  Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Reformed, Anabaptist, Pentecostal, Evangelical, Anglican, or perhaps you meant one of the non-denominational, independent Christian churches have the somewhat specific Christian message?  

[RipVanWinkle]

I haven't read all the above replies, so I could be off track. But I think facts can increase faith if

they are consistent with each other. However, facts should decrease or entirely eliminate faith if they

do not support faith. But one can reasonably have faith if there are some facts that appear to be

inconsistent with faith, but are not conclusive. If there are real disputes of material facts, faith can still be appropriate, until the dispute is resolved to a reasonably conclusive decision. bill

[JamesG]

I think I might have to disagree William if the facts are congruent with the faith it ceases to be faith by virtue of you of the fact that you have belief based upon evidence. Don't get me wrong I think their is some value into having face. However I think 9/10 knowing the reality trumps the applicable benefits of faith.

 

End3 you would be surprised about the adaptability of the human psyche. There was a point in my life where I had the perception that faith was a necessity to get through tough times in my life. However for me faith was a crutch. when you kick away that crutch you learn coping mechanisms that are far more effective. Simply put by using faith you prevent yourself from actually addressing the issue while relying on a metaphysical force to do so for you. What you don't realize is by using faith you are masking real coping mechanisms that are already functioning behind the scenes. When you learn how to take advantage of these mechanisms reality no longer becomes a daunting task to comprehend.

[RipVanWinkle]

There was a time when it was considered a fact that the son and the moon revolved around the earth, as you know. There was even a model made of the solar system with the earth at the center. It accurately

predicted lunar eclipses, solar eclipse, etc. So universal acceptance does not make the "fact" true.

The current scientific theories of "Big Bang" and life originating in primordial slime with the

right energy and chemical combinations are well accepted in the scientific community, or so I'm told.

But I don't KNOW this to be true. I haven't the experience, knowledge or ability to personally verify

these things to be true. I have read accounts by qualified scientists that support those theories,and

they are convincing, but I have to rely on the scientists. I have much more faith in the scientists

than I do in the Bible. The scientist records of success are very impressive, but none of their

conclusions are absolute. So I have a very strong faith in science and its theories.

 

Some of their (scientists) opinions are accepted as "fact", like the speed of light, etc. Yet they are subject to change if the "impossible" occurs and they are proven wrong. Nothing in science is absolute. At least that has always been my understanding.

 

So when we are relying on the opinions and conclusions of experts, we aren't dealing with facts. And

the scientists are the first to tell us that those theories are subject to change. That's a major

difference between science and religion which they claim never changes. To them any "facts"

inconsistent with the religion's basic principles just have to be wrong. So I think "faith" is broader than you think. bill

[JamesG]

True I can agree with that I guess I was talking in a more hypothetical sense than one based in reality. I think we are probably playing a semantics game though as faith as I see it is not necessarily dealing in facts but a perception of reality.

 

Faith as I define it as. Accepting a belief in something with out evidence(not facts) to support the belief

so if you had evidence to support your belief you are not dealing with faith anymore because by the nature of my definition having evidence replaces the faith

I guess to me faith is like the hypothesis then you test the faith  if it passes all examinations performed it no longer stays a hypothesis.

Now as far as trusting someone else's theory that requires faith but if you can do the research on your own or if you can understand the evidence presented it would no longer remain faith. So still to me I believe it boils down to do you have evidence to support your belief? if yes then its not faith if no then it is faith. It does not mean you are right or wrong that is just your perception of reality based upon what you can or cant observe. If you have circumstantial evidence to support your beliefs its still evidence you are using evidence to support it though not faith it doesn't matter imo if its good or bad evidence.

 

 

also if we don't share the same definition of faith that's cool. If you use facts in lieu of evidence in your definition then I can agree with your position as well.

 

P.S. I realize I was stating "facts" in my earlier post that should be amended lol sometimes I don't really pay attention to what I am writing sometimes so hopefully I have corrected some confusion I may have incured
 

[Guest r3alchild]

Ah but the real question is, if you did not believe in the big bang will you go to hell.

[Bhim]

 

 

HI end I really enjoyed our conversation about ego good to see you resurface =D. Faith in my opinion is believing in something in substitution of evidence for said belief. This implies that you can have faith to believe in something but evidence will trump that faith every time. For example I have faith that we will not launch a nuclear weapon at north Korea tomorrow. When tomorrow comes and we don't launch a nuclear missile at north Korea I have evidence to substantiate my faith earlier. In the case of applying this logic to god. One can have faith that god exists however if there is evidence to suggest otherwise it would supersede that faith. So in no way imho will faith be better than facts as far as

 

Belief

Real world application

making decisions in life.

 

the last part I will elaborate on.

 

I have faith that my neighbor is a terrorist because I had a message from god and it said to trust him and kill your neighbor to save thousands turns out the neighbor is just a little old lady incapable of doing any harm to any one by any means. Now you have a decision to make trust your faith or trust the evidence which will inform you better?

I hear you. Faith has appealed to me as a tool specifically for the inability to view reality.....x(faith) is more appealing than y(reality). In that, faith imo, could easily be "better" for a person at a specific point in their life. I don't know that facts or information negate faith as we address our reality, rather allows us to "hold on" WHILE addressing reality. Also in doing that, I think maybe it teaches us.

 

Edit: Looked a little into elementary particles....not much...but my question is, you said it wasn't classical physics, but i can't find anything that is not theory at that level.....just an extremely casual observance...please don't beat me up for my ignorance...lol.

End, I can offer my professional opinion here and say that everything in particle physics is experimentally verifiable. You may have followed the search for the Higgs Boson at CERN. It is the only bit of the standard model of particle physics not yet verified (and it may have already been found). The theory of particle physics is otherwise completely verified by laboratory observations. You would be quite wrong to view particle physics as philosophy or conjecture. The science is as valid as observations of E. Coli growth or combustion reactions.