Do people who have faith in God know the difference between faith and facts? (1 Viewer)

[SoccerCoach]

Sometimes they invoke "personal testimony" too, as if that's supposed to be valid or something.

As valid as your position

 

[Gordy327]

As valid as your position

What's my position? Im not the one making affirmative claims.

 

[Gordy327]

There is no evidence god does not exist therefore atheism is simply another belief.

We prove negatives all the time with negative correlations null hypothesis and evidence to the contrary.

A logical fallacy.

Atheism is a belief no better or worse then belief in god. All beliefs are chosen to fill an emotional need

That is false. Atheism is not a belief.

 

[SoccerCoach]

A logical fallacy.

That is false. Atheism is not a belief.

Then prove its a fact. You need evidence. I see you never studied research methods in graduate school. Go ahead prove there is no god with facts ad evidence

 

[Mr Person]

There is no evidence god does not exist therefore atheism is simply another belief. We prove negatives all the time with negative correlations null hypothesis and evidence to the contrary. Atheism is a belief no better or worse then belief in god. All beliefs are chosen to fill an emotional need

See, the thing is... I'm profoundly uninterested in religious people trying to bootstrap faith into logical respectability with shit arguments. There is absolutely no testable evidence for the existence of God. It is infinitely more reasonable to conclude that God does not exist given the complete lack of evidence that would pass scientific muster than it is to believe against the lack of evidence.

Nevermind that your answer is misdirection. The only two alternatives are not mindless faith and atheism. There is agnosticism, which is about the most reasonable one. This says the existence of the deity proposed by current monotheistic religions cannot be known.

And that's the most reasonable because the mono-God is supposed to be an all powerful, all present, all knowing being, aka, it encompasses observable and testable reality; it encompasses existence. Well, quite simply, no amount of evidence or lack of evidence within existence can prove or disprove anything beyond existence (not that the concept of 'beyond existence' makes any logical sense. It doesn't). Absent equal knowledge to that of the supposed God, someone in reality could not distinguish between an incomprehensibly advanced alien being and a God for the simple reason that the being within reality cannot access anything not within reality (again, a logical absurdity, which is another reason to ignore faith).

So, I do not accept that a God exists. Just like I do not accept that there is a herd of invisible elephants under my bed. Just like I do not accept that my toothbrush gets up at night and does a silent jig on my desk while I sleep.




Faith is logic-free. It is believe against or without evidence. It is not on par with atheism or agnosticism. As long as you don't try to shove your faith down other peoples' throats, I don't care. I just find it silly.

But given that lean, I'm guessing that's exactly what you want to use government to do.

 

[SoccerCoach]

See, the thing is... I'm profoundly uninterested in religious people trying to bootstrap faith into logical respectability with shit arguments. There is absolutely no testable evidence for the existence of God. It is infinitely more reasonable to conclude that God does not exist given the complete lack of evidence that would pass scientific muster than it is to believe against the lack of evidence.

Nevermind that your answer is misdirection. The only two alternatives are not mindless faith and atheism. There is agnosticism, which is about the most reasonable one. This says the existence of the deity proposed by current monotheistic religions cannot be known.

And that's the most reasonable because the mono-God is supposed to be an all powerful, all present, all knowing being, aka, it encompasses observable and testable reality; it encompasses existence. Well, quite simply, no amount of evidence or lack of evidence within existence can prove or disprove anything beyond existence (not that the concept of 'beyond existence' makes any logical sense. It doesn't). Absent equal knowledge to that of the supposed God, someone in reality could not distinguish between an incomprehensibly advanced alien being and a God for the simple reason that the being within reality cannot access anything not within reality (again, a logical absurdity, which is another reason to ignore faith).

So, I do not accept that a God exists. Just like I do not accept that there is a herd of invisible elephants under my bed. Just like I do not accept that my toothbrush gets up at night and does a silent jig on my desk while I sleep.




Faith is logic-free. It is believe against or without evidence. It is not on par with atheism or agnosticism. As long as you don't try to shove your faith down other peoples' throats, I don't care. I just find it silly.

But given that lean, I'm guessing that's exactly what you want to use government to do.

Lack of evidence is never evidence to the contrary. Lack of evidence is literally nothing. Nothing can only be nothing.
You proved nothing you have a belief that fulfills an emotional need. Your belief has no evidence and cant be measured, tested or proven. That by definition is belief.
The agnostic states I dont know. Thats my belief.
The only measure of a belief is honesty. Is this what one honestly believes. Apart from the crazy violence of some Muslims and extreme Christians thats a category on its own.
I dont know if there is a god. To begin we would have to conceptualize it. Is it the abstract god of the Jews, the literal idol called Jesus a god with a face and personality, or the Hindu god which is also abstract. How about Zoroastrianism good VS evil dual gods.
If I were to choose one I would be Pagan they have the best parties.

 

[Daisy]

True faith is not blind...it requires not only logic but reasoning/discernment...

Faith is based on concrete evidence. The visible creative works testify to the existence of an invisible Creator. (Ro 1:20) The actual occurrences taking place during the ministry and earthly life of Jesus Christ identify him as the Son of God. (Mt 27:54; see JESUS CHRIST.) God’s record of providing for his earthly creatures serves as a valid basis for believing that he will surely provide for his servants, and his record as a Giver and Restorer of life lends ample evidence to the credibility of the resurrection hope. (Mt 6:26, 30, 33; Ac 17:31; 1Co 15:3-8, 20, 21) Furthermore, the reliability of God’s Word and the accurate fulfillment of its prophecies instill confidence in the realization of all of His promises. (Jos 23:14) Thus, in these many ways, “faith follows the thing heard.”—Ro 10:17; compare Joh 4:7-30, 39-42; Ac 14:8-10.

So faith is not credulity. The person who may ridicule faith usually has faith himself in tried and trusted friends. The scientist has faith in the principles of his branch of science. He bases new experiments on past discoveries and looks for new discoveries on the basis of those things already established as true.

Likewise, the farmer prepares his soil and sows the seed, expecting, as in previous years, that the seed will sprout and that the plants will grow as they receive the needed moisture and sunshine. Therefore faith in the stability of the natural laws governing the universe actually constitutes a foundation for man’s plans and activities.

Such stability is alluded to by the wise writer of Ecclesiastes: “The sun also has flashed forth, and the sun has set, and it is coming panting to its place where it is going to flash forth. The wind is going to the south, and it is circling around to the north. Round and round it is continually circling, and right back to its circlings the wind is returning. All the winter torrents are going forth to the sea, yet the sea itself is not full. To the place where the winter torrents are going forth, there they are returning so as to go forth.”—Ec 1:5-7.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001484

 

[SoccerCoach]

True faith is not blind...it requires not only logic but reasoning/discernment...

Faith is based on concrete evidence. The visible creative works testify to the existence of an invisible Creator. (Ro 1:20) The actual occurrences taking place during the ministry and earthly life of Jesus Christ identify him as the Son of God. (Mt 27:54; see JESUS CHRIST.) God’s record of providing for his earthly creatures serves as a valid basis for believing that he will surely provide for his servants, and his record as a Giver and Restorer of life lends ample evidence to the credibility of the resurrection hope. (Mt 6:26, 30, 33; Ac 17:31; 1Co 15:3-8, 20, 21) Furthermore, the reliability of God’s Word and the accurate fulfillment of its prophecies instill confidence in the realization of all of His promises. (Jos 23:14) Thus, in these many ways, “faith follows the thing heard.”—Ro 10:17; compare Joh 4:7-30, 39-42; Ac 14:8-10.

So faith is not credulity. The person who may ridicule faith usually has faith himself in tried and trusted friends. The scientist has faith in the principles of his branch of science. He bases new experiments on past discoveries and looks for new discoveries on the basis of those things already established as true.

Likewise, the farmer prepares his soil and sows the seed, expecting, as in previous years, that the seed will sprout and that the plants will grow as they receive the needed moisture and sunshine. Therefore faith in the stability of the natural laws governing the universe actually constitutes a foundation for man’s plans and activities.

Such stability is alluded to by the wise writer of Ecclesiastes: “The sun also has flashed forth, and the sun has set, and it is coming panting to its place where it is going to flash forth. The wind is going to the south, and it is circling around to the north. Round and round it is continually circling, and right back to its circlings the wind is returning. All the winter torrents are going forth to the sea, yet the sea itself is not full. To the place where the winter torrents are going forth, there they are returning so as to go forth.”—Ec 1:5-7.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001484

Faith is belief chosen to fill an emotional need. Its not fact or science. State the concrete evidence according to the scientific method.
Science begins with a hypothesis that is then tested according to a scientific method not faith. You using words incorrectly

If you could read Genesis in Hebrew you will not find The Fall or original sin which according to the Old Testament does not exist. The eating of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is an allegory that explains gods moral teaching of man. The rise of man not the fall. Before Adam ate the fruit he could not know what a sin was. Therefore he could not have committed a sin. You cant sin if you cant know what sin is. Further its Gods will that Adam does eat the fruit. Thats why the tree is large and in the center of the garden so it cant be missed. Following Gods intention cant be a sin.be God must also test Admas free will because free will must have moral values. So he tests Adam ad tells him nit to eat the fruit. The test if free will is disobedience. Adam passes the test. Then God states"Let us make the man" use of the rloyal we means amjor evsnt has occured. Adma and Eve are autonomous human beings with moral values. Thats the rise of man not the fall

 

[Daisy]

Faith is belief chosen to fill an emotional need. Its not fact or science. State the concrete evidence according to the scientific method.
Science begins with a hypothesis that is then tested according to a scientific method not faith. You using words incorrectly

If you could read Genesis in Hebrew you will not find The Fall or original sin which according to the Old Testament does not exist. The eating of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is an allegory that explains gods moral teaching of man. The rise of man not the fall. Before Adam ate the fruit he could not know what a sin was. Therefore he could not have committed a sin. You cant sin if you cant know what sin is. Further its Gods will that Adam does eat the fruit. Thats why the tree is large and in the center of the garden so it cant be missed. Following Gods intention cant be a sin.be God must also test Admas free will because free will must have moral values. So he tests Adam ad tells him nit to eat the fruit. The test if free will is disobedience. Adam passes the test. Then God states"Let us make the man" use of the rloyal we means amjor evsnt has occured. Adma and Eve are autonomous human beings with moral values. Thats the rise of man not the fall

lol...ok...

 

[Michael Cole]

Then prove its a fact. You need evidence. I see you never studied research methods in graduate school. Go ahead prove there is no god with facts ad evidence

You can't even describe what this being is. I mean, I could be God, and you wouldn't know. God is omnipotent. Shapeshifting would be a snap. God is your coffee table. Prove he's not.

Your logic is unearthly.

 

[SoccerCoach]

You can't even describe what this being is. I mean, I could be God, and you wouldn't know. God is omnipotent. Shapeshifting would be a snap. God is your coffee table. Prove he's not.

Your logic is unearthly.

Surrender accepted

 

[Michael Cole]

Surrender accepted

Brilliant.

So sorry. Better luck to ya.

 

[Dans La Lune]

I have no problem with genuine faith... other than the fact that it literally trains your brain to be susceptible to con artistry. Hence why many con artists use faith as the vehicle to pull off their con. Corrupt political leaders have traditionally used faith as a way to rally support.

If you are guided by faith moreso than the underlying principles of your faith (which don't require fantastical thinking), I would say you're vulnerable.

 

[Gordy327]

Then prove its a fact. You need evidence. I see you never studied research methods in graduate school. Go ahead prove there is no god with facts ad evidence

For someone who is supposedly learned, you would know proving a negative is a logical fallacy or that the burden of proof is on the one making an affirmative claim. Atheism by definition is a lack of belief in god/s.
Where's the evidence/proof for a God? I have yet to see any presented in any peer reviewed scientific study.