- Joined
- Apr 19, 2006
- Messages
- 14,870
- Reaction score
- 7,128
- Location
- Your Echochamber
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Faith can give you knowledge.
Who said all gods are mutually incompatible?
Doch.
Faith is not rational.
Faith can give you knowledge.
For example?
The contradictory claims and characteristics of them do.
Then why use it?
No it can't. A claim on something is not knowledge. I can state whatever I want and say I believe in it because of faith, but it gives me no new knowledge. In fact it gets me nowhere whatsoever.
A claim on something is not knowledge. I can state whatever I want and say I believe in it because of faith, but it gives me no new knowledge. In fact it gets me nowhere whatsoever.
I agree, but only if you don't have the documentation or the demonstration to prove it.
ricksfolly
Verrrry interesting... It reveals just how many closet religious and overt science believers there are on this forum.
ricksfolly
When you have faith, you believe it to be true and that gives you knowledge.
Granted, it is not verifiable. But there is truth in the imagination.
That is merely superficial personality. At their core they are divine. The true God is without form. All religions offer a primitive version of the true God, although Vedanta and Islam come closest.
Sorry.Doch is an interesting German word that negates a negative.
I agree, but only if you don't have the documentation or the demonstration to prove it.
ricksfolly
one cannot debate with blind faith and feelings
Thats NOT knowledge. Believing something to be true doesn't effect the truth of your belief whatsoever.
Oh thats right I forget you don't draw distinctions between true knowledge and mere imagination.
What "knowledge" exactly does imagination provide? Is there some way to confirm that your imagination represents reality rather than fiction?It is a form of knowledge.
Please explain how you draw a distinction between imagination and verified confirmed theories and facts?No, I draw a distinction between those two different types of knowledge.
What "knowledge" exactly does imagination provide? Is there some way to confirm that your imagination represents reality rather than fiction?
Please explain how you draw a distinction between imagination and verified confirmed theories and facts?
what knowledge does faith not provide?I believe I said faith provides knowledge, not imagination.
such as?Love also provides knowledge.
:lol: what use is knowledge that can't be confirmed? Is it for the placebo effect?There is no way to confirm it.
And is therefore indistinguishable from fiction.verified confirmed theories and facts are testable. Knowledge from faith is not.
what knowledge does faith not provide?
can't it be argued that faith provides knowledge for anything, cincluding bigfoot, fairyies, gods, and string theory?
such as?
You claimed before that love provides knowledge of mutual love. This is demonstrably false. We can show plenty examples of people who believe they are in love and the other person loves them back when in fact it is only one-sided.
:lol: what use is knowledge that can't be confirmed?
You can't even claim that the "knowledge" is true. All you can claim is that you "believe" its true.
And is therefore indistinguishable from fiction.
Yes.
True. I suppose love doesn't actually give one knowledge of another. Still.
You can reason with it. You can find comfort in it. You can evolve spiritually with it.
True.
There is a world of difference between faith and fiction.
I rest my case.
reefedjib said:And I rest mine.
You don't have a case to rest.
I'd be glad to explain my beliefs, and I'm sorry for the late reply. I have been in school all day.Care to explain WHY you believe what you do?
1) What reason or evidence makes you believe God created the universe?
Scientists base their belief that the universe is billions of years old on many factors such as starlight (billions of light-years away) and the Hubble constant (a rate for the expansion of the universe). I know there are several other things, but these two are major. My belief is that both means are false/flawed. I can't summarize everything here, but here are two links that disprove/show problems for the Hubble expansion constant. Hubble, hubble, big bang in trouble? The Hubble Law2) What makes you believe the universe isn't billions of years old? Have you read why geologists and scientists claim this?
3) how has science been "hijacked by the naturalist's philosophy"? What reason or evidence do you have for this or are you merely parroting your preacher's/Sunday_school_teacher's sermon?
By scientific definition all of what comprises the physical universe could not have spontaneously generated itself or was self created, especially for no reason.
The naturalists philosophy has hijacked science in that it has pretty much removed the concept of a higher power and has deemed it as unscientific or illogical.
No problem. I've been particularly busy lately so I haven't had the time to respond.I'm sorry for the late reply. I have been in school all day.
the universe is orderly and governed by scientific laws. Order does not arise from chaos.
Even if we are the ONLY life forms in the entire universe, I don't see how that supports the argument for a intelligent creator being, let alone the god of the bible. perhaps you can connect the dots where no theists has done so before?Not only this, but the odds for a life supporting planet are astronomical/impossible.
We don't know how everything came into existence or whether its always been there. Not knowing does not mean you get to make up any answer to fill in the gaps of knowledge, I.E., God of the gaps argument: God of the gaps - Iron Chariots WikiWe know through science that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. This states, it would require a power beyond science to speak into existence all that we know.
We don't know how the big bang was caused or what caused it or even if discussing causality "before" the Big bang is sensible. We simply don't know at this time. Theoretical Physicists have some great theories that work out mathematically but they are working on supporting them with evidence and experiments to CONFIRM and VERIFY them.By scientific definition all of what comprises the physical universe could not have spontaneously generated itself or was self created, especially for no reason.
I'm not very familiar with why scientists believe the earth and universe is as old as it is. its not really a major concern of mine except for the instances it comes up debating religion creation stories. In such cases I often refer to a site that heavily references scientific papers and is often focused on countering Creationist claims. This site is very well known and has been for quite sometime. Its talkorigins.org.Scientists base their belief that the universe is billions of years old on many factors such as starlight (billions of light-years away) and the Hubble constant (a rate for the expansion of the universe). I know there are several other things, but these two are major. My belief is that both means are false/flawed.
Once again, I'm not qualified to dispute these issues and I would guess that neither are you.I can't summarize everything here, but here are two links that disprove/show problems for the Hubble expansion constant. Hubble, hubble, big bang in trouble? The Hubble Law
Also, being able to see stars billions of light years away also poses a problem for the big bang. Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang
Do any of these theories have evidence and support? Have they been peer reviewed and accepted by scientists in their respective fields? have their claims been reproduced and tested by other independently?My view is also based on evidence from earth that the world itself is not billions of years old such as finding soft tissue in fossils, the earth's magnetic field, the record of human history that we have, geology, and many other things.
Science is theories that best explain the evidence. When new evidence contradicts or discredits previous theories then those theories must be revised or discarded.The naturalists philosophy has hijacked science
What evidence do we have that is scientific and logical to conclude that there is a higher power ?in that it has pretty much removed the concept of a higher power and has deemed it as unscientific or illogical.
Science has never supported such a claim. To my knowledge there is no theory that states "everything can be and will be explained by science". Do you know of such a theory?It is the belief that all we can know/all that exists is nature
Once again, you are wrong. Science has not claimed that supernaturalism cannot exist. There simply hasn't been any evidence or support for claims of the supernatural. If you have evidence or ANY means to verify and support supernaturalism then please contact the James Randi foundation and collect your $1,000,000 prize.and that there is a natural, non-supernatural explanation for everything.
The evidence points to the fact that life evolves through natural processes and that that natural processes continuously work throughout the universe without any divine intervention.Everything has come into being through a natural process devoid of the guidance or creation of a higher power.
This is backwards. You believe science is wrong because you think science presumes naturalism in order to support evolution and the big bang. In fact its the other way around. The evolution and the big bang are supported by evidence and have natural causes. Thus these theories that are independently confirmed and verified, collectively point toward naturalism. But that doesn't mean science must be naturalistic. it merely means that so far all the theories appear to support naturalism.My evidence is that modern day science is very corrupt towards naturalism and old universe ideals because they must be true in order for naturalists theories like evolution and the big bang to be plausible. Objective science has been put to death so that the naturalist philosophy may rule.
Scientists usually state things as fact when their is so much evidence for them it seems highly unlikely that they would be wrong. But scientists have been wrong in the past and probably will be in the future. SCIENCE IS ALWAYS TENTATIVE. A theory is only as strong as the evidence. When new evidence is presented that contradicts or discredits previous theories then they must be discarded or revised.Also, I think it's evident when scientists refuse to be open minded about other things and state things as "fact" when they haven't been proven.
Of course not. But evidence doesn't lie, or make mistakes, or become delusional. People do.Consensus doesn't equal being correct.
It is beyond the power of science or philosophy, at this time, to prove with absolute certainty ANYTHING. Science can only SUPPORT theories, it does not PROVE any of them. It is very important to remember this.Hypothetically, if science without a doubt proved that all existence was created by a higher power that the fact would be accepted?
If religionists could present evidence or some means of verifying or confirming their claims of a higher power then I would believe it.Or would it be "explained away" and rejected because it holds to the point that there is existence beyond our natural and that there are things beyond science and our physical world, things above the physical world that created it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?