Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by FreeWill

  1. 8 hours ago, koti said:

    you are right that the word „faith” is used colloquially in various situations like „I have faith in science” or „I have faith in humanity” but this thread is strictly about faith in the religious sense

    For me, the opening post was about to settle what faith is and its relation to science.  

    On 4/29/2018 at 2:39 PM, DrmDoc said:

    what is faith and why do you have it? 

    My perusal of discussions here suggested to me that some of you do not seem to have a clear perspective of what distinguishes faith from science.  Most often arguments against science are used as justification for faith; however, those arguments do not appear to define a basis for your religious faith. 

    What have you observed, experienced, or accomplished that supports your faith?  Is that support tangible? 

    My argument was that both require some level of trust and believe. I tried to reason it with examples where to find trust and believe is in science and why to live to learn requires a level of faith.  

    Religion requires trust in misinterpreted evidence to gain belief, while science requires trust in the methodology and some level of belief in the future outcome.   

    Please note that no one will be religious Christian without hearing about it or reading the Bible, i.e without "evidence" there is no belief in the Christian religion. 

    There are many things we can firmly believe in without actual evidence and I think each of those beliefs will require some level of trust. 


  2. Hello Gees, 

    Thanks for the respond. 

    Please note that less is sometimes more.

    It is difficult to analyse and respond to a wall of words filled with inaccuracies and misconceptions. 

    I do not understand why objective sentience, what I think can be achieved by an advanced AI, would exclude self awareness rather then promote it...

    44 minutes ago, Phi for All said:
    1 hour ago, FreeWill said:

    How can we call then the learned and trusted knowledge based firm belief which has no evidence?

    Give us an example. 

    How would you call this kind of firm beliefs and why it is not faith? 

    I think the best if I leave this faith topic.

    It is personal and every one has its own individual understanding (wiki is not clear on it either). 

    Good luck with yours if you have any. 


  4. Why I can not have trusted knowledge-based firm beliefs?

    What is it by you Phi?

    1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

    firm belief in something for which there is no proof".

    Can you give an exact proof on the future of science?

    If you can not, can I believe that there is a future of science?  

  5. 12 minutes ago, Moontanman said:
    14 minutes ago, FreeWill said:

    The Theory of Everything will not be simple and shallow otherwise we would already found it and use it. 

    The absolute part a bit over driven. It would be a deep, firm, almost absolute trust anyway.

    I think you need to justify that, a baseless assertion is meaningless... 

    As far as I know, we do not know the theory of everything. 

    I know that we know relativity and  I know also that 99% of the population do not understand exactly relativity so I can call it difficult and not a simple theory. 

    As it looks like the theory of everything (since we yet did not find it) is more difficult than relativity so I think I can expect that it is complicated and not Simple. 

    If you mean the other part, I already have knowledge based deep firm trust which I think will just deepen as I learn through Life. 

  6. 8 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

    I doubt the deep and absolute part... 


    The Theory of Everything will not be simple and shallow otherwise we would already found it and use it. 

    The absolute part a bit over driven. It would be a deep, firm, almost absolute trust anyway.

  7. 22 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

    If you have firm and trusted evidence you do not need belief... 


    When all the knowledge gained faith can transform to deep absolute trust.

  8. 2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

    So you've robbed both faith and trust of their individual meanings, in order to be able to say you have faith in science. You steal from your own intellect.

    I think faith build on trust. 


    The future has the element of insecurity even the future is highly predictable.

    The level of insecurity (lack of knowledge) requires a certain level of belief in the choosen personal path One follows to understand Reality.

    The predictable future outcome can be trusted and believed without absolute evidence, since it is built on Nature we perceive now.

    I can not really have faith in classical religions. 

    Their explanation of Natural Reality is very lame.

    Knowledge and experience based belief gives faith (at least for me)

  9. 53 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    Faith is belief without evidence. Are you sure you have "faith" in our scientific methodology, or is it possibly "trust/confidence" based on actually seeing its success?

    I have trust and since our scientific understanding does not seem to be absolutely complete (1/0), I have faith too. I have faith in the future of science. True, It's a trust without any* evidence.

    *Future yet not appeared (I.e has no evidence) but 99.999...9% of energy and matter is present, on what the future will build on.

    Trust in the past is faith in the future!

    The future can not be 100% predictable and has no appeared evidence in the present. 

  10. 36 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

    Then faith doesn't figure into it, faith is not allowed in science... no not even faith in the scientific method, the method is tested regularly

    I do not know, did you ever experience faith, but for sure I believe (know, has faith in*) that our scientific methodology is as good as we are able to set it up.

    Faith is a very good motivator to set questions and search the reality One exist in.

    I know that the more interesting questions can not be answered without science (mathematics/philosophy, physics, biology....)


    *since I see it is working

    36 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

    faith by definition cannot be tested 

    By which definition?

    I can set a 0 - 100 scale where you would get 0 and I would get 1. The Christian's pind on the  cross because they did not give up their believe system gets 100.

    Sadly human faith is very well tested through history.

  11. 57 minutes ago, koti said:

    You don't divide by zero.

    This is the believe(faith?)

    58 minutes ago, koti said:

    I have no idea what your are talking about and what it has to do with faith.

    This is not an evidence.

  12. 19 minutes ago, koti said:

    Could you give an example so I can understand ?

    1/0 has an universally true Natural Reality aligned solution. (the believe)

    I know from Nature what can be described with the Natural Number 1. (the evidence)

  13. On 4/11/2010 at 9:41 PM, Moontanman said:

    To me supernatural means being able to operate outside of or in spite of the natural laws of the universe no matter what they may be. A supernatural being can do anything, no conservation of energy laws, no speed limits no problem changing the past or the future, all knowing and all seeing, no limits what so ever!.

    This is not supernatural, this is unnatural.

    A supernatural entity I think would operate in Reality with (almost) all of the functions applicable within Nature.

    On 3/2/2010 at 3:44 PM, Phi for All said:

    God still doesn't seem to desire direct observation, but with omnipotence removed He is less supernatural. What if He has been working with the Laws of Everything (all interactions unified with gravity and completely understood) for billions of years (with the current universe, at least)? Is a God like this any more believable? Any less worthy?

    As we do not desire direct observation from bacterias or atoms. 

    S/he would be still supernatural (properties and functions incomprehensible currently for humans). Supernatural {\displaystyle \neq \!\,} Unnatural.

    I think a physical entity, with extended physical capabilities and understanding, originating from Nature is far more believable.  Even more worthy since it would be real (part of Nature).

    Supernatural ≠ unnatural

  15. 8 hours ago, koti said:

    you can believe in various things without proof 

    This is Faith. (Which require some evidence, like parts of Nature)

    8 hours ago, koti said:

    if its a magic man in the sky

    This is Religion (with misinterpreted evidence)

  16. 6 minutes ago, koti said:

    Faith is belief in a religious system.

    How would you call if I believe in something I think is Real but yet I can not prove?

    The only system I believe in is the scientific one.

  17. 5 minutes ago, koti said:

    It's exactly the opposite - Faith is that the unknown has supernatural answers which have nothing to do with nature, it is science which offers nature aligned answers.

    That is religion. Faith is what religions try to build and maintain their theories on. 

  18. On 5/14/2019 at 3:46 PM, Moontanman said:

    If you are using faith or religion or both to meet that goal then you have failed before you ever started... 

    I can not agree with that.

    Faith is that the unknown has a Nature aligned answer, and because of that, can be answered.

  19. 1, yes, the commercial ones with the right safety measures. (gloves, goggles, etc.)

    2, there are DNA differences between them,

    The detection is a complex process: gram staining, fimbria agglutinating tests, usage of overspent hyperimmune serum,  culturing on blood agar just to name a few for e.coli. There is no staining which could make a direct difference between the 2 (both gram -, rod-shaped, and most of them has fimbriae)

    3, Some of the stainings, yes, but just in the right concentration, If you have washed it down you will not be able to use the washed down stain. 

    With the usage of electron microscopes, you can make a direct differentiation between them. 

  20. 8 hours ago, wtf said:

    Again as with Kim we find that emergence is regarded as an epiphenomenon. That is, something that shows up whenever quarks turn into elephants, but that would make no difference if it didn't show up. Quarks turn into elephants whether you call it emergence or not.

    Well, of course it shows up, when the DNA determining how quarks can turn into elephants, emerged through evolution.

    DNA emerged = haven't been always there. (which is for me a quite important recognition.)

    If we just look at the elephant we cannot know was it always there like this and what determines its present. That is why we appreciate Darwin´s and Watson's work. 

    As elephants could emerge by time so can AI sentience emerge by time. It wasn't there before and now with the process of technological evolution, it seems to emerge. 


  21. 1 hour ago, wtf said:

    And besides, I can barely think of anything that's NOT emergent. 

    So it is a universal phenomenon, meaning it is quite important in general.  Even you do not think it is relevant, looks like the others understand why it is used in this case. 

    If you think it is not important than PLEASE give a better clearer description of the phenomenon, pointing out why it is a better explanation than what the others provided, so we can have a meaningful discussion about the original topic and not circulating around your unsatisfaction about a word you think is not informing you sufficiently. 


  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.