Jump to content

What is faith?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Science doesn't disprove a higher power...

And it doesn't disprove fairies at the bottom of my garden either, or my magical spaghetti monster, as I just inferred which you would have noticed if you were paying attention. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 881
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Do you understand that scientists also observe nature and explain it without invoking a God. And do you also understand that nature is entirely  consistent with there being no God? And do yo

My identity and ego forms around the "I" that identifies itself with the mind-body that "I" experience reality through. "I" am identifying with the mind-body that allows me to perceive and intera

! Moderator Note It's quite clear from the OP that the faith discussed in this thread is from believers in religion.   ! Moderator Note

11 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Although it should be worth mentioning that faith in a higher power should not be considered true or false to science. 

Science should be indifferent to beliefs that it cannot prove or disprove.

No belief is "true" in science. We look for the best supported explanations for natural phenomena, that's what a theory is. It's not truth, or Truth, or even proof.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, beecee said:

And it doesn't disprove fairies at the bottom of my garden either, or my magical spaghetti monster, as I just inferred which you would have noticed if you were paying attention. 

No it doesn't, and it shouldn't disprove those beliefs.

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

No belief is "true" in science. We look for the best supported explanations for natural phenomena, that's what a theory is. It's not truth, or Truth, or even proof.  

Exactly. It's not exact truth, and should not be used as a disproof to faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Not necessarily...

Science and faith can still be reconciled in a way.

Science can examine faith. Faith doesn't examine

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

No it doesn't, and it shouldn't disprove those beliefs.

As Phil has just said, science isn't about your truth or reality or proof.....science gives us the best explanation at any particular time. In relation to your statement, what you seem to be saying is that one has the right to believe anything his or her mind can dream up. Yes, that's the definition of faith and why it can be described as a delusion. 

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

You can't just say fallacy to anything that you don't agree with, you actually have to explain yourself and why you disagree.

There are dozens of posts by me and others explaining where you are failing in this thread and how your reasoning is fallacious, try actually comprehending something from those posts, read Phi’s comments for example. But wait...you’re too deluded to do so, you conflate basic axioms like the one that faith is baseless and not supported by anything other than FAITH itself. @Strange has been pounding this into you a few times in this thread and you still don’t get it. Guess what, posting incoherent bs for 5 pages which everyone in this thread is politely pointing out to be unreasonable and then demand explanations after they have already been given to you multiple times is shifting the burden of proof which is yet another logical fallacy. You don’t make any sense and you are moving in circles but hey, I’m not surprised as religious faith in baseless fairy tales tends to do that to a person. 

Edited by koti
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, koti said:

There are dozens of posts by me and others explaining where you are failing in this thread and how your reasoning is fallacious, try actually comprehending something from those posts, read Phi’s comments for example. But wait...you’re too deluded to do so, you conflate basic axioms like the one that faith is baseless and not supported by anything other than FAITH itself. @Strange has been pounding this into you a few times in this thread and you still don’t get it. Guess what, posting incoherent bs for 5 pages which everyone in this thread is politely pointing out to be unreasonable and then demand explanations after they have already been given to you multiple times is shifting the burden of proof which is yet another logical fallacy. You don’t make any sense and you are moving in circles but hey, I’m not surprised as religious faith in baseless fairy tales tends to do that to a person. 

What I've been doing is defending faith from certain claims, more than otherwise.

So what you said doesn't apply in this situation.

44 minutes ago, beecee said:

As Phil has just said, science isn't about your truth or reality or proof.....science gives us the best explanation at any particular time. In relation to your statement, what you seem to be saying is that one has the right to believe anything his or her mind can dream up. Yes, that's the definition of faith and why it can be described as a delusion. 

What I am saying is that science should not be used as an argument against faith.

Edited by Endercreeper01
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Exactly. It's not exact truth, and should not be used as a disproof to faith.

I said science doesn't look for truth, or to prove anything, but it's extremely good at disproving things that aren't true. Nobody is saying faith doesn't exist, or even that it needs disproving. It's what you believe using faith that can be shown false if you claim it's true. Does that make sense to you? You can have faith in your higher power and science shrugs, but when you claim His image is burned into your bathroom towel, we can't take that on faith, and we must examine the evidence.

Faith is a form of belief that persists without support from nature. It's a form of belief that is completely opposite from trust, which requires a lot of evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

What I am saying is that science should not be used as an argument against faith.

Now why would anyone in their right mind think that? Science gives an evidence based argument against any and all supernatural and paranormal nonsense, and when and if there are gaps in that knowledge, will admit that it does not know, rather then dreaming up some mythical entity or higher power to put some faith in, for solace, peace of mind and false hope.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Faith tries to answer questions in a certain way.

It does not need to answer the same types of questions as science in the same way.

You must certainly understand that faith is an answer literally without substance.  Faith is immaterial at its core and it wouldn't be faith otherwise.  It's a mental placebo humanity takes to salve an intangible hurt or satiates a curiosity uncomforted or inconvenienced by the truth. Faith doesn't answer the questions science does when those asking the questions want answers based on legitimate evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I said science doesn't look for truth, or to prove anything, but it's extremely good at disproving things that aren't true. Nobody is saying faith doesn't exist, or even that it needs disproving. It's what you believe using faith that can be shown false if you claim it's true. Does that make sense to you? You can have faith in your higher power and science shrugs, but when you claim His image is burned into your bathroom towel, we can't take that on faith, and we must examine the evidence.

Faith is a form of belief that persists without support from nature. It's a form of belief that is completely opposite from trust, which requires a lot of evidence.

Yes, I am not disagreeing with such.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Now why would anyone in their right mind think that? Science gives an evidence based argument against any and all supernatural and paranormal nonsense, and when and if there are gaps in that knowledge, will admit that it does not know, rather then dreaming up some mythical entity or higher power to put some faith in, for solace, peace of mind and false hope.

Science should not bother with something, such as faith, that it cannot prove or disprove.

26 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

You must certainly understand that faith is an answer literally without substance.  Faith is immaterial at its core and it wouldn't be faith otherwise.  It's a mental placebo humanity takes to salve an intangible hurt or satiates a curiosity uncomforted or inconvenienced by the truth. Faith doesn't answer the questions science does when those asking the questions want answers based on legitimate evidence.

I would not say that faith is a mental placebo in the way you describe it. That could certainly be true in certain people or situations, though it doesn't have to be for every person with faith or every situation with faith.

Faith provides answers based in human understanding to questions based in human understanding.

This involves questions such as "Why do I and everything around me exist?".

This is distinguished from scientific questions such as "How did everything that exists get to this point that it is at?

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Yep. Totally a bot

Or a misunderstood individual...

2 hours ago, koti said:

I wonder if it plays chess too.

I wonder if it wins in chess too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

This involves questions such as "Why do I and everything around me exist?".

I'm curious, how does your idea of faith specifically answers that question?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

r a misunderstood individual...

Critical thinking - Lesson #1: Ask me what I mean when I say the word “bot” to ensure your response is appropriate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Science should not bother with something, such as faith, that it cannot prove or disprove.

Once again, science is not out to prove anything. It creates models that match our observations and makes valid predictions.

Science is always looking for answers and models that can explain what we see. As I have mentioned to you many times now [and as per your modus operandi, you ignore] a few hundred years ago, we did not have explanations as to what powers the Sun, where the elements came from, how life appeared and evolved and many other aspects...Are you saying science should never have looked into or bothered with those regions? Any need for any higher power, in those regions mentioned are long gone. Or do you believe we should have remained ignorant?

1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

This involves questions such as "Why do I and everything around me exist?".

The BB, gravitational collapse, nucleosynthesis, abiogenesis and evolution. 

Quote

This is distinguished from  scientific questions such as "How did everything that exists get to this point that it is at?

 See above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

I'm curious, how does your idea of faith specifically answers that question?

My idea of faith is based in a belief.

The belief is in the idea that the self is what truly exists as dependent on an external reality for an existence.

In this way, the self needs to create an external reality by working through what would be called a higher power, in order to exist.

The belief is in the higher power that exists as something that the self works through to create reality, in order to create it's existence.

This is what is meant when it is said that "I" has a belief in a higher power as responsible for "my" existence or for existence in general.

This would answer such a question as "Why does everything around me exist?, based on my own belief.

48 minutes ago, beecee said:

Once again, science is not out to prove anything. It creates models that match our observations and makes valid predictions.

Science is always looking for answers and models that can explain what we see. As I have mentioned to you many times now [and as per your modus operandi, you ignore] a few hundred years ago, we did not have explanations as to what powers the Sun, where the elements came from, how life appeared and evolved and many other aspects...Are you saying science should never have looked into or bothered with those regions? Any need for any higher power, in those regions mentioned are long gone. Or do you believe we should have remained ignorant?

The BB, gravitational collapse, nucleosynthesis, abiogenesis and evolution. 

 See above.

That is still science explaining the "How?" as opposed to the "Why?" of reality.

Science was never meant to be used to answer philosophical questions about existence or to disprove faith by such answers.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Critical thinking - Lesson #1: Ask me what I mean when I say the word “bot” to ensure your response is appropriate. 

A computer program?....

Edited by Endercreeper01
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

That is still science explaining the "How?" as opposed to the "Why?" of reality.

 

And as opposed to belief/faith/hope delusions in a higher power to comfort you?

Quote

Science was never meant to be used to answer philosophical questions about existence or to disprove faith by such answers.

Sorry old friend, the onus is on you to show that faith in any higher power has any grounds in any sort of reality...other then that's what you have been brainwashed to accept and believe, after 15 pages, you still have nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, beecee said:

And as opposed to belief/faith/hope delusions in a higher power to comfort you?

Sorry old friend, the onus is on you to show that faith in any higher power has any grounds in any sort of reality...other then that's what you have been brainwashed to accept and believe, after 15 pages, you still have nothing.

The only way to show that faith has any grounds in any sort of reality is by communicating through a certain human understanding and perspective.

Some things can only be understood through a human understanding.

If we think in and communicate with a certain or general human understanding of things, it would be easier to see what I am trying to communicate through words. 

Edited by Endercreeper01
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

The only way to show that faith has any grounds in any sort of reality is by communicating through a certain human understanding and perspective.

Some things can only be understood through a human understanding.

If we think in and communicate with a certain or general human understanding of things, it would be easier to see what I am trying to communicate through words. 

If you want to communicate your idea effectively you're going to need a dictionary.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If you want to communicate your idea effectively you're going to need a dictionary.  

Yes, I understand that a dictionary always helps to explain, as sometimes certain concepts or ideas are not so simple to explain.

Edited by Endercreeper01
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

The only way to show that faith has any grounds in any sort of reality is by communicating through a certain human understanding and perspective.

Some things can only be understood through a human understanding.

If we think in and communicate with a certain or general human understanding of things, it would be easier to see what I am trying to communicate through words. 

On the contrary...what you are trying to communicate/preach to the rest of us, is simply the fact that going on the obtuseness, stubborness and repeatedness of your posts, that like most that accept faith and the mythical, and delusional belief in a "higher power" your position is incalcitrant as well as delusional. That is clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, beecee said:

On the contrary...what you are trying to communicate/preach to the rest of us, is simply the fact that going on the obtuseness, stubborness and repeatedness of your posts, that like most that accept faith and the mythical, and delusional belief in a "higher power" your position is incalcitrant as well as delusional. That is clear.

You don't understand that my behavior is the result of my defending of faith against claims made against it.

I am thinking on a different level than we are communicating on, and that makes it less simpler to communicate.

If we could find common agreements on certain ideas, it would be easier to communicate on this topic, going forward in from those accepted ideas.

Edited by Endercreeper01
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

You don't understand that my behavior is the result of my defending of faith against claims made against it.

You have it arse up.....It's you claiming [on a science forum of all places] that your faith/belief/delusion of a higher power has some basis in reality and reason.

 

Quote

I am thinking on a different level than we are communicating on, and that makes it less simpler to communicate.

Faith in any higher power is simply an unscientific, unevidenced, belief in magic and myth, solely because as yet science does not have all the answers...You know, the god of the gaps.

 

Quote

If we could find common agreements on certain ideas, it would be easier to communicate on this topic, going forward in from those accepted ideas.

Sure...[1] This is a science forum, where subjects/opinions/claims will be scrutinised via the scientific methodology: accept that with logic and aplomb, [2] No one begrudges any person for what he personally believes: That's called personal freedom but [3] don't push your personal baggage onto others: This isn't a pulpit for preaching. [4] Supernatural and/or paranormal beliefs are unscientific and superfluous in the world in this day and age: The universe. spacetime, planets, stars, life can all reasonably be explained at least up to t+10-43 seconds. [5] Beyond that point, we are ignorant: Never be afraid to accept that as long as the search for knowledge is continued and not stymied or short circuited by some mythical higher power. We are star stuff.

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, beecee said:

...The universe. spacetime, planets, stars, life can all reasonably be explained at least up to t+10-43 seconds...

Yeah but what about before that beecee? Ha! You don’t know do you... therefore higher power! 

There you have the delusion of faith in a nut shell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.