the science of faith.

[gseeker]

That is exactly my point. Everything in existence has to function in a certain way due to the laws of science. For us to have laws in such a way that governs to perfect cohesion of existence, where do you thing that comes from? To believe such a perfect system of laws that control actions and reactions came from nothing that there was no plan and no Creator just seems foolish. One of our very laws state that you can't have something come from nothing but yet you think we have the perfection of existence and the system life functions, that that just happened?

 

[mycorrhiza]

That is exactly my point. Everything in existence has to function in a certain way due to the laws of science. For us to have laws in such a way that governs to perfect cohesion of existence, where do you thing that comes from? To believe such a perfect system of laws that control actions and reactions came from nothing that there was no plan and no Creator just seems foolish. One of our very laws state that you can't have something come from nothing but yet you think we have the perfection of existence and the system life functions, that that just happened?

Then who created this creator? If the laws of nature aren't allowed to be eternal, then why would the creator be?

No scientist claims that something will come from nothing. That is, however, something that Christianity claims, as God creates things out of nothing instead of forming the currently existing.

If it is foolish to say that the laws of nature need no creator, isn't it foolish to say that a creator much more complex than the Universe doesn't need a creator?

 

[gseeker]

Ha, I have an answer to that. God established the rules of the universe, the laws of checks and balances that govern existence including the law that something cannot come from nothing, therefore that law didn't exist before God came into being so he could be born of nothing. LOL that's just a lot of theological theory. What isn't theory is that we exist the earth exists and the universe exists, the laws exist, where did all that come from?

 

[Iti oj]

Ha, I have an answer to that. God established the rules of the universe, the laws of checks and balances that govern existence including the law that something cannot come from nothing, therefore that law didn't exist before God came into being so he could be born of nothing. LOL that's just a lot of theological theory. What isn't theory is that we exist the earth exists and the universe exists, the laws exist, where did all that come from?

Change god to universe and...wow

 

[mycorrhiza]

Ha, I have an answer to that. God established the rules of the universe, the laws of checks and balances that govern existence including the law that something cannot come from nothing, therefore that law didn't exist before God came into being so he could be born of nothing. LOL that's just a lot of theological theory. What isn't theory is that we exist the earth exists and the universe exists, the laws exist, where did all that come from?

God, if he exists, is much more complex than the Universe. Do you have any scientific evidence for God? If not, then there's quite a big difference between religion and science.

The answer is simply "We don't know". We don't know anything about the pre-Big Bang conditions of the natural world. This, however, is not evidence for God. I don't expect humanity to ever find out everything about our amazing Universe.

We could apply God of the gaps, but that fills no purpose to me. If I am to believe in God, I require evidence. Either scientific or due to spiritual experience.

 

[gseeker]

First you can't change interchange God and the universe. If you believe in the big bang theory that is chaos in chaos and doesn't create order, only intelligence can create order from disorder. Second, I do not need a "spiritual" experience to reason that there is a God, I am able to do that through the laws of science, it is a theory granted but so is much of what we choose to believe which brings me back to my original argument that belief in science that you haven't observed personally is on the same level as belief in gods existence. As for a spiritual experience, we both know that you will never accept that when you can simply explain a feeling as a brain chemical imbalance and a miraculous physical experience as simply a facet of science as yet unexplained. Really the only way you can accept God exists is through reasoning. Of course many people are unreasoning people who beloved God exists but I'm not sure why they believe what they believe.

 

[Iti oj]

So what was the singlality?and the bing bang created space time not nessacraly the universe

 

[mycorrhiza]

First you can't change interchange God and the universe. If you believe in the big bang theory that is chaos in chaos and doesn't create order, only intelligence can create order from disorder.

The Big Bang didn't result in chaos. Something that seems chaotic isn't necessarily so. There is nothing about the natural laws that requires a God.

Second, I do not need a "spiritual" experience to reason that there is a God, I am able to do that through the laws of science, it is a theory granted but so is much of what we choose to believe which brings me back to my original argument that belief in science that you haven't observed personally is on the same level as belief in gods existence.

The huge difference is that I can look up the scientific evidence. I could observe it myself, but there is no evidence for God.

As for a spiritual experience, we both know that you will never accept that when you can simply explain a feeling as a brain chemical imbalance and a miraculous physical experience as simply a facet of science as yet unexplained.

We do? I could very well be convinced through a spiritual experience. It seems to be one of the most common reasons people turn to religion. It was a spiritual experience that led me to pantheism, so I don't see why it couldn't work for theism.

If I am provided with evidence of God, I am willing to change my stance.

 

[painted wolf]

Many people say that they can't believe in a God based on faith alone but yet isn't 90% of life just accepted by faith? Atoms, protons, neutrons, the operation of the human body, evolution, molecular and medical studies, you believe it on on faith. You might see something operate or function in a way or see the end results of material interaction but it is accepted on faith. You simply beloved what other people have told you.

Um.. no, that's not how an actual quality education works. You learn about things not just through reading but through hands on study. For example, I know about the human body because I've seen dissections, experimented with action potentials and so on.

No faith is required.

Even studies and news media you believe on faith alone unless you witness the event or you were part of the study,

I check multiple news agencies and sources for any story beyond the most local stuff like "house catches fire". I don't have to take that on faith either.

so why is it so hard to believe in God based upon faith?

it isn't... it's far easier than any of the above...

wa:do

 

[gseeker]

Um.. no, that's not how an actual quality education works. You learn about things not just through reading but through hands on study. For example, I know about the human body because I've seen dissections, experimented with action potentials and so on.

No faith is required.

I check multiple news agencies and sources for any story beyond the most local stuff like "house catches fire". I don't have to take that on faith either.


it isn't... it's far easier than any of the above...

wa:do

Really? You have personally studied every facet of life and science to the point that you accept nothing just based on the word of mankind? I find that hard to believe that you have had the time to personally study everything you believe in, exactly how old are you because that would likely take multiple lifetimes.

 

[Sir Doom]

Belief and faith are not necessarily synonymous. You realize that, right?

 

[gseeker]

The Big Bang didn't result in chaos. Something that seems chaotic isn't necessarily so. There is nothing about the natural laws that requires a God.

The huge difference is that I can look up the scientific evidence. I could observe it myself, but there is no evidence for God.

We do? I could very well be convinced through a spiritual experience. It seems to be one of the most common reasons people turn to religion. It was a spiritual experience that led me to pantheism, so I don't see why it couldn't work for theism.

If I am provided with evidence of God, I am willing to change my stance.

I'm sorry, I thought you were someone who placed intellectual inference and reasoning high above a spiritual experience, as a Christian I have had several spiritual experiences but I do not accept that God exists just based on that.

 

[mycorrhiza]

I'm sorry, I thought you were someone who placed intellectual inference and reasoning high above a spiritual experience, as a Christian I have had several spiritual experiences but I do not accept that God exists just based on that.

On an objective and level, I value reason and evidence way over spiritual experiences, but on a subjective level, they're equal. I don't think I will ever have a spiritual experience that could convince me that theism is correct, but I wouldn't reject it if I actually had one.

As there is no scientific evidence at all of God, spiritual experience is the only honest way I could start believing in God.

 

[gseeker]

Belief and faith are not necessarily synonymous. You realize that, right?

Please expound upon that. It could be that I'm wrong in my definition of the two words. For me belief is faith when that belief is in things a person hasn't seen or experienced themselves. You can apply the word believe and belief in other ways but I'm using theterms is the scenario of faith in things.unseen or experienced personally.

 

[gseeker]

On an objective and level, I value reason and evidence way over spiritual experiences, but on a subjective level, they're equal. I don't think I will ever have a spiritual experience that could convince me that theism is correct, but I wouldn't reject it if I actually had one.

As there is no scientific evidence at all of God, spiritual experience is the only honest way I could start believing in God.

As I've said though, there is scientific evidence of God, the very essence of science and the laws of nature, the very fact it exists is evidence of an intelligent Creator. The only difference is our interpretation of the evidence available. I see a very well thought out creation with laws that govern and checks and balances, that is evidence of God, for others its evidence of the big bang and evolution, both are theories but in my opinion mine makes more sense to me due to the orderly way of existence.

 

[idav]

Belief and faith are not necessarily synonymous

Belief just doesn't require conviction.

 

[Sir Doom]

Please expound upon that. It could be that I'm wrong in my definition of the two words. For me belief is faith when that belief is in things a person hasn't seen or experienced themselves. You can apply the word believe and belief in other ways but I'm using theterms is the scenario of faith in things.unseen or experienced personally.

Faith is a subset of belief, as you say. Faith is always belief, but belief is not always faith. You seem to flip flop between the two when you talk about science. I'll try to demonstrate from my point of view what the difference is (since I love science and still think there is a god).

I don't have faith in atoms. The only reason I believe in atoms is because of the evidence. They don't effect my daily life in any way. The fact that my desk here is made of itty bitty little bits of bits that are itty bitty does nothing to change my desk. If I had never been given evidence of atoms I would not have cooked the idea up on my own out of desire, or hope, or want. I don't care about atoms at all. If some smart chap comes out with a theory tomorrow that gives a great explanation as to why atoms don't exist, I'm all for giving the idea a shot. Because if atoms aren't real, so what? By the way, "Scientists might be lying." is not a good theory by a smart chap.

Faith isn't like this at all. I do have faith that god exists. This has everything to do with me wanting it to be so, and absolutely nothing at all to do with evidence. Nobody found god and said, "Hey look at this!" and I said, "Oh, nifty. What's it do?" "Nothing." "Huh. Game on Saturday looks good." No, I decided there is a god and it has a profound impact on the direction of my life, my thoughts, etc. Because that's the way I want it to be. No other reason matters. That's faith.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[gseeker]

Faith is a subset of belief, as you say. Faith is always belief, but belief is not always faith. You seem to flip flop between the two when you talk about science. I'll try to demonstrate from my point of view what the difference is (since I love science and still think there is a god).

I don't have faith in atoms. The only reason I believe in atoms is because of the evidence. They don't effect my daily life in any way. The fact that my desk here is made of itty bitty little bits of bits that are itty bitty does nothing to change my desk. If I had never been given evidence of atoms I would not have cooked the idea up on my own out of desire, or hope, or want. I don't care about atoms at all. If some smart chap comes out with a theory tomorrow that gives a great explanation as to why atoms don't exist, I'm all for giving the idea a shot. Because if atoms aren't real, so what? By the way, "Scientists might be lying." is not a good theory by a smart chap.

Faith isn't like this at all. I do have faith that god exists. This has everything to do with me wanting it to be so, and absolutely nothing at all to do with evidence. Nobody found god and said, "Hey look at this!" and I said, "Oh, nifty. What's it do?" "Nothing." "Huh. Game on Saturday looks good." No, I decided there is a god and it has a profound impact on the direction of my life, my thoughts, etc. Because that's the way I want it to be. No other reason matters. That's faith.

Just my opinion of course.

Of course, however satins that you can't just believe what you are told of science and existence because scientists might be lying has credibility for several reasons, 1. History has proven that mankind is fallible regardless of how intelligent said person might be 2. To expect that you have all the information needed to draw a conclusion is false since new things are discovered daily, you can only draw a conclusion based upon evidence available which isn't always all the evidence you need to draw a truly educated conclusion 3. Scientists are human and therefore are likely to have selfish motivations, hence what conclusions they come to are questionable 4. Scientists have been caught in lies before though often by the time they are found out their studies have been in text books for twenty or more years leading many to accept lies as fact.

 

[gseeker]

Sorry for the garbled writing, I'm at work and am writing from my cellphone.

 

[Copernicus]

Well, I may be wrong about it being beneath YOU, but I'll thank you not to include me.

As you wish, but I still think it reasonable to make the point that arguments for belief or disbelief in Santa Claus are of the same type as arguments for belief or disbelief in God. The only difference is that the vast majority of us don't take the existence of Santa Claus seriously, whereas most people take existence of God seriously.

Let's be fair indeed. There is no such diversity in the Santa story. The diversity in God-concepts is genuine, not evasive.

It's not about what motivates beliefs. Most adults are not motivated to argue seriously for the existence of Santa. So they are not as inventive in defending belief in Santa Claus. After all, it is only a tradition that parents purvey what most people regard as a harmless spoof on children (although it is also a valuable lesson to those children about placing too much trust in what people tell them). The God-concept is taken seriously by the vast majority of adults, and that is really the only substantive difference. It means that people will expend much more effort to justify that belief.

But it's not the same. There's a world of difference between legitimate differences in understanding, and changing the story to play defense.

We disagree on this. I think that putative arguments pro and con on Santa Claus are of the same kind as real ones that attempt to justify belief in God.

So the Higgs Boson didn't exist until a week ago?

Honestly, the Higgs boson may or may not exist. The credibility of that belief went up a week ago, but that is the way beliefs work. They are more or less credible, depending on evidential support. Faith in God, IMO, requires one to short-circuit that natural process by removing it from the realm of evidential argument. Religious faith is belief based not on analysis of evidence, but intuition.

Falsity is evidence of absence. Falsity is also evidenced. Santa is a falsehood. God is unverified. BIG difference.

I respectfully disagree. Both Santa and God are unverified. They are no different in that respect. It is just that you assign no credibility at all to Santa, whereas you take God, however you define the concept, very seriously. Whether you are justified in doing so is debatable. That Santa's existence is false is not something that either of us disagrees on.