If you could detect God, that would not be an example of something "unseen". Faith by definition is unseen.If there is no way to detect God, one cannot claim to have faith. That's not Biblical faith. See definition.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If you could detect God, that would not be an example of something "unseen". Faith by definition is unseen.If there is no way to detect God, one cannot claim to have faith. That's not Biblical faith. See definition.
"Empirical evidence" isn't the definer or decider of all intellectual value. It isn't even a prime consideration for most people. I doubt, even, that it's your own.Blind faith simply means there is no empirical evidence to support it. This happens all the time.
What is intellectual value? Is it what intellectuals value? Is it what's valuable to academia? If what you mean is knowledge, empiricism is the only path to correct ideas about the world - ideas that can be used successfully to effect desired outcomes and avoid undesirable ones more often than deciding (guessing) without those ideas."Empirical evidence" isn't the definer or decider of all intellectual value.
Can I assume by that that you have no meaningful response to what you read, but felt like you wanted to post something a little snarky anyway? I understand that you don't like the kinds of things I write to you, but that's a choice you make. There is no legitimate reason to have an emotional response to being disagreed with. Here's an example of how to do that:I didn't realize your name was Atheists.
Faith is insufficiently justified belief. It's that simple. The above tries to glorify it as if it were a virtue rather than the mere willingness to believe without justification. It is not the assurance of something hoped for. That's what a promise or guarantee are. And in the case of many religious assurances, they're all unfalsifiable claims and promises that can't be verified and needn't be kept. It's the unjustified belief in that promise that is called faith. And the last phrase - "the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen." - is a self-contradiction. To be evident is to be evident to the senses. To be undetectable is to be untestable..Faith is the assured expectation [Greek *hupostasis (support, substance, steadinessv; (a) confidence, assurance, (b) a giving substance (or reality) to, or a guaranteeing, (c) substance, reality)] of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities [Greek *elegchos (a proof, test; a proof, that by which a thing is proved or tested; evidence)] that are not seen.
Sure one can. "That are not seen" means that the non-seer is blind compared to one who can see. If you're driving blindfolded and make a turn absent any evidence, you're driving blind. If you take the blindfold off, suddenly one goes from blindly driving by faith to evidence-based decision making.One can't read this, and come away with that faith being blind.
Agreed. You've just described insufficiently justified belief (faith). And gods, and the supernatural. They all are believable only with faith, because the evidence to justify that belief doesn't exist.Cannot be detected on any level, sounds like the same thing as blindly believing.
Blind faith is effectively, wishing.Blind faith simply means there is no empirical evidence to support it. This happens all the time.
When crossing a busy a street, I look to sensory data my eyes and ears are sending me.It isn't even a prime consideration for most people. I doubt, even, that it's your own.
Living involves far more that just playing the odds according to whatever probabilities your senses and intellect can establish. Most people understand this. It's why we humans engage in art, and philosophy, and religion, and games.When crossing a busy a street, I look to sensory data my eyes and ears are sending me.
When I look at scientific theories, I examine the supporting data.
When I determine if a client is guilty or not, I look at the evidence files and listen to what they say.
In each case, I go by the best available information, information that is reliable, testable and objectively aquired.
If you do not. How are you still alive?
Can you prove that?Love is attachment, an emotional response, of hormonal origin.
That's my point.Love has no measurable physical parameters. Other than indirect inference as electrochemical signals in the brain. I do not understand your point.
Then, you must set that standard for yourself.Possibly, I am agnostic. I challenge everyone to examine their beliefs, critically and with as little emotive bias as possible, as objectively as possible.
You really do see it that way?Here is how I see it.
Substance of things hoped for:
What is hoped for has nothing to do with reality; hoped for is pretty much wishful thinking.
Unseen means blind? Where did you read that? Webster's; Collins...? Please reference the dictionary you are quoting.Evidence of things unseen:
Unseen means blind. This part means whatever evidence you have is completely blind
IOW faith is wishful thinking based on blind evidence.
So Gravity and Dark Matter are not unseen?If you could detect God, that would not be an example of something "unseen". Faith by definition is unseen.
Probably.Can you prove that?
Can it be measured and quantified?All those things I mentioned can be detected at some level.
Don't mind me. Regardless of what I say, you will say what you want, which usually is inaccurate, but "perfectly accurate, and the epitome of truth"... to you.Can I assume by that that you have no meaningful response to what you read, but felt like you wanted to post something a little snarky anyway? I understand that you don't like the kinds of things I write to you, but that's a choice you make. There is no legitimate reason to have an emotional response to being disagreed with. Here's an example of how to do that:
Yeah. I have "no meaningful response".Faith is insufficiently justified belief. It's that simple. The above tries to glorify it as if it were a virtue rather than the mere willingness to believe without justification. It is not the assurance of something hoped for. That's what a promise or guarantee are. And in the case of many religious assurances, they're all unfalsifiable claims and promises that can't be verified and needn't be kept. It's the unjustified belief in that promise that is called faith. And the last phrase - "the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen." - is a self-contradiction. To be evident is to be evident to the senses. To be undetectable is to be untestable.
What these religions do is make these claims and praise believing them without cause while calling other opinions foolishness - "the wisdom of the world" and warning you to not get too comfortable there or too familiar with their ways of knowing and believing.
Sure one can. "That are not seen" means that the non-seer is blind compared to one who can see. If you're driving blindfolded and make a turn absent any evidence, you're driving blind. If you take the blindfold off, suddenly one goes from blindly driving by faith to evidence-based decision making.
Agreed. You've just described insufficiently justified belief (faith). And gods, and the supernatural. They all are believable only with faith, because the evidence to justify that belief doesn't exist.
Well, what are you waiting for... 2030? Prove it then.Probably.
Can love be measured? You tell me. Can scientists measure and quantify love?Can it be measured and quantified?
If you disagree, try rebuttal. Simply declaring my words inaccurate is pointless absent any supporting evidence.you will say what you want which usually is inaccurate, but "perfectly accurate, and the epitome of truth"... to you.
That's all you can really do if you don't choose to engage in dialectic, or the trading of meaningful and responsive replies. You and I never have a conversation except like this one, where you make a comment, I rebut it, and you drop the ball with some snark and deflection.So, I tend to just let you do the talking. You seem to like listening to yourself. I don't know if you pat yourself on the back on every word.
Just look at your words here. This entire response from you is meaningless. It's all hand-waving, snark, passive-aggression, and deflection. It does nothing to further progress in discussion, but I expect nothing else.Yeah. I have "no meaningful response".
Why do you keep going on about an abstract human construct? Love is not a physical reality. It is an emotion, a product of hormones. That is the only quantification it can have. Scientists measure and quantify what is real, not what is abstract.Can love be measured? You tell me. Can scientists measure and quantify love?
A rebuttal is even more pointless, so I prefer to tell you as it is. Just as you do.If you disagree, try rebuttal. Simply declaring my words inaccurate is pointless absent any supporting evidence.
Lol. Yeah. You rebut everything, because everything It Aint Necessarily So says is the epitome of truth.That's all you can really do if you don't choose to engage in dialectic, or the trading of meaningful and responsive replies. You and I never have a conversation except like this one, where you make a comment, I rebut it, and you drop the ball with some snark and deflection.
See what I mean.I understand that my posting makes you feel uncomfortable - that you dislike it and resent whatever motivates it. Sorry about that, but you and I come from different worlds and traditions with different agendas, methods, and values, and we have different dispositions and emotional makeups. You get offended, and I don't. You resent arguments like mine and see them as mean-spirited and malicious, as attacks against your god and what you consider sacred.
Let's hear some more truth.That's how the faithful have been trained to understand atheists by their priests and pastors. We're immoral, rebellious, undisciplined, and hedonistic. Your Bible says so in several places, and you believe what it says.
But that's all you. That's not what's going on in my head at all. My words are carefully considered, sincerely believed, and constructively offered, but I understand that they can never be that for you.
Yes. My response is meaningless to you. What else would it be.Once again, sorry, but I can't change any of that. I can only decide how I will interact with it. As I said, my agenda, which is to engage in dialectic and resolve differences of opinion is not yours, and my values, disposition, and methods are not yours. I don't intend to accommodate your feelings on the matter, which would require censoring myself in areas that I believe need expressing, so I'll be me and you can be you, and we'll each manage our own emotions. You can deal with your resentment as you like. Passive-aggressive snark like your last two sentences seems to suit you.
Just look at your words here. This entire response from you is meaningless. It's all hand-waving, snark, passive-aggression, and deflection. It does nothing to further progress in discussion, but I expect nothing else.
Not if you were correct. Not if you could make a sound argument.A rebuttal is even more pointless
It's all about you, isn't it?See what I mean.
What a perfect example.
Let me read it back to you, so you can get a rush.
Now I'm confused.Why do you keep going on about an abstract human construct? Love is not a physical reality. It is an emotion, a product of hormones. That is the only quantification it can have. Scientists measure and quantify what is real, not what is abstract.
...but I am never correct. You are. You mean you don't even notice it.Not if you were correct. Not if you could make a sound argument.
That's nothing new, You don't even realize how often you have been doing that.It's all about you, isn't it?
See how easy that was? And pointless.
It's usually you telling others, and just hearing yourself. Ask @dybmh.
I don't care enough to argue over the abstract human concept of love, a product of evolution, like every other human emotion. Fear hate love etc..all naturalistic in origin. Nothing magical or spiritual about them. Nothing to discuss.I'll like to remind you though, you haven't provided the proof that "Love is attachment, an emotional response, of hormonal origin."
I already know you can't, so it's all good.
Then you would be quite wrong to tell me that, so don't. If it is not physical, in that it has no measurable parameters. Like length or mass or temperature. Then it by definition, does not exist. It has no measurable qualities. It is for all intents and purposes, outside the boundaries of verifiable observation, it is objectively, not real. Like Santa Claus or any other deity.Why did you not say you only wanted to focus on what is physical?
I could have let you know that what is real, is not only physical, and just because science cannot investigate it, does not mean it isn't real.