Faith in no God

[Polymath257]

Karolina said: ↑
Where do the natural laws come from?

Philosophically it is a meaningful question. And you don´t require the physical laws in order to make and explain a Big Bang, do you? This just happened via pure metaphysics or what? So of course the question is meaningful.

Um, yes, it was the physical laws (general relativity, to be specific) that predicted and now describe the Big Bang. Metaphysics has nothing to do with it (well, past justifying the scientific endeavor itself).

This equally also counts if you use the Big Bang assumption and the formational description.

Karolina said:
A world without God would be a world without natural law.

Sure. Just like this Universe never had a Big Bang in where the natural laws suddenly and metaphysically appears from nothing.

What does that even mean?

And why would a world without God have no natural laws?

 

[Polymath257]

It also makes absolutely no sense to claim that the Universe suddenly was FORMED in a Big Blow from a initial stage where "time" and the fundamental laws didn´t exist.

Well, part of the difficulty is that you are only looking at time slices and not the whole of spacetime. When you get to the place that the universe is the whole of spacetime, then it simply exists. Causality is something within the universe and the universe itself is uncaused.

 

[Native]

mikkel_the_dane said: ↑
So what are moral laws? Do they exist, if they can't be detected by science? It seems they exists, yet are not scientific?

No, strictly speaking they don't exist. They are conventions we set up to govern our behavior. So, at the most, they exists as ideas and aideas can be detected by science, either through their influence on behavior, or more directly via brain scans.

Human Conventions is human laws in order to govern a society - just like Scientific Conventions are made in order to comfort and govern the standing cosmological ideas.
In comparison, I take the Human Conventions for much more granted than many of the scientific speculations which makes false conventions and consensus.

 

[Native]

Um, yes, it was the physical laws (general relativity, to be specific) that predicted and now describe the Big Bang. Metaphysics has nothing to do with it (well, past justifying the scientific endeavor itself).

Do you know the expression of "hindsigt bias"?

Anyway, you´ve just used this term by stating that "physical laws" predicted a Big Bang where the physical laws and "time" weren´t made after the Big Bang started.

Very amusing indeed

 

[Polymath257]

Do you know the expression of "hindsigt bias"?

Anyway, you´ve just used this term by stating that "physical laws" predicted a Big Bang where the physical laws and "time" weren´t made after the Big Bang started.

Very amusing indeed

OK, I'm done.

 

[Native]

Well, part of the difficulty is that you are only looking at time slices and not the whole of spacetime. When you get to the place that the universe is the whole of spacetime, then it simply exists. Causality is something within the universe and the universe itself is uncaused.

This is speculative Big Bang gibberish and more hindsight bias in order to confirm a formational process of the Universe, which you yourself claim to be uncaused.

This is scientific nonsense!: "Causality inside the Universe and un-causality outside the Universe"? Dear oh dear.

 

[Nimos]

To learn to understand one's own culture and the combination of nature and nurture you have to learn to suspend judgment of all the big words. Reality, objective, truth, logic(proof), reason, evidence, knowledge and what not.
When you then do that, you realize that there is no single or combined sets of methodology for all humans to do this, which science can't do:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Science, Religion, Philosophy and what not can't solve subjectivity and cognitive diversity in humans.

What do you mean one have to suspend judgement of all big words like reality, objectivity, truth, logic, reason..etc.? What is left if you throw all that out of the window?

And how will that make you able to understand one's own culture in relationship to nature/nurture? Can you give an example, of something you have learned about these things, where you used none of the above concepts or methods, like evidence, reason and truth? I don't think I understand what you mean?

So now we are sharing that we trust our senses and reasoning.

I don't think we share this idea, because the reason we use the scientific method to begin with, is because we can't trust our senses and reasoning.

Take the example with the apple above.

"I think apples are good for me, because they taste good"

Even though in this case an apple is good for me, the reasoning I used to draw that conclusion is based on my sense of taste. So if im to trust or have faith in my sense of taste, I could rephrase this belief, to say: (Edit: Obviously my sense of taste is right, its my reasoning that is wrong.)

"Everything is good for me, if it taste good"

Therefore it would be reasonable to draw the conclusion:

"Eating lots of candy is good for me, because it taste good"

That is why we apply a method and also why we need to define what is meant with good to begin with. After that, we can test whether that hypothesis is correct or not, by performing experiments.

And if we do this by giving 10 people nothing but candy in 5 years and all of them develop diabetes, then its reasonable to assume that whether or not something taste good or not, have nothing to do with that also being good for us. (Obviously this is an extremely simplified example)

But the main idea is that our sense often give us wrong information or lead us to draw wrong conclusions. And also why witness testimony within science is considered some of the worse kinds of evidence you have.


Lets say:

"Eating 1 kg of washed apples are healthier than eating 1 kg of gummy bears?" This is my claim.

How would you go about determining, whether or not my claim is reasonable to believe in or not?

 

[rrobs]

Oh? I don't think so. I think there is exactly the same amount of evidence for gods when 'looking at the universe' as there is for gnomes and fairies.

Thus far, when searching for explanations for natural phenomenon, god/s have proven to be responsible for nothing, have been found at the root of nothing, and have offered 0 explanatory power for anything.

Until we can look at at least one thing that can only be explained by magic, gods are NOT and can not be offered up as 'reasonable' on any level.

I don't think science has yet to explain how something, i.e. the universe, came from nothing. If that is true, then there is still a chance that God actually did it.

No, that’s not what I said, rrobs.

We are talking about faith. But I am also talking about the real world, whether it be natural (hence nature) or man-made objects (eg chair I am sitting at my desk, and my computer on desk) these are all real, and therefore you don’t need faith.

With real experiences, faith are not needed.

So any chairs that I have sat on in the past or present, they are real, regardless if they hold my weight or not.

In the past, I have read the Bible, believe in god because of my faith, but I have never seen him, he has never given me answer to my prayers where I could hear him speak, and I could never touch god like I can touch a chair that I have sat on.

Belief in god, required faith, which is not real-world experience.

So I am sitting on the chair at my desk, so the chair is real as are my desk and my computer. I don’t require belief, and I certainly don’t require faith.

My chair existed because I am sitting on it. I have seen no evidence of god and I have never seen god, excepting reading about him in a book, so god is a myth, isn’t real.

If you are sitting on chair right now, but you are thinking it isn’t real and require faith to believe in a chair, then I am afraid to say that you are delusional.

Blind faith sounds like what you are talking about. I should have clarified how I look at faith. It's the same way most dictionaries look at it. For example, here is how dictionary.com defines it in the first definition: "confidence or trust in a person or thing:" So unless you don't have confidence the chair will hold you up, you have no faith that it will. If, on the other hand, you have confidence it will hold you up, you have faith that it will hold you up. Substitute "God" for "chair" and you will see how I look at it. I have found God to be more reliable than gravity. But I had to look first, something many never try. I know that because the scriptures say He will reveal himself to those who look. It's just that simple.

 

[rrobs]

Thanks for the .

But if anyone knows the answer, I'm still interested to hear.

Go well.

Thanks...you too.

 

[rrobs]

I'm not sure why everyone is disregarding your point. I think your argument has merit. In the absence of absolute truths the debate of faith becomes moot. A lack of belief in God may take just as much faith as belief in God if the defining standard is unanswerable, which it is if one acknowledges that existence is infinite.

But I am curious. As a Christian, does God not then become your absolute truth? Your defining standard?

I think it may be that many consider anything that comes from a Christian has no merit. I don't know, just a guess.

The scriptures, which I believe reveal God through Jesus Christ, is absolutely my defining standard. But there is one thing that needs to be understood. The Apostle Paul said that before he died everyone turned against him. Given that he was the one to whom God revealed the New Testament, one must ask themselves who got back to the truth that Paul revealed. I can tell you without doubt it was not the orthodox churches, Catholic or Protestant. They both have twisted the scriptures to the degree that they really don't make sense. It starts with Jesus supposedly being 100% God and 100% man. That is of course impossible. If it were true then all men would also be 100% God, which is not at all what the scriptures declare. I think it not hard to see that if the two main characters of any book are so grossly misrepresented, the rest will not make much sense.

To be clear, to me the scriptures are truth. Mainline church doctrine is far far from the truth.

Take care.

 

[rrobs]

The clear problem here is that there is not a God - There are many gods and goddesses. How silly to say there is a God without even a mention of a Goddess, that makes no sense at all. We would not have Angus without Dagda and Boann. And without Odin and Jord we would not have Thor. Clearly you need to reword your post to reflect the reality of our world of many gods and goddesses.

God is spirit (John 4:24). A spirit has neither a penis nor a vagina.

The Hebrews were considered quite unique in that they only had one God. Are they all nuts or something. I don't think so, but others think differently.

 

[gnostic]

I don't think science has yet to explain how something, i.e. the universe, came from nothing. If that is true, then there is still a chance that God actually did it.

Blind faith sounds like what you are talking about. I should have clarified how I look at faith. It's the same way most dictionaries look at it. For example, here is how dictionary.com defines it in the first definition: "confidence or trust in a person or thing:" So unless you don't have confidence the chair will hold you up, you have no faith that it will. If, on the other hand, you have confidence it will hold you up, you have faith that it will hold you up. Substitute "God" for "chair" and you will see how I look at it. I have found God to be more reliable than gravity. But I had to look first, something many never try. I know that because the scriptures say He will reveal himself to those who look. It's just that simple.

No, rrobs.

If you are going to use a term like “faith”, then you need to use the correct contexts in the appropriate environment and circumstances, FOR THE CORRECT USAGE OF THE TERM.

This is why your example is so bloody stupid (eg faith that chair will hold up), because it is so utterly irrelevant.

When you have experience of something, like this stupid chair example of yours, have been holding you up for a whole year, then why would you need faith. Faith has become useless and irrelevant once you have experience.

But we shouldn’t be focusing on inappropriate chair example about faith, but this is a religious forum, so you shouldn’t be selecting any definition of “faith” in the dictionary, but use the appropriate definition that applies to religion, hence faith as applied to religious environment (eg discussion or debate in religious forum).

So we should be focusing on faith as used in religion like Christianity, and how it to be used in acceptance of some beliefs....

1. belief in some divine and supernatural entities, eg faith in the existence of God;
2. belief in some teachings or the beliefs in prophecies or in miracles, eg the 6-day creation, the creation of Adam from dust, what are narrated in the gospels like Jesus’ abilities to heal people, the resurrection, Gabriel visiting Joseph, Mary and Muhammad, the angel Moroni visiting Joseph Smith;
3. beliefs in the books as divine authority, eg the Jews accepting the Torah and the Talmud, Christians accepting the gospels, epistles and Revelation, Muslims accepting the Qur’an or the Hadiths, Hindus accepting the Vedas, Upanishad or the epics, and so on.

All of these examples that I have given above, beliefs of followers, are taken on faith.

Faith is about accepting belief that you have not actually experienced.

So the correct definition on faith need to be used, not some stupid examples, like faith in a chair.

 

[rrobs]

No, rrobs.

If you are going to use a term like “faith”, then you need to use the correct contexts in the appropriate environment and circumstances, FOR THE CORRECT USAGE OF THE TERM.

This is why your example is so bloody stupid (eg faith that chair will hold up), because it is so utterly irrelevant.

When you have experience of something, like this stupid chair example of yours, have been holding you up for a whole year, then why would you need faith. Faith has become useless and irrelevant once you have experience.

But we shouldn’t be focusing on inappropriate chair example about faith, but this is a religious forum, so you shouldn’t be selecting any definition of “faith” in the dictionary, but use the appropriate definition that applies to religion, hence faith as applied to religious environment (eg discussion or debate in religious forum).

So we should be focusing on faith as used in religion like Christianity, and how it to be used in acceptance of some beliefs....

1. belief in some divine and supernatural entities, eg faith in the existence of God;
2. belief in some teachings or the beliefs in prophecies or in miracles, eg the 6-day creation, the creation of Adam from dust, what are narrated in the gospels like Jesus’ abilities to heal people, the resurrection, Gabriel visiting Joseph, Mary and Muhammad, the angel Moroni visiting Joseph Smith;
3. beliefs in the books as divine authority, eg the Jews accepting the Torah and the Talmud, Christians accepting the gospels, epistles and Revelation, Muslims accepting the Qur’an or the Hadiths, Hindus accepting the Vedas, Upanishad or the epics, and so on.

All of these examples that I have given above, beliefs of followers, are taken on faith.

Faith is about accepting belief that you have not actually experienced.

So the correct definition on faith need to be used, not some stupid examples, like faith in a chair.

How about this definition from dictionary.com: "confidence or trust in a person or thing: ".

Looks like your definition, "accepting belief that you have not actually experienced" is the stupid one. I don't mean to be rude, just answering in kind.

 

[cladking]

belief in some divine and supernatural entities, eg faith in the existence of God;

How about faith in some divine and supernatural entities, eg faith in the existence of natural law?

belief in some teachings or the beliefs in prophecies or in miracles, ...;

Yet you believe in "instant universe" and spontaneous life.

beliefs in the books as divine authority, eg the Jews accepting the Torah and the Talmud, Christians accepting the gospels, epistles and Revelation, Muslims accepting the Qur’an or the Hadiths, Hindus accepting the Vedas, Upanishad or the epics, and so on.

And you color in between what's known such as the "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" and what is wholly unknown and then extrapolate our omniscience. Even if every other religion is mostly wrong it doesn't make science right beyond experiment. The known spectra of reality is infinitesimal. We don't even know that the slivers of reality we can see is the only part of reality.

 

[cladking]

So the correct definition on faith need to be used, not some stupid examples, like faith in a chair.

Belief is always belief and can never become "fact" or "truth". You can sit in a chair a million times and with no warning collapse on the one million and first time.

We can't predict the future and don't agree on explanations of the present. Experts don't even agree on the nature or causes of past events. Court cases have "dueling experts".

 

[rrobs]

How about faith in some divine and supernatural entities, eg faith in the existence of natural law?



Yet you believe in "instant universe" and spontaneous life.



And you color in between what's known such as the "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" and what is wholly unknown and then extrapolate our omniscience. Even if every other religion is mostly wrong it doesn't make science right beyond experiment. The known spectra of reality is infinitesimal. We don't even know that the slivers of reality we can see are the only parts part of reality.

Exactly. We don't know what we don't know. Hard pill to swallow, but that's the nature of our existence.

 

[Bear Wild]

God is spirit (John 4:24). A spirit has neither a penis nor a vagina.

The Hebrews were considered quite unique in that they only had one God. Are they all nuts or something. I don't think so, but others think differently.

You still left out the other gods and goddesses as if there is only one choice - one god or no god. To not believe in a god that has no evidence of existence does not require any faith. Faith is required when you want to believe in something you have no evidence for.

 

[cladking]

Exactly. We don't know what we don't know. Hard pill to swallow, but that's the nature of our existence.

Believers in all things science hear what "must" be true so many times they come to believe it. Once you believe something you can no longer see anything else.

 

[gnostic]

How about faith in some divine and supernatural entities, eg faith in the existence of natural law?

Any creator god are supernatural, and if they SUPPOSEDLY CREATED NATURE, then it nature didn’t occur naturally, as in “nature processes” in accordance with “natural law”.

Either nature occurred through natural law or it occurred through supernatural, like magic and miracles.

The supernatural defies natural law, cladking.

What part of “supernatural” that you don’t understand, cladking?

If you don’t understand the concept of god = supernatural, then I am wasting my time. Why do I even bother to answer your reply, Mr Conspiracy Theorist?

 

[ratiocinator]

I don't think science has yet to explain how something, i.e. the universe, came from nothing. If that is true, then there is still a chance that God actually did it.

Quite apart from the universe "coming from nothing" being ill-thought through, you talk as if this "God" (presumably one of the many thousands of possibilities offered by humans) is more likely than any other fantastical story one might make up. Why?

There's also "a chance" it was Kevin, the equivalent of a spotty teenager in some hyper-universe, who had a new physics set for his birthday. Or maybe it was a collaboration between supernatural races of pixies and elves, who wanted somewhere to play, or...., or....