Is faith a reliable means of ascertaining the truth?

[sun rise]

Yeah, I know. We've had this discussion before. Since you've never directly observed one species evolve into another, you claim their's no evidence to back it up. But of course that would mean that you also think there is no evidence to back up the claim that the Earth orbits the sun, since no one has ever directly observed it happening. I'm pretty sure this is the point where it became obvious that you don't really know how the scientific method works.

Translating: Since you've not lived for millions of years and directly observed evolution, I'm going to ignore how science works and the Mt. Everest of facts that have been assembled because to not ignore them means that I have to change my view of what is in the Bible without having to give up my Christian faith.

 

[Kenny]

" you need truth to have faith."

But if you have actual truth, what need is there for faith?

To reach your full potential. You can have mental assent to the truth but not have an ounce of faith to act on it.

 

[Kenny]

So what? So is the phone book.

.

That's why you can communicate through both.

 

[Grandliseur]

And since an all powerful creator God that has specific rules I'm supposed to follow is an even more incredible claim, I'm going to require genuine evidence that it's true before I'm going to be willing to put my faith into it. I assume that you are the same.

Indeed ! Extraordinary claims are extraordinarily hard to believe; thus, I am a believer in God.

Here the problem also pertains to people's agendas, their social circle's paradigms, even their job and what is expected of you there. I have evidence for things in the Bible; but, what I accept as evidence, others may not. Besides, personal experiences, though real, are impossible to prove, so they are kind of like a fart in the wind as far as evidence is concerned.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Oh, I know how it works. I just don't choose to put my faith in it since it has changed before and surely will change again. Scientists are often just wrong.

Those words in Genesis never change.

ROFL... apparently you DON'T know how it works, since the entire method is DESIGNED to change as new information becomes available. Of COURSE individual scientists are sometimes wrong, that's why if a scientist's findings can't be replicated science doesn't adopt those findings. No other method in human history has been as successful at determining the truth about how the universe works. That's how we've managed to produce electricity and computers and send rockets to the moon and Mars. It's all due to the success of the scientific method.

"Those words in Genesis never change."

Except when it comes to the different versions and translations, of course.

 

[QuestioningMind]

To reach your full potential. You can have mental assent to the truth but not have an ounce of faith to act on it.

Please provide an example of someone having mental agreement that something is true, while still needing faith in order to act on it.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Indeed ! Extraordinary claims are extraordinarily hard to believe; thus, I am a believer in God.

Here the problem also pertains to people's agendas, their social circle's paradigms, even their job and what is expected of you there. I have evidence for things in the Bible; but, what I accept as evidence, others may not. Besides, personal experiences, though real, are impossible to prove, so they are kind of like a fart in the wind as far as evidence is concerned.

"Indeed ! Extraordinary claims are extraordinarily hard to believe; thus, I am a believer in God. "

I'm not sure that makes sense. So my claim that invisible magical unicorns is the explanation for how rainbows are created is an extraordinary claim and extraordinarily hard to believe... thus you believe in invisible magical unicorns? As long as something is an extraordinary claim and extraordinarily hard to believe, that means you'll believe it. This is what you said. Is it really what you mean?

 

[Grandliseur]

my quote in yours: "Extraordinary claims are extraordinarily hard to believe; thus, I am a believer in God."

Well, not really surprised you didn't get that one.

When some claim that life began and originates from mineral rock soup heated up, that this caused the DNA programming to arise. A program that is needed by the cell to decode the DNA program of the cell, thus not being able to do its job unless being there in full from the word 'go', that is what I call "Extraordinary claims are extraordinarily hard to believe!"

When we have a Big Bang in which anti-matter and normal matter should have cancelled out, yet, didn't - and this somehow, despite there being nothing left according to that scenario, caused our universe to come to be in an orderly fashion with Galaxies, etc. - all without the intervention of a Creator, that also in my book becomes "Extraordinary claims."

So, while you may look at a materialistic universe,(?) I see one with a Creator behind. Thus, I believe in God. But, our two differing world views cannot find any common ground. In this, a discussion of who is right or wrong serves no purpose at all.

Your avatar is "Questioning Mind" - the question is -- which things do you question? If you doubt that god exists, you surely have even more reasons to doubt evolution and the creation concept claimed by materialist!
About the BB, I do not say it didn't happen; however, I believe whatever happened had God as cause and directional, evolutionary force (speaking about the development of the universe, not evolutionary concept.)

 

[QuestioningMind]

Well, not really surprised you didn't get that one.

When some claim that life began and originates from mineral rock soup heated up, that this caused the DNA programming to arise. A program that is needed by the cell to decode the DNA program of the cell, thus not being able to do its job unless being there in full from the word 'go', that is what I call "Extraordinary claims are extraordinarily hard to believe!"

When we have a Big Bang in which anti-matter and normal matter should have cancelled out, yet, didn't - and this somehow, despite there being nothing left according to that scenario, caused our universe to come to be in an orderly fashion with Galaxies, etc. - all without the intervention of a Creator, that also in my book becomes "Extraordinary claims."

So, while you may look at a materialistic universe,(?) I see one with a Creator behind. Thus, I believe in God. But, our two differing world views cannot find any common ground. In this, a discussion of who is right or wrong serves no purpose at all.

Your avatar is "Questioning Mind" - the question is -- which things do you question? If you doubt that god exists, you surely have even more reasons to doubt evolution and the creation concept claimed by materialist!
About the BB, I do not say it didn't happen; however, I believe whatever happened had God as cause and directional, evolutionary force (speaking about the development of the universe, not evolutionary concept.)

Yes, that life came into existence due to random chemical reactions IS improbable. The simple fact that 99.99% of the universe is inhospitable to life would mean it would have to be improbable. But given enough time and enough chemical laboratories, the improbable become possible. In fact, given enough time and enough chemical laboratories, the improbable actually becomes inevitable. Such probabilities can be calculated.

I always wonder when people say that looking at the scientific explanations for how life and the universe began that they conclude that 'It's simply too improbable!" What calculations have you done to determine how 'probable' it is that an all-powerful being so complex that it can create entire universes came to exist without a creator?

 

[Grandliseur]

But given enough time and enough chemical laboratories, the improbable become possible. In fact, given enough time and enough chemical laboratories, the improbable actually becomes inevitable. Such probabilities can be calculated.

Not much of a 'questioning mind' when it comes to this 'extraordinary claim' -- your demand for 'extraordinary evidence' seems to have evaporated. As I said, thus, I believe in God.

It is noting but volapük to me (in some other languages, that means nonsense; its usage seems to exclude English)
This is where I find a certain amount, actually a huge mountain of stuff, of irony. The total absence of skepticism when it comes to such outlandish claims. Well, as I mentioned, we stand diametrically opposed, and there never shall be any bridge standing between our paradigms.

 

[DavidFirth]

ROFL... apparently you DON'T know how it works, since the entire method is DESIGNED to change as new information becomes available. Of COURSE individual scientists are sometimes wrong, that's why if a scientist's findings can't be replicated science doesn't adopt those findings. No other method in human history has been as successful at determining the truth about how the universe works. That's how we've managed to produce electricity and computers and send rockets to the moon and Mars. It's all due to the success of the scientific method.

"Those words in Genesis never change."

Except when it comes to the different versions and translations, of course.

I'm not condemning the scientific method. I'm condemning drawing definite conclusions from the scientific method. Creationist theories are good science in my opinion and it helps to have God's word as a guide.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I'm not condemning the scientific method. I'm condemning drawing definite conclusions from the scientific method. Creationist theories are good science in my opinion and it helps to have God's word as a guide.

Okay, then I'd love to hear about an experiment that follows the scientific method and can be reproduced by others that tests the theory of creationism.

 

[Profound Realization]

It seems to me that people are capable of having faith in virtually anything. Since people can have faith in things that are clearly false, how can anyone claim that faith is required in order to comprehend truth?

Faith is a reliable means of reaching future truth. There are many things individuals and collective individuals are not aware of/blinded to and eventually become aware of/seen.

For instance, right now someone can be contemplating going to college or not going to college. They want to earn a degree to become a certified doctor in some undecided field. They decide to go in blindly, with faith, not knowing what the future may hold. They cannot see the future. They don't know what specific field they will get into, if they will succeed, if they will have the future financial means for their education, if they will find a place of employment. When events start to transpire, that faith will start transpiring things into seeing. If there were no initial faith, that someone may have decided they wouldn't go to college.

If someone says or thinks, "tomorrow I will do __________." It is expressing faith that not only tomorrow will come, but they will do that __________.

If someone tells another they are an "atheist." It is by faith that the other believes they are an "atheist."

Does someone have faith in their spouse or partner or friends or family or fellow human beings? I'd certainly say so in virtually endless amounts of ways. We are dependent and reliant on one another in so many ways.

If a scientist begins formulating a new theory, from a newly discovered observation(s), it is by faith that future observations and findings will be seen.

If someone is creating destruction in their life or others lives from immoral choices and wants to change, it is through faith that they can change and that there is another side. . a side of peace and moral choices, and that is harmless.

If you're telling anyone that faith isn't required
to comprehend truth, that person would have to have faith that you're correct, and also have faith that faith isn't required to comprehend truth.

 

[Jumi]

So because Zoroastrians believe there is one universal, transcendent, supreme god, Ahura Mazda, and regard Ahura Mazda's existence as fact, their faith in him is real. Which means that your one universal, transcendent, supreme god, Jehovah, cannot be a fact; there being no room for two sole gods in the universe, which means your faith is based on fantasy.

Hmm, interesting how you've so easily wiped Jehovah off the playing field. .

Some might counter this by believing the Zoroastrians' Wise Lord to be the same as the Father of the Christians

 

[DavidFirth]

Okay, then I'd love to hear about an experiment that follows the scientific method and can be reproduced by others that tests the theory of creationism.

Ha, let's see you recreate the Big Bang, abiogenesis and millions of years. Touche.

 

[Profound Realization]

Yes, that life came into existence due to random chemical reactions IS improbable. The simple fact that 99.99% of the universe is inhospitable to life would mean it would have to be improbable. But given enough time and enough chemical laboratories, the improbable become possible. In fact, given enough time and enough chemical laboratories, the improbable actually becomes inevitable. Such probabilities can be calculated.

I always wonder when people say that looking at the scientific explanations for how life and the universe began that they conclude that 'It's simply too improbable!" What calculations have you done to determine how 'probable' it is that an all-powerful being so complex that it can create entire universes came to exist without a creator?

The mechanism where non-life turns into life is not known, so there is no way of estimating the odds... contrary to mis-information that probabilities can be calculated regarding life.

All you can have is faith/belief that "given enough time, life COULD randomly arise in a CPU simulation rather than an actual event because anything is possible.

 

[Skwim]

Some might counter this by believing the Zoroastrians' Wise Lord to be the same as the Father of the Christians

Do some do this?

.

 

[Skwim]

Indeed ! Extraordinary claims are extraordinarily hard to believe; thus, I am a believer in God.

Should we then assume you believe in all extraordinary claims that are extraordinarily hard to believe?

.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Faith is a reliable means of reaching future truth. There are many things individuals and collective individuals are not aware of/blinded to and eventually become aware of/seen.

For instance, right now someone can be contemplating going to college or not going to college. They want to earn a degree to become a certified doctor in some undecided field. They decide to go in blindly, with faith, not knowing what the future may hold. They cannot see the future. They don't know what specific field they will get into, if they will succeed, if they will have the future financial means for their education, if they will find a place of employment. When events start to transpire, that faith will start transpiring things into seeing. If there were no initial faith, that someone may have decided they wouldn't go to college.

If someone says or thinks, "tomorrow I will do __________." It is expressing faith that not only tomorrow will come, but they will do that __________.

If someone tells another they are an "atheist." It is by faith that the other believes they are an "atheist."

Does someone have faith in their spouse or partner or friends or family or fellow human beings? I'd certainly say so in virtually endless amounts of ways. We are dependent and reliant on one another in so many ways.

If a scientist begins formulating a new theory, from a newly discovered observation(s), it is by faith that future observations and findings will be seen.

If someone is creating destruction in their life or others lives from immoral choices and wants to change, it is through faith that they can change and that there is another side. . a side of peace and moral choices, and that is harmless.

If you're telling anyone that faith isn't required
to comprehend truth, that person would have to have faith that you're correct, and also have faith that faith isn't required to comprehend truth.

What you're talking about is people having faith that they can accomplish some task. That doesn't really address the question at hand. Is faith a reliable means of ASCERTAINING truth? As in, the only way you can discover the truth of God is to have faith.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Eh... what

Ha, let's see you recreate the Big Bang, abiogenesis and millions of years. Touche.

Eh, what the heck does 'recreating the big bang' have to do with your claim that creationism is a valid science? IF it's a valid science THEN surely you can cite an experiment that follows the scientific method and can be reproduced by others that tests the theory of creationism.

Come on now, you SAID you understood what the scientific method is, so please demonstrate as much.