Is faith a reliable means of ascertaining the truth?

[QuestioningMind]

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.

So in other words you've done absolutely no calculations to determine how probable a creator God would be. That's only half an argument. If you're going to disregard the ToE because it's far too improbable, you can't just blithely accept a creator God, without ALSO trying to determine how probable such a being would be.

 

[Jumi]

Do some do this?.

I have seen it done, though I don't think you'd get very high numbers if you asked random Christians. With Zoroastrians maybe higher.

 

[DavidFirth]

Eh... what


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.

I just gave you your own medicine. I see you didn't take it very well.

 

[Ponder This]

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?

I think the problem is that not everything that is true is provably true.
For example, the fundamental axioms of Mathematics are not proven. They are assumed to be true.
For example, science does not claim to have established everything that is true, but merely offers itself as a means of verification. It does not claim that everything that is true will be established by scientific method.

Moreover, as individuals, we each have incomplete knowledge of the universe. Practically speaking, we act on faith all the time. Although faith does not establish the truth of things, we sometimes have to act as if things are true in the absence of indisputable proof. This is the unsolvable dilemma we each find ourselves in.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I just gave you your own medicine. I see you didn't take it very well.

"It's not everyday you wake up and learn something completely new about the early universe."
Kamionkowski and his team were there to announce that B-modes of gravitational waves have been detected in the cosmic microwave background radiation. Put simply, this is the best evidence yet that our universe was formed when very rapid expansion known as the Big Bang started a process that physicists call "inflation." As a result of this rapid inflation of physical space, everything in the universe was born."

The above is just the most RECENT finding found using the scientific method that supports the BB theory. Your turn to provide the latest legitimate scientific study that supports the theory of creationism. The fact that you didn't provide one in your last response makes me suspect that you don't have one.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I think the problem is that not everything that is true is provably true.
For example, the fundamental axioms of Mathematics are not proven. They are assumed to be true.
For example, science does not claim to have established everything that is true, but merely offers itself as a means of verification. It does not claim that everything that is true will be established by scientific method.

Moreover, as individuals, we each have incomplete knowledge of the universe. Practically speaking, we act on faith all the time. Although faith does not establish the truth of things, we sometimes have to act as if things are true in the absence of indisputable proof. This is the unsolvable dilemma we each find ourselves in.

"Although faith does not establish the truth of things,"

I think that answers my question.

 

[DavidFirth]

"It's not everyday you wake up and learn something completely new about the early universe."
Kamionkowski and his team were there to announce that B-modes of gravitational waves have been detected in the cosmic microwave background radiation. Put simply, this is the best evidence yet that our universe was formed when very rapid expansion known as the Big Bang started a process that physicists call "inflation." As a result of this rapid inflation of physical space, everything in the universe was born."

The above is just the most RECENT finding found using the scientific method that supports the BB theory. Your turn to provide the latest legitimate scientific study that supports the theory of creationism. The fact that you didn't provide one in your last response makes me suspect that you don't have one.

I'm convinced that if I bother to give you references you will either ignore them or claim they aren't science.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I'm convinced that if I bother to give you references you will either ignore them or claim they aren't science.

Well, if you don't share, then all I can do is assume that it's not real science. If it actually follows the scientific method then there's no way I can claim it isn't real science. How about showing me what you got and we'll see?

 

[DavidFirth]

Well, if you don't share, then all I can do is assume that it's not real science. If it actually follows the scientific method then there's no way I can claim it isn't real science. How about showing me what you got and we'll see?

You're not familiar with Creationism websites?

 

[Mister Silver]

You're not familiar with Creationism websites?

I'm familiar. They're filled with non-science and non-facts.

 

[Ponder This]

"Although faith does not establish the truth of things,"

I think that answers my question.

Good, then you understand how someone can claim that faith is required in order to comprehend truth?
It's not because faith establishes truth, but because not all truths are verifiable.

 

[Profound Realization]

So in other words you've done absolutely no calculations to determine how probable a creator God would be. That's only half an argument. If you're going to disregard the ToE because it's far too improbable, you can't just blithely accept a creator God, without ALSO trying to determine how probable such a being would be.

I think that it covered the entire argument. There is also no mathematical calculation for a creator(s)/God.

There are those who live by mathematical probabilities for everything and those that don't. What one accepts is their own freedom to do so. I wouldn't personally call either more right or more wrong.

It's not that I disregard a ToE, I think it's quite wonderous the attempt and study of the observable world. I think it's also quite wonderous, the non-observable world.

On a side note, physicists have attempted to do probabilities on things such as this, and the uniqueness of the Earth's formation alone, since it's the only known unique habitation for life. They came up with 1 in quintillion's I believe. Then there are the probabilities of all of the different things such as proteins, nucleic acids, enzymes, ribosomes, proteins, amino acids, the cell wall, the cell membrane, the mitochondria, RNA, ribosomes, lysosomes, cytoplasm, vacuoles, the perfect environment, all being at the same place at the same time and being hit by light/energy at that same place and same time, also the probability of a single cell surviving and not just croaking before doing anything else. And all of those each in and of themselves are so strangely complex.

Mathematicians who regularly work with these infinitesimally small numbers say anything beyond 1 x 1050 powers should be considered, for all intents and purposes, impossible.
A statistical impossibility is a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a rational, reasonable argument.

It's all so profound and wonderous.

 

[Profound Realization]

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.

If someone discovered "God," what do you suppose they would find or see? Would it be anything seen with the visible eye or seen as in awareness within? Would it be the discovery of an individual entity or certain characteristics?

 

[QuestioningMind]

You're not familiar with Creationism websites?

Yes, I am. But I've yet to find a creationist website that can provide a valid scientific experiment that tests the theory. YOU claim that creationism is a valid science and that YOU understand what the scientific method is, so I assumed that YOU know of such a valid test. Clearly I was being far too optimistic.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Good, then you understand how someone can claim that faith is required in order to comprehend truth?
It's not because faith establishes truth, but because not all truths are verifiable.

No, can't say that I can. If a truth is unverifiable how exactly does faith enable someone to 'comprehend' it as true? If it can't be verified as truth, then all faith could do would be to enable a person to pretend that they comprehend it as true, regardless of the fact that it can't be verified as true.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I think that it covered the entire argument. There is also no mathematical calculation for a creator(s)/God.

There are those who live by mathematical probabilities for everything and those that don't. What one accepts is their own freedom to do so. I wouldn't personally call either more right or more wrong.

It's not that I disregard a ToE, I think it's quite wonderous the attempt and study of the observable world. I think it's also quite wonderous, the non-observable world.

On a side note, physicists have attempted to do probabilities on things such as this, and the uniqueness of the Earth's formation alone, since it's the only known unique habitation for life. They came up with 1 in quintillion's I believe. Then there are the probabilities of all of the different things such as proteins, nucleic acids, enzymes, ribosomes, proteins, amino acids, the cell wall, the cell membrane, the mitochondria, RNA, ribosomes, lysosomes, cytoplasm, vacuoles, the perfect environment, all being at the same place at the same time and being hit by light/energy at that same place and same time, also the probability of a single cell surviving and not just croaking before doing anything else. And all of those each in and of themselves are so strangely complex.

Mathematicians who regularly work with these infinitesimally small numbers say anything beyond 1 x 1050 powers should be considered, for all intents and purposes, impossible.
A statistical impossibility is a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a rational, reasonable argument.

It's all so profound and wonderous.

Amazing... you reject the ToE because you claim it is far too improbable, but then refuse to consider the probability of your creator god theory. Your lack of logical consistency is sad.

 

[QuestioningMind]

If someone discovered "God," what do you suppose they would find or see? Would it be anything seen with the visible eye or seen as in awareness within? Would it be the discovery of an individual entity or certain characteristics?

I'm not proposing that there is any such thing as a god, so I have no reason to believe that there's anything to be aware of, be it visible or a feeling. What are you suggesting I would discover?

 

[DavidFirth]

Yes, I am. But I've yet to find a creationist website that can provide a valid scientific experiment that tests the theory. YOU claim that creationism is a valid science and that YOU understand what the scientific method is, so I assumed that YOU know of such a valid test. Clearly I was being far too optimistic.

Your tests are hardly valid. You can't recreate the Big Bang, abiogenesis or millions of years. Those tests are lackluster at best.

 

[Profound Realization]

Amazing... you reject the ToE because you claim it is far too improbable, but then refuse to consider the probability of your creator god theory. Your lack of logical consistency is sad.

It's quite amazing how you can come up with so many untrue assumptions as if you didn't even read.

1. Never even mentioned a Creator God theory, yet you applied it to me.
2. Never rejected a ToE, yet you applied it to me.

Very predictable your response though. When defeated, make up all sorts of other things your respondent never even mentioned so you can feel good about yourself because you can never be wrong or biased. It's very common and predictable for a mind to do such. When their own argument is questioned/defeated.... ignore their own argument and it's questioning and make up all sorts of things for a completely separate, irrelevant argument.

You can't even admit to how improbable your own arguments are without making things up.

 

[Profound Realization]

I'm not proposing that there is any such thing as a god, so I have no reason to believe that there's anything to be aware of, be it visible or a feeling. What are you suggesting I would discover?

What is "a" God? Define what your proposing there is no existence of, and also elaborate on how you know those qualities pertain to what you're proposing there is no existence of. Obviously by the wording you use, you may already have preconceived images in your mind that if there were "a" God, it would be an individual.

Is it "a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship?"

Is it "infinite mind"?

Is it "Being" rather than A "being."

Is it "Life?"

Is it "Mind?"

Is it "Nature?"

Is it "the universe?"

Is it "the sum totality of all?"

Is it a "supernatural deity that is all knowing, all powerful, etc.?"

Anyone can make up in their mind whatever they please as completely being far-fetched and deem it's non-existence.