well nothing is certain and no decision can be made with absolute certainty but having said that, that would make every single decision a 'faith' based decision, according to you. Im at the point where I concede there is absolutly no certainty to the fundementals of reality and the begginings of the universe. My arguement however was not to go that far, and always remained that science and disbelief before belief is a better option than religion. And that was because science offers us what religion cannot and that is once again, testability, repeatability and results. Although you say these results are based upon things which may not prove to be true once we discover the ultimate fundementals, they actually work and they work over and over again and we can test this as many times as we like. The idea that believing something with no justication for believing is equal to science which possess countless possiblities and ever growing discoveries and studies of our planet and what works and what is useful to us, I percieve to be asinine. The idea that common sense is on the same level as believing something without a reason is also asinine. Whilst people are free to believe what they want, I think they waste their time with these irrational beliefs and it affects their children. As previously posted, a girl was "brought up this way". You like talking about fundementals? Fundementally, religion is to blame, not the parents of the child.
I don't entirely agree with that. I don't see faith as a descision with no evidence at all, just one made without certainty. Just because a bet is reasonably safe doesn't mean you're not still gambling. Though that's mostly irrelevant in the context of my argument, as there can't really be any evidence for the fundamental beliefs that shape our perception of reality. Anything we find that we could call evidence, would be contingent on those beliefs, which means we'd be using circular reasoning. Once we take the first, huge leap of faith to form or fundamental beliefs, in science we don't have to take many more, at least not big ones, as we generally don't accept a conclusion until we're as close to certain as is possible. The same is true of religion however. It does have accuracy and consistency in its own context. The holy book doesn't change it's mind every so often, no matter how many times you read it, you get the same answer. For one whose belief is that everything in the book is true, reading the book is a test. Doesn't nescessarily have to make sense with our beliefs, as long as it does to those who have them.
I agree with what you're saying but I dont think we see eye to eye on what faith actually means. Im going to try and make it really simple so all the onlookers who are currently viewing our conversation can understand it. "I have faith in science, empirical data, logic, and reason, but to accept these things as the truth would be contradictory to my own beliefs." You dont have faith in science, you have Trust. If you bet money on me in a footrace and had never seen me race before or know anything of my abilities, you would be taking a chance and chose to put your faith in me. If I was renoun for being the fastest and win more often than anyone else, you would bet on me not with faith, but you would trust that I would win and your bet on me would be an informed decision based on results. As I've stated before, i dont deal with absolute certancies. Nothing is certain. But the smart move is one based on results rather than nothing. science deals with results that are not always accurate, but have reliability. Faith and religion do not have either and cannot be tested.
Sure way to go add something while I'm responding lol. That part of that particular point was based on the hypothetical understanding that it being a nescessity to our communication was our only evidence. We have alot better reason to believe in internet than just that, but that was the only premise I mentioned.
That is a common fallacy that confuses two very different things. A belief in No God is athiesm. No belief in God is agnosticism. Agnosticism is the most logical approach, as it willingly admits that the only logical conclusion in the total abscence of evidence, is to withold judgement indefinitely. To say I do not accept your argument because it fails to prove your conclusion is logical. To say your claim is not true because your argument fails to prove it is not. The latter is in itself a positive claim. The moment you say there is No God, you are now making the positive claim, as that immediately demands another beginning to the universe. The burden of proof is on an athiest as much as a thiest. The only person who can never bear the burden of proof is the one who never makes a claim. In a court of law for example, the failure of the prosecution to prove guilt does NOT under any circumstance prove innocence, the law simply demands that a person can't be judged guilty in that case. That's why the verdict rendered is "Not guilty" rather than "Innocent", though they seem to mean the same thing, there actually is a slight difference. To claim innocence is another positive claim, which would place the logical burden of proof on the defense (even if not the legal burden of proof remains on the prosecution). Is it not an extrordinary claim that a universe could spontaneously come into existence without the aid of an outside force? Is it not an extraordinary claim that a universe could be so perfectly ordered that all things were testable repeatable without some force maintaining that order? What claims are extraordinary depends entirely on what one considers ordinary to begin with, which again leads back only to our untestable, unprovable fundamental beliefs. One of which, ironically enough, is that the truth leaves evidence of itself in reality, or that we can percieve reality in the first place. Without faith in those beliefs, we can't possibly come to know anything. What I see diffferently here is where the faith comes in to play. Right now for example, you speak as though this tremendous question of whether or not there is a God is the last question we're asking, the final conclusion to top off our system of beliefs. Therfore you see faith as accepting this final conclusion in spite of reality. I see it as the beginning, the very first, the most basic understanding of existence. Therefore I see faith as the nescessary belief in the first conclusion, one beyond proof, which defines our reality, and makes drawing any other logical conclusion possible. Most people attempt to place this conclusion at the top of their system of beliefs, not even realizing that this belief is already the base, that's why you can always catch them in the act of circular reasoning, because the belief always ultimately relies on itself. I leave my fundamental understanding of existance at the base, where it belongs, and accept that all I know is contingent upon it, and therefore useless in attempting to prove it. So ultimately, I don't know. I have faith in science, empirical data, logic, and reason, but to accept these things as the truth would be contradictory to my own beliefs.
i just re read your post. I have to say that you cant compare the internet to the beginings and makings of the universe. Man invented the internet, we know it exists because we invented it. Just because I didnt invent it, it doesnt mean I cant prove it exists.
You sir, are good. I have one last stab for you. Q: You guys believe there is no God, but you can't prove that there isn't. So being an atheist obviously requires at least as much faith as being a Christian. A: This assumption is rooted in the elementary logical fallacy that two opposite things--belief and disbelief--are actually the same thing. A basic tenet of logic is that anyone making a positive claim bears the burden of proof for that claim. For example, in a court of law the lawyers for the prosecution bear the burden of proof, because they are making the positive claim that the defendant has committed a crime. To take a skeptical position regarding an extraordinary claim for which one has not been provided with compelling evidence is not an act of faith; it is simple common sense. Here is an analogous situation: supposedly, as a Christian, you do not believe in the Roman or Aztec gods. Is it just as much an "act of faith" on your part not to believe in those gods as it was for the Romans and Aztecs to believe in them? If a man walks up to you and says he has an invisible magic elf sitting on his head, do you automatically believe his claim? If not, is it an "act of faith" on your part not to? Or are you simply responding to the claim with common sense and skepticism because the man has failed to provide you with adequate evidence for his elf? Choosing not to believe in something when you have no reason to believe in that thing is not an act of faith, it is just the smart thing to do. Finally, one can turn to the Bible's definition of faith--the "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"--to see that this is a definition that excludes disbelief. So if you still don't agree with us that atheism is not a faith, then check your Bibles.
That evidence only exists in your own beliefs. You can only confirm that what you believe to be America is present in what you believe to be reality. You can only confirm you have internet in the context of your world that demands its existence for our communication right now. You cannot however, prove that that universe exists as you understand it. You can only prove that your own observations agree with themselves, and a source can't really confirm itself. You haven't proven that the internet exists, you've proven that If our communication right now requires internet, and we are now communicating, there would have to be an internet. If one of those premises is wrong, your conclusion is no longer guarenteed. Similarly those two premises are only proven by other premises, which are also proven by premises, and so on. The base of the belief is not certain, every belief we have that relies on them is only proven If that fundamental belief is correct. A test within the confines of this universe means nothing in the context of atempting to prove the existence of something above and beyond it. In their understanding, this universe as they see it demands the existence of a higher power. In essence, their very existence is their evidence. In our view, this proves nothing, because our view does not demand that a higher power set things into motion. But If it did, then our existence would prove God exists. It's every bit as logical, it just stands on a different fundamental belief than our beliefs do. I think This is what you were really asking for, but the only answer you'd get would be another premise ultimately relying on a fundamental belief you and I don't share with the religious. So no answer a religious person could offer you would ever carry any weight. Their evidence doesn't work in our beliefs, ours does't work in theirs. Both sides can only prove anything If their fundamental belief is correct. Neither of us know our fundamental belief is correct. Our very attempt at understanding existance is a leap of faith.
well hang on a second. Lets go back. I've never been to America, but I know america exists. And thats because ive met people from there and many people claim it exists based on the fact that its been on tv etc. I've never been to america, but I dont believe it exists on 'faith' , I have evidence. I can also decide to go there if I feel its important enough to verify its existence and PROVE it for myself. You cannot do that with religion which is why its entirely faith based. Another example would be that I have no proof that microwaves exist. I have no proof that ethernet cables and the internet exists other than the fact that, im talking to you now. Thats evidence that supports what I cant fully explain is true. With religion you have nothing like that. You cant test it and you cant explain it. Looking forward to hearing your response.
Only within their own domains. In the domain of science, obviously science has more scientific support than religion. In religion, religious beliefs lend more credibility to religion than science. That however makes both sides guilty of circular reasoning, which means neither side can 'prove' their beliefs. Not to the other side, not even to themselves.
so you believe that neither science nor religion has more evidence over the other of its worth in terms of beliefs?
That's the thing, we only know it based on the other things we know. That's where we get back into my whole infinite regression argument, which leads back to faith. We only know things in terms of the things we believe without knowing. Those beliefs are our world, but our version of the world is no more provable than anyone else's. As long as somebody's beliefs aren't completely self contraditory within their own beliefs, they can be every bit as logical as our science in spite of lack of empirical data. In our world of empirical data and the scientific method, there is no place for the divine when answering the big questions, but in another's world of divine creation, there is no place for empirical data when answering, because the answer lies in the realm of the divine where empirical data can't reach. Our webs of beliefs are parallel to theirs, once we enter their domain to argue, we give up antyhing from ours, and lose the ability to pose an argument, just as they do when they try to argue in our web of beliefs. If we don't agree on the fundamentals, we can never logically establish the same conclusions, and the fundamentals are accepted by both sides based only on faith. Logic can't touch them, so neither can be defeated and ruled out by it. Until the day we know the origin of the universe as an absolute, we can never answer the question with certainty. We accept science, because we believe it's the only way to reach that answer, they accept the divine for the same reason.
excellent, so you agree that science is reliable based on its ability to be able to test and repeat, but how is the same as religion? religion deals with only faith. as where science deals with what we already know based on mostly solid evidence
Most things are deep if you want to find any real, satisfying answer. Religious arguments are almost always caught trying to get away with circular reasoning, but if you think about it, science does too. To pose a scientific argument, you have to accept that science is reliable, and the scientific method right without absolute certainty of it. It makes sense to us, because it gets us the answers we like, but to the religious, so does religion. It may not make much sense to us, but our views make just as little sense to them.
I always got where you were coming from, It just seemed a little too deep for the conversation. For the sake of argument we should assume and apple is an apple and the wood is wood, if you get what I mean. But what I was reffering to as proof could have been 'evidence'. I never claimed having proof that god doesnt exist, just substantial evidence that there is no reason to believe in him. I still dont agree that science deals with faith since faith is based on no reason, and science is usually fundementally based on what we already have a good idea of and decisions based on things that we can test and have known to work., as with faith, you need nothing.
