(January 9, 2019 at 7:31 pm)tackattack Wrote: Faith doesn’t require falsification, but doesn’t preclude it either. faith and reason are not mutually exclusive as you imply

Faith is a way of attaining so called knowledge when reason alone can't get you there. So perhaps they work together but still doesn't change the fact you have to make a blind unreasoned leap by having faith that something is true.

(January 9, 2019 at 7:31 pm)tackattack Wrote: Faith doesn’t require falsification, but doesn’t preclude it either. faith and reason are not mutually exclusive as you imply

If you have reason, based on actual evidence, then there is no use for faith. Having faith is an admission that the belief is not reasoned.

(January 9, 2019 at 3:28 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 9, 2019 at 1:10 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Um no, scientific method is not mere faith, it is a tool. Faith does not require testing, falsifying, control groups or independent peer review. All faith requires is liking what someone sold you.

Curious, what studies have you done using the scientific method?

Do you know how to melt and cast metal into an engine, cast a car body, wire and put an engine in from scratch? No? But I am pretty sure you figured out cars don't run on pixie dust. And I also bet you know how to drive a car knowing driving it doesn't require a unicorn to drive it.

Scientific method is a tool, you don't have to know how to build a house to know what a hammer(tool) is.

Now please don't think your religion is the only religion with followers who pull your argument.

Scientific method does not point to the bible, nor Koran, nor Buddah, Nor Jewish OT, or Hindu Vedas. It is a neutral tool and does not require faith to understand what the tool is.

1. Collect data.
2. Plug into formula(model) with control groups.
3. Test and falsify, repeat with a good sample rate.
4. Formulate conclusions.
5. Hand those conclusions over to independent  peers to test to see if they come to the same conclusions.
6. If they come to the same conclusions, you may be on to something.
7. If they don't, restart, or scrap if it is junk.

^^^^^^^^ I did wright this in English. Can't be that hard to understand.

I also have never played pro football, but I understand the down system, player positions, and penalty and scoring rules.

(January 9, 2019 at 7:35 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(January 9, 2019 at 7:31 pm)tackattack Wrote: Faith doesn’t require falsification, but doesn’t preclude it either. faith and reason are not mutually exclusive as you imply

Faith is a way of attaining so called knowledge when reason alone can't get you there. So perhaps they work together but still doesn't change the fact you have to make a blind unreasoned leap by having faith that something is true.

(January 9, 2019 at 8:16 pm)unfogged Wrote:

(January 9, 2019 at 7:31 pm)tackattack Wrote: Faith doesn’t require falsification, but doesn’t preclude it either. faith and reason are not mutually exclusive as you imply

If you have reason, based on actual evidence, then there is no use for faith. Having faith is an admission that the belief is not reasoned.

As we are reasoning beings, Very little of what we actually chose to do is without reason. You may not like my reasons or have another standard, but I can have reason and faith. What I can't have is Faith and Evidence that is seen or complete understanding of, because, by that's how the Bible defines faith. I have evidence for lots of things in my life, I have reasons for almost everything, I have subjective observations and a partially complete understanding that rises above the level of plausible, indications for a God, IMO.

To simplify I'll just reword statements Having faith is an admission that the belief is not provable and Faith is a way of attaining knowledge when materialism alone can't get you there. This seems to be an atheist trigger word, so pardon if this is off topic.

(January 9, 2019 at 11:09 pm)tackattack Wrote:

(January 9, 2019 at 7:35 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Faith is a way of attaining so called knowledge when reason alone can't get you there. So perhaps they work together but still doesn't change the fact you have to make a blind unreasoned leap by having faith that something is true.

(January 9, 2019 at 8:16 pm)unfogged Wrote: If you have reason, based on actual evidence, then there is no use for faith.  Having faith is an admission that the belief is not reasoned.

As we are reasoning beings, Very little of what we actually chose to do is without reason. You may not like my reasons or have another standard, but I can have reason and faith. What I can't have is Faith and Evidence that is seen or complete understanding of, because, by that's how the Bible defines faith. I have evidence for lots of things in my life, I have reasons for almost everything, I have subjective observations and a partially complete understanding that rises above the level of plausible, indications for a God, IMO.

To simplify I'll just reword statements Having faith is an admission that the belief is not provable and Faith is a way of attaining knowledge when materialism alone can't get you there. This seems to be an atheist trigger word, so pardon if this is off topic.

How can one attain knowledge via faith? What is the pathway or method that begins at faith and ends at knowledge?  To me, the idea of faith leading to knowledge seems like a non-sequitur.

(January 9, 2019 at 3:28 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 9, 2019 at 1:10 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Um no, scientific method is not mere faith, it is a tool. Faith does not require testing, falsifying, control groups or independent peer review. All faith requires is liking what someone sold you.

Curious, what studies have you done using the scientific method?

How is that relevant?

(January 9, 2019 at 8:45 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 9, 2019 at 3:28 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Curious, what studies have you done using the scientific method?

Do you know how to melt and cast metal into an engine, cast a car body, wire and put an engine in from scratch? No? But I am pretty sure you figured out cars don't run on pixie dust. And I also bet you know how to drive a car knowing driving it doesn't require a unicorn to drive it.

Scientific method is a tool, you don't have to know how to build a house to know what a hammer(tool) is.

Now please don't think your religion is the only religion with followers who pull your argument.

Scientific method does not point to the bible, nor Koran, nor Buddah, Nor Jewish OT, or Hindu Vedas. It is a neutral tool and does not require faith to understand what the tool is.

1. Collect data.
2. Plug into formula(model) with control groups.
3. Test and falsify, repeat with a good sample rate.
4. Formulate conclusions.
5. Hand those conclusions over to independent  peers to test to see if they come to the same conclusions.
6. If they come to the same conclusions, you may be on to something.
7. If they don't, restart, or scrap if it is junk.

^^^^^^^^ I did wright this in English. Can't be that hard to understand.

I also have never played pro football, but I understand the down system, player positions, and penalty and scoring rules.

Not sure what this has to do with my question, but okay.

There's no dispute that the scientific method can be used to ascertain bits of knowledge about things.

Care to answer my question now?  If not, good enough,

(January 9, 2019 at 11:09 pm)tackattack Wrote: As we are reasoning beings, Very little of what we actually chose to do is without reason. You may not like my reasons or have another standard, but I can have reason and faith. What I can't have is Faith and Evidence that is seen or complete understanding of, because, by that's how the Bible defines faith. I have evidence for lots of things in my life, I have reasons for almost everything, I have subjective observations and a partially complete understanding that rises above the level of plausible, indications for a God, IMO.

You should share them sometime....be a break from the usual drivel of "magic book said so!" and "because I don't know shit about xy and z!"

Quote:To simplify I'll just reword statements Having faith is an admission that the belief is not provable and Faith is a way of attaining knowledge when materialism alone can't get you there. This seems to be an atheist trigger word, so pardon if this is off topic.

Mostly down to how atrociously the faithful use the term..as you did, in point of fact, above.  As far as I can tell..it's been made to mean something like "the good" whereas materialism "the enemy" in believing circles. So I read the statement..I understand where it comes from..but there's no coherent deconstrunction -of- it. Faith never leads us to knowledge, it leads us to expectation. Far too often, it leads us into conflating our expectations with knowledge. I have faith that my wife will be with me forever..I have no such knowledge, and no amount of such a faith will lead to it, materialism isn't even a factor.

Just a quick note, that you may enjoy......"jesus" body was gone. He didn't lift up into the heavens on a ghost chariot leaving his husk...and the (super duper christy) christians still await the day that the dead literally and bodily rise from their graves (as they did in jerusalem that day, even though no one else noticed, lol). The notion that materialism is some "other end" of a coin...and that you need faith to get you where materialism wont take you...well..that's not actually the thrust of magic book. People believed because they saw it materially happen, so the story goes..and the story stands as a *testament to others that it's contents are materially true.

Paul even laments that if these things were not so..then the whole religion is folly. He doesn't seem to have had much time for faith, as you've conceptualized it...when you really dig into it.

The reason that they seem so now (faith/materialism) has more to do with the scholastics writing in some good pre-christian pagan philosophy through the medeival than how people envisioned their world at the big bc/ad changeover. It';s helpful to point out that until very recently..nobody even thought of "souls" as being immaterial in the manner that we use the term. Circles of salt (and a whole host of other fun things) interacted with ghosts..in their minds eye. Yet another one of christianity's self inflicted wounds - losing the vitalism that a fully contextualized spirit brings into the world by positing a second and distinct spirit world..instead. My father in law..to his immense credit, is trying to get himself back to that sort of turn of the clock footing. I don't believe in his silly religion..but it's interesting to watch him make a conscious effort to deprogram and change the way he thinks..so that he can get back to something we might call a genuine faith. It also helped alot with my marriage, specifically in that he raised his daughter in this way - which makes alot of the usual faith/non-faith stresses nonexistent for us.

Tristan chigger words?

(January 9, 2019 at 11:09 pm)tackattack Wrote: As we are reasoning beings, Very little of what we actually chose to do is without reason. You may not like my reasons or have another standard, but I can have reason and faith.

You can have reason and faith, but not on the same beliefs.

Quote:What I can't have is Faith and Evidence that is seen or complete understanding of, because, by that's how the Bible defines faith.

Evidence that is not seen is not evidence and I see no reason to think that faith is a good thing no matter where it is defined.

Quote: I have evidence for lots of things in my life, I have reasons for almost everything,

It is odd how so many theists are able to use critical thinking and reason in almost every aspect of their lives and yet throw it out the window when it comes to the god question. That is the one area where ignoring all the inconsistencies and contradictions and actual evidence is treated as valid.

Quote:I have subjective observations and a partially complete understanding that rises above the level of plausible, indications for a God, IMO.

Every "plausible indication" I have ever been presented with boils down to an argument from either ignorance or personal incredulity. Subjective observations and partial understandings are useful to identify possible areas of investigation but they are insufficient to come to a reasoned belief which is why faith has to be used to bridge the gap. Yes, there is much that we do not fully understand and much more that we do not know. That is not a basis for reaching a conclusion.

(January 9, 2019 at 11:09 pm)tackattack Wrote: To simplify I'll just reword statements Having faith is an admission that the belief is not provable

It is more than that. It is an admission that it is not rational to hold the belief.

Quote:and Faith is a way of attaining knowledge when materialism alone can't get you there.

No, faith can't get you to knowledge, only to unsupported, unreasoned beliefs.

Quote: This seems to be an atheist trigger word, so pardon if this is off topic.

Faith is a core problem; believers hold it up as a virtue when it is the antithesis of rational thought.