(April 24, 2012 at 7:52 am)Ace Otana Wrote:That's because your own personal definition of faith is "umm - I dunno", where my definition of faith is informed choices.Quote:Through belief. Not through impossible evidence.Not acceptable Fr0d0. You might as well of said "have faith" or "take my word for it".
Why should I believe it if it cannot be demonstrated?
ie it is the only logical solution to the problems posed. Not a problem of any science, as these problems aren't addressed by science, because science cannot address them.
Now you claim that this subject should be covered by science. So there the ones is upon you again... please explain how. Because the rest of science is against you.
So aren't you the one making extraordinary claims here?
(April 24, 2012 at 7:52 am)Ace Otana Wrote: I shall apply Occam's razer now...the simplest explanation to this god idea of yours is that you are mistaken. God is an unknown entity that is devoid of explanatory power. Why should I take it seriously?Well I can see you put zero thought into that. What can be asserted without thought can be dismissed without thought
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a04db/a04db6ded21f9061a67790682148b1f19890b45c" alt="Big Grin Big Grin"
(April 24, 2012 at 7:52 am)Ace Otana Wrote:You're thinking in exclusively materialist terms again. I'm 100% not talking in materialist terms.Quote:Not unknown: unknowable by the scientific method, by the definition the scientific method sets out for itself.Then it is unknown. You're claiming that a being is outside the laws of nature. Which is a heck of a claim.
(April 24, 2012 at 7:52 am)Ace Otana Wrote:Physical evidence or non physical evidence? How do you prove non physical evidence Ace? If the answer is that you can't, then you just killed your own point. If the answer is you can, please put me out of my misery now.Quote:Please show me how I fail to comply to the scientific method.Using unknown entities, presupposition of the extremely improbable without evidence to support it.
(April 24, 2012 at 11:13 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I think we agree on the first point too, I just phrased it badly. By 'personal convictions' I meant more than what you personally believe, including claims about the origin of the universe; but I realize that your personal convictions logically include Christian beliefs, which you can accept on faith without claiming any evidential confirmation. I suppose I was making the trivial point that you have a belief system of which theism is a feature, but goes far beyond mere theism. Is this roughly your take as well?I think theism is the starting point, yes. Theists believe in a diety/ies. How you get to that is the meaty bit.
I make no claims about the origins of the universe. I accept current scientific theories, and I'm open to those theories changing. That has zero effect on my religious convictions, because I believe that is another subject.