(December 3, 2014 at 4:13 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: False equivalence:
Faith is the set of uncertainty and belief based on unsubstantiated claims (or claims that cannot even be addressed).
Evidentiary Belief is the set of uncertainty and belief based on corroborated, demonstrable evidence.
Since both contain uncertainty, they are both faith-based.
So yes, you are pulling a false equivalence.
Absolute certainty is a bullshit useless concept for dealing with anything in reality. We take the our best guess with the current evidence, and nobody here is claiming that our beliefs are constant or absolute or even true in an epistemological sense. On the contrary, the only constant thing about evidentiary belief is that is must change when new evidence comes to light. Honestly admitting that we don't know for sure is the only rational thing to do, but it certainly isn't "Faith" in any sense.
Ah, no.
I am saying that both stories of orgins have their own (Intangiable)evidences. It takes Faith to accept either.
If you do not believe the science of orgins does not use intangiable evidence then please provide me with something tangiable that supports the current theory and definativly proves the big bang.
So tell me again FF, without tangible evidence, a recreatable event, or something other than a theory based on a theory, how is it you stand in a position of fact not needing faith?
