Why is faith important?

[jstrodel]

[Darkstar]

[downbeatplumb]

Darkstar, plenty of people can demonstrate that. But can you demonstrate the truth of nuclear physics in a history library?

Nuclear physics is well documented with lots of peer reviewed articles about what it is, how it works, the history of how the discoveries came about.

You can read about the work that has gone into it. he theory behind it. The maths that support it and the effect it had on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You would even find out ways to study it directly if you had the right equipment and funds.[/quote]

Why not?

Well you kinda can because the supporting EVIDENCE is overwhelming.

So that means that nuclear physics must be false because it can't be demonstrated in a history lab. Of course this is fallacious.

You picked a very poor strawman and WTF is a history lab?
History is archaeology sometimes they use chemists sometimes they use biologists but a history lab?

The spiritual world is real, light and dark. I would highly recommend that you not involve yourself in the dark part of it, but it is real.

No it isn't.

Its stories that some people choose to believe because they want to believe.

[jstrodel]

[tokutter]

[Jackalope]

It is public knowledge, outside of atheist circles. Most people in history have accepted the reality of miracles,

Argumentum ad populum

and most people in history have experienced miracles directly.

Argumentum ad populum
Unsupported assertion (that people believe something occurred, is not evidence that something did in fact occur, or that it was a non-natural event).

[Darkstar]

I fail to see how having a knowledge of science invalidates their testimony.

Because when they are asked to prove that they really can use psychihc powers/summon spirits, etc. they either refuse or fail to do so.

By that standard human lack of understanding of the processes that existed before the big bang would invalidate our entire worldview and everything that we know today.

Lack of understanding? No. The problem is not that we don't know how people consort with demons (or whatever you mean to say), but that we can't find any evidence that they do at all in the first place. We cannot establish how it is done if it cannot be established that it is even done (by the person claiming they can do it, no less).

What you dismiss as superstition with no evidence

If it has no evidence, it is superstition.
...okay, here's the rest of that sentence:

other people have held to with the much stronger form of evidence of their testimony.

Actually, personal trstimony is one of the weakest forms of evidence there is. I could testify to literally anything right now, but I cannot prove my testimony is possibly true with science if it is impossible.

One asks for proof, they refuse. Another asks, and they try, but fail to give it. What is someone supposed to make of this? The stars were out of alignment, that's why my dowsing rod didn't work, right...
(By the way, do you believe dowsing rods work, and why do you believe the way you do?)

[Jackalope]

It is public knowledge, outside of atheist circles. Most people in history have accepted the reality of miracles,

Argumentum ad populum

and most people in history have experienced miracles directly.

Argumentum ad populum
Unsupported assertion (that people believe something occurred, is not evidence that something did in fact occur, or that it was a non-natural event).

By now, you've no doubt seen a few of these, where I break down the fallacies you've employed. Are you going to continue with the insistence that you've brought reason to the table?

[jstrodel]

Did I miss something here or are you saying that you take the testimonies of other people from other religions with a different god than yours.......as real?

Their testimonies are real. They are experiencing something, whether it is some sort of psychological trick or a real spiritual force. That does not validate their theology though.

---

Argumentum ad populum


Argumentum ad populum
Unsupported assertion (that people believe something occurred, is not evidence that something did in fact occur, or that it was a non-natural event).

By now, you've no doubt seen a few of these, where I break down the fallacies you've employed. Are you going to continue with the insistence that you've brought reason to the table?

Your claim is different than actually showing this. A testimony is a historical document. People would not reduce what the majority of ancient people believed and recorded to be an argument ad populum. You are just using certain categories, you are not actually making an argument. You did not even respond to what I wrote about that earlier.

---

There is no human activity in which science is the only means of validating truth claims.

---

I fail to see how having a knowledge of science invalidates their testimony.

Because when they are asked to prove that they really can use psychihc powers/summon spirits, etc. they either refuse or fail to do so.

By that standard human lack of understanding of the processes that existed before the big bang would invalidate our entire worldview and everything that we know today.

Lack of understanding? No. The problem is not that we don't know how people consort with demons (or whatever you mean to say), but that we can't find any evidence that they do at all in the first place. We cannot establish how it is done if it cannot be established that it is even done (by the person claiming they can do it, no less).

What you dismiss as superstition with no evidence

If it has no evidence, it is superstition.
...okay, here's the rest of that sentence:

other people have held to with the much stronger form of evidence of their testimony.

Actually, personal trstimony is one of the weakest forms of evidence there is. I could testify to literally anything right now, but I cannot prove my testimony is possibly true with science if it is impossible.

One asks for proof, they refuse. Another asks, and they try, but fail to give it. What is someone supposed to make of this? The stars were out of alignment, that's why my dowsing rod didn't work, right...
(By the way, do you believe dowsing rods work, and why do you believe the way you do?)

There is tons of evidence for the supernatural, but typically it is not in the form that science can study in the same way that physics is in a form that history cannot study.

Your basic assumption is that if something is not knowable using scientific methods, it is someone that you can safely ignore. Do you have any evidence for this?

[Jackalope]

Your claim is different than actually showing this. A testimony is a historical document. People would not reduce what the majority of ancient people believed and recorded to be an argument ad populum. You are just using certain categories, you are not actually making an argument. You did not even respond to what I wrote about that earlier.

Testimony CAN be a historical document, but that says nothing about it's truth value.

You argument essentially boils down to "A lot of people claim that they have experienced the supernatural". Absent anything to corroborate said claims, the claim is extremely weak.

In addition, that people claim something says nothing about it's truth value. Non-sequitur / unsupported assertion.

My argument boils down to "your argument is fallacious and your conclusions are a non-sequitur". Your argument deserves nothing more.

Incidentally, I didn't respond to your other post because I had not yet seen it.